Mr. Robert Nesirky:

I will review the five scenarios in the context of the impact on and desirability for young people. The first scenario suggests carrying on. As young people, we feel this suggestion is not really a tenable choice. The concept of a static Europe is not an option for the future. Since the inception of the European project, we have seen its form, spheres of influence and reach exist in a continuous state of change. Change is one of the few constants in Europe and as young people we ask that we have the opportunity to be engaged in shaping this change. A simple way to do this would be to extend the voting rights to 16 and 17 year olds and, therefore, the ability to vote in the 2019 European Parliament elections. In Ireland alone, this would facilitate 127,000 young people aged 16 and 17 to have a say in deciding who represents them in the European Parliament. It would give young people a sense of engagement and ownership in the future of Europe by bringing Europe down from Brussels and into their hands. While a referendum is required to allow young people aged 16 and 17 to vote in Dáil and presidential elections, this is not the case for local and European elections. The Oireachtas could extend voting rights to young people aged 16 and 17 by means of legislation. Giving young people the opportunity to democratically engage would counteract the feeling of disconnect from Europe.

The second scenario is to strip back on integration, bypassing more controversial areas of policy, and reduce the European Union to nothing but the Single Market. Obviously, the Single Market brings many benefits to the economy, trade, tourism, etc. Its four freedoms are vital for a country like Ireland with a small, open economy. However, stripping the EU back to an economic and trading block is not the answer to the current challenges facing Europe. Such a scenario would suggest that the EU will reduce its role on social issues, which, from our perspective, would be a negative development. Young people want the EU to be more active on social issues, not less active.

The third scenario is referred to as "Those who want to do more", creating what the report has dubbed a "coalition of the willing" - a cluster of 15 countries willing to embrace more integration in criminal jurisdiction, defence, and social and economic policy.

While we, as young people, welcome further integration because it will likely lead to further progression and harmonisation in social policy, our initial feedback on this suggestion is a retaliation against a two-speed, two-tier Europe in the context of the impact it may have on young people. In a Europe where member states differ when it comes to social policy, further division within the Union could amplify the sense of alienation towards Europe for the young people not within this internal union. However, we recognise the need to be conscious of the current trends within the European Union and to view this scenario within this context. We are currently seeing what could be described as an informal coalition of the unwilling, states which would rather face sanctions from the European Union rather than take in a quota of migrants. This begs the question of whether a two-speed Europe is inevitable and, if so, how do Ireland and Europe play a role in the continuation of engagement with young people on this second level? For these reasons, as young people, we hope this scenario does not come to fruition.

A consultation on Brexit organised by the Department of Children and Youth Affairs demonstrated that young people wish to remain in the EU and be part of its future and beyond that to embrace it. They do not want to see a divided Europe.

The next scenario is called "Doing less more efficiently", a scenario in which the EU focuses on key issues, such as those suggested in the White Paper: trade, counter-terrorism, security and migration. While efficiency is welcomed, we have concern over the selection of policy areas the EU proposes it would focus on and the lack of clarity on how these focal policy areas would be chosen. If we are doing much less, who chooses what the focus areas are? A Europe which focuses purely on trade, counter-terrorism, security, migration, the management of borders and defence could be perceived by young people as a step away from the idea of the European project we are working towards: a Europe where security is found through interdependence, rather than a Europe assisting in regulating borders to foster a sense of security. This scenario, based on our view that social policy needs to be valued as an integral part of the Union, offers a regressive path for young people and Europe as a whole. Europe needs to be a civic, social and cultural presence in the lives of young people as well as an economic one.

The final scenario is called "Doing much more together". Throughout this presentation Ms Mulhall and I have hopefully communicated young people's desire for a Europe which tackles social issues as well as economic ones. This final scenario is an opportunity for that. Doing much more together is an opportunity to see a Europe which acts as a cohesive unit. We believe a European approach to social policy will be beneficial to young people.

A Europe working together is a Europe which can be a decisive actor on the international stage. For example, Europe could weigh in heavily on the Sustainable Development Goals, a strategy to ensure a sustainable world and one with which young people are engaging worldwide. Europe has the responsibility to create the engagement mechanisms for civil society. We need to bring the sustainable development goals to the heart of policy-making at European and member state level. Working together on this strategy is the only opportunity for success.

The issue of climate, like that of human rights, has proved the need for engagement on a transnational level. Young people have a clear stake in the future of our climate. Europe could realise a response to the migration crisis by not only engaging with the migrants who need assistance, but also by tackling the causes at an international level. Europe could use its collective power to look outward and have a positive global influence. It is important not to be inward-looking but, instead, to be willing to help tackle issues such as poverty, inequality and social injustice on a global level. We are more powerful together.

Whenever a heavily integrated Europe is mentioned on a political stage, as young people, we feel it is essential to bring up the point that while we should value the benefits of integration, we should also be cautious to move at a speed that does not alienate those who feel disconnected from the direction in which Europe is moving. While an integrated Europe holds benefits for young people, forcing this integration upon those who feel disconnected may be detrimental. This ties into the need to break Europe out of the "Brussels bubble", making Europe accessible and present in young people's lives.

I will hand back to Ms Mulhall, who will give some concrete examples of policy failures and successes in Europe and outline our conclusion.