Ms Cornelia-Adriana Baciu:

I will try to address the many interesting questions posed. On defending ourselves, territorial defence is mandated to NATO. One of the issues on the agenda for discussion is to what extent EU member states should start thinking more seriously about gaining an element of strategic autonomy and independence from US decision-making. Territorial defence, leadership and nuclear weapons are some of the points linked with this debate, but many states have been silent on this particular aspect. There is also the scenario of the US abandonment, which I addressed in my opening statement. The United States has withdrawn from several multilateral or bilateral agreements. The US foreign policy narrative might in the future be linked with developments in the Pacific Ocean and the South China Sea. In the case of US inability to provide security guarantees in Europe, the EU should have a plan B and give serious consideration to the territorial defence aspect.

From a rational choice perspective, into the future, the Common Security and Defence Policy, CSDP, for member states will be, probably, a trade-off between utility and strategic choice. It is important to emphasise that security is a prerequisite and will remain a prerequisite for the other benefits of EU membership, including economic and political benefits. It is a precondition of other benefits as well. The major challenges to CSDP in the future will probably be linked to member states' commitment and the robustness of CSDP institutions. I mentioned the new strategic instruments that are likely to generate new assets and perhaps increase the value of defence co-operation in Europe.

In regard to Irish neutrality, last year I wrote an article on security, multilateralism and Irish neutrality based on debates in the Irish Parliament from 1998 to 2018, which is available online. One of my key findings was that the concept of Irish neutrality is multifaceted. I found different concepts associated with it, including positive neutrality, negative neutrality, total neutrality and so on. Every time there is a debate in Brussels related to security implications, there are intensive debates in the Irish Parliament on the implications for Irish neutrality. There is informed decision-making on a case-by-case basis. Surprisingly, or maybe not so surprisingly, Irish neutrality was found to be strongly linked with UN peacekeeping and stabilisation missions. From this we could infer that there is a compatibility between the Irish foreign policy and EU foreign policy narrative. The EU global strategy has been focused on peace and stabilisation missions in fragile states. Recent statistics show an increase in the support of Irish people for the CSDP. One explanation for this might be that the Common Security and Defence Policy works at intergovernmental level and it is likely to remain so into the future. Security might be an area in which intergovernmental co-operation is more effective. Sovereignty is not transferred at supranational level. Any change in this regard will require a change in the EU treaty.

On the value added of PESCO, for Ireland the value added is that the capabilities developed under PESCO remain in the possession of member states. For Ireland this means that capabilities developed under PESCO can be utilised in UN peacekeeping missions and other missions. As far as I am aware, Ireland has been active in providing personnel and staff to EU and international civilian and military missions since it joined the European Union in 1973. As of December 2018, there were approximately 650 Irish personnel deployed to such missions.

On Brexit, much of my research recently has been focused on the implications of Brexit. I recently co-authored a book with my supervisor, Professor John Doyle from DCU, on this subject. Brexit will transform relationships between the UK and the EU from multilateral to bilateral. This will have implications for the European Union evolutionary stable equilibrium. The EU will need to find a way to address this equilibrium to remain stable over time and to be able to cope with so-called atypical sequences or shocks, of which Brexit could be one. The literature argues that continual change is the prerequisite to remain relevant and competitive. The implication or consequence of this would be geopolitical adaptation of the EU. This will have further implications for future transatlantic relations, the EU global strategy and international security as a collective good.

It was mentioned earlier that peace is work. Modern peace is based on anticipation, resilience and integration of aspects of daily life. One could imagine modern peace at the intersection of three epistemological debates, international - liberal values; national - nationalist sometimes as a destructive force; and, everyday life level - daily interactions and power relations between people. We have to see all three sides as knowledge production sides. Knowledge is very important for concepts such as peace, order, justice, security and so on. This is, perhaps, a matter we should further address in our research.