Dr. Catherine Day:

I echo the compliments. It is very good we are having this discussion and the committee will play a very important role, however the debate begins to shape up. I agree with Deputy Howlin that there is a need for focus and Professor Barrett mentioned the need for a mandate. Again, to refer to the Citizens' Assembly, we are working on the basis of a resolution from the Oireachtas. The Dáil and the Seanad already indicated the topics we should focus on. I agree with Professor Barrett that part of the success of previous citizens' assemblies was that they focused on very controversial but single issues and they were able to give a clear "Yes" or "No" answer back to the Oireachtas.

I do not want to comment on the one on gender equality because it is ongoing but I am already seeing that the citizens are hungry for the information and surprised at what they do not know or how the facts differ from what they thought. That element of providing neutral factual information before the debate, then allowing people to debate it and sometimes to change their opinions, is a valuable process. We can do it in a small country and are building a kind of tradition of doing it. It is not necessarily exportable to everywhere else but it is a model that has demonstrated its benefits.

I would not discount the determination of the future French Presidency to close this debate but perhaps it is no bad thing if it takes us a few years to have this discussion, for many reasons. One of those reasons is that we all know that the world is going to be a very different place in the future. Another is that I do not think that the EU has begun to take the measure of the departure of the UK. More countries would have been willing to go further in many areas but were stopped in their tracks because of strong and determined arguments against different issues. One area where I see future development, which I think would echo with the Irish population, is in the whole area of social policy. That was an absolute taboo for the UK as long as it was a member of the EU. Perhaps the fact that it is going to take longer will give a better result in the end.

I agree with Deputy Howlin who I think was saying that there is no inevitability of getting people on board for further integration. That is a mistake that has always been made in previous treaty changes. The insiders, frustrated at what they could not do, felt that it would be obvious to the population that integration had to go further. I do not think we can take that for granted. I think in large parts of the European Union people feel, "Thus far and no further". A reason for having a debate with citizens is that one has to bring them the arguments as to why we should go further and see if one can get them to support it. If one cannot, one must accept that now may not be the time.

We have all been looking at the United States in recent days and, in many ways, it is far less integrated than the European Union, but it functions as a single country. We are 27 countries that have chosen to pool together certain things but we have still kept things in reserve that we have not chosen to pool together. It cannot be taken for granted that the inevitable direction of travel is going to be towards closer union. One of the things that ultimately took the Tories out of the Union was their objection to the idea of an ever closer Union. That is something that we have to debate and perhaps it needs more time.

There is always a fundamental debate in the EU between representation and efficiency. I am a very impatient person so I am always trying to look for efficient ways to get things done. I have learned painfully over the years that one has got to be attentive to the need to ensure proper representation through things such as one Commissioner per country. I have seen the European Council wrestle with issues where one or two small countries are holding out and the vast majority want to get on with something, but there is respect there for the rights of each individual member. Of course, the smaller member states have to know when to push something that is very important to them and when to go along with what the others want for the sake of keeping the ship together. It is a fluid thing. I do not think it can ultimately be written down in black-and-white treaty language.

We have, in recent years, been missing any kind of tolerance of the fact that the EU cannot do everything. It is a level of governance above the national and below the international. By way of more explanation, we must try to get citizens to understand that at least some of the failings of the EU are because some of its members do not want certain things to happen now. By debating and explaining, we can get a better understanding and people can say that while they would love to do a particular thing, they understand why their neighbours elsewhere in the EU are having difficulties with it at the moment. That tolerance and respect for others - which I hope is coming back, as indicated by the results of the US presidential election - can also be a part of the debate.

Deputy Ó Murchú raised the issue that the Union may become multi-tiered. As Professor Fabbrini said, that will clearly be a way forward. If a majority wants to do something and there are a few outliers, it is highly likely that the majority will decide to go ahead.

There is, however, a fundamental difference between the new EU when compared with from where we have come. I think that as long as the UK was in the outer layer, it was more acceptable and easier for other, smaller countries also to be outside. Now that the UK is not there and that the core of the UK is always going to be in the first tier, there will be real consequences for countries that choose to stay outside. Some countries, such as the Baltic countries, struggled hard to join the euro because they absolutely understood that the core of the Union is going to be where the real decisions are made. That core is going to be the first tier. A country could choose to be in another tier but it will not then be a player. The theory of multi-speed Europe will still be there and will, in some cases, be the reality but if a country wants to be at the heart of Europe and influence decisions, it must understand that it has got to be in the first tier. The departure of the UK is going to change that calculation in different ways.

Leading on from that is the question of replacing our former reliance on the UK. All the smaller member states are understanding that and none of them can replace on its own the huge competence and technical ability that is being lost. We are going to have to work more closely together. That may mean different ways of working and, in Ireland's case, it will mean much better understanding of continental systems, including civil law rather than common law. All of those delights lie ahead of us in the future.