Professor Gavin Barrett:

I will quickly go through the questions that were raised. Deputy Howlin asked a fundamental question about what the conference is for. Is it for consulting citizens on what they want or involving them in a debate, to a certain extent? There is a bit of a dilemma there because it is a top-down process that, at the same time, seeks to get a bottom-up participation, if I can put it that way. A very fine line needs to be tread in that regard. There is a danger of disillusionment in this conference. On the one hand, if the views of the citizenry are not taken into account and do not have a real impact, that carries the danger that people might feel that there is no point in participating in a process such as this. On the other hand, the conference has to achieve something. It cannot achieve nothing and turn into a dialogue that leads nowhere. Previous efforts to involve the citizenry in a dialogue, including, to a certain extent, the citizens' dialogue process of a couple of years ago, have shown that if the process does not lead to anything concrete, it can be disillusioning.

Deputy Howlin also mentioned the tensions that exist in the United States between state rights and democracy. We have precisely the same tensions at European level and, to a certain extent, they are even more intense at European level because there is a stronger sense of national identity within Europe. Those tensions are reflected in America in things such as the role of the Senate and the fact that the President is not directly elected, if you like. We have our own equivalent of that at European level. Qualified majority voting is a kind of halfway house at European level between one vote per state, which would suit small states, and population-based voting which suits the larger states. That is one way in which that tension is reflected. The fact that membership of the European Parliament operates on the basis of digressive proportionality whereby smaller states have larger representation is another example of it. The fact that we still have one Commissioner from each member state is another example of the fact that there is an ongoing tension between majority rule at European level and state rights at national level. That tension will go on and will be a permanent part of membership of the European Union.

There is not a permanent or fixed solution.

There is a gradual shift towards the pooling of power and more federal solutions as member states get to trust one another. There may be an element of this as an outcome of the conference. That logic will make itself prevail, but it is an ongoing tension and something that is capable of giving rise to great controversy. Anyone who examines the case law of the German federal constitutional court will see just how controversial this issue is in Europe.

Deputy Ó Murchú raised a number of issues. Problems with the EU tend to be resolved by a lot of small steps. There is no single solution to the problem of reconciling European integration with the requirements of democracy, but there are many small steps. These include the role of the European Parliament and, vitally, the role of national parliaments as well as citizens' dialogues. The process of citizens' dialogues is becoming part of the solution to the ongoing challenge of reconciling European integration with the needs of democracy.

The Deputy mentioned state aid. An accusation levelled at the EU is that it prevents member states from intervening through state aid. I will issue a reminder in that regard. State aid tends to be a game for the big boys. In other words, the larger member states engage in state aid more than smaller member states do. If state aid was permitted in all states, countries like Ireland would lose out. This has been reflected in the Covid crisis, during which there was a relaxation of state aid rules. The country that piled the most into its state aid was Germany. Lufthansa received a massive amount of state aid, but Ryanair did not. This point should be borne in mind.

The issue of a European army was raised. There is no prospect of that immediately. However, it is true that issues that we are less comfortable with, for example, tax and defence, are gradually being raised at European level. That is normal. We need to consider these issues. Dr. Day has mentioned how, if a country is not in the top tier, it is not in the decision-making arena. That is something we need to think about. We must reflect on whether Ireland's opt-out in justice and home affairs matters should be continued. Why do we have that, what benefit are we gaining from it and are we losing out in terms of decision-making at European level? Many issues need to be debated properly at national level. National parliaments, and this committee in particular, have a large role to play in that regard.

Using an accurate phrase, Deputy Ó Murchú stated that we previously got the UK to do our due diligence for us. That is no longer possible because the UK is not in the EU to do it for us, including at executive or parliamentary level. A response to this change is required. I hope that being here today will help to contribute to that response. It is great that our approach to deliberative democracy is being taken account of at European level. It is also great that we can feed into that process even if, as Dr. Day stated, not all of the solutions we have arrived at can be translated to European level directly.