Professor Gavin Barrett:

There is another country the Senator did not mention but I know he would have if it had come to mind, and that is the United States if Donald Trump comes back to power. Particularly with regard to support for Ukraine, Europe could be left high and dry. Will Europe be able to step up to the plate in that regard?

I agree with the Senator about the UK. It is moving back. There are two ways of taking Brexit. One is aligning more closely with the EU, which is the sensible economic thing to do even though it leaves the UK without the voice it had when it was in the EU, and the other is moving away. I am glad to see things like the Windsor Framework and other recent initiatives taken by the UK Government, which indicate it is taking what I consider the more sensible option, and I think that will continue under Keir Starmer if and when Labour takes power.

On the Franco-German paper, no great unanimity and the possibility of there being no treaty change, with so many countries having objected to the idea of treaty change in relation to the Conference on the Future of Europe, the danger exists. Every country has a veto on treaty change and Hungary indicated that it does not want treaty change. That country on its own could block treaty change. Therefore, there is a very real prospect that treaty change will simply not take place.

There is concern with regard to enlargement. At this stage, there are states clamouring to get into the EU, such as Moldova, for example, because they are afraid of Russia, quite frankly. They want to join NATO and economically they want matters to be looked after by the EU. The problem is that if that kind of thing happens and another Hungary comes about, we need to deal with certain issues, such as the rule of law, for example. There are issues that need to be taken care of at a treaty level. I agree it may happen that we will not be able to do it. My worry is about a dysfunctional EU if that takes place. What might possibly happen is that other solutions will be sought. Those other solutions will be, I think, if I can call it such, the US constitution-style solution or the European Stability Mechanism, ESM, Treaty-style solution or the fiscal treaty solution. That is, international treaties being used with those treaties entering into force for a less than full complement of the member states, thereby enabling any member state that wants to vote against them to vote itself out but not veto the entire thing. That is my prediction but who knows. That would be it.

On co-operation on health and co-operation generally taking place on an intergovernmental basis as opposed to within the context of the EU, there are numerous advantages to doing it with the EU but I will point out two in particular. The first is there is more judicial control because of the European Court of Justice and a whole structure – I do not need to tell the Senator about the preliminary references, direct action and all that kind of thing whereby matters can be kept under control there. Second, there is more democratic control, including by virtue of the European Parliament. Europe did get by in relation to health matters the last time out. However, personally, I would prefer to see it ratified. I think it is better done on a supernational basis rather than an intergovernmental basis.

That is just my view on that. I am not sure whether I have dealt with all the issues.