Dr. John O'Brennan:

Yes, although "John" is perfectly fine. The Chairman asked about enlargement and earlier about diplomatic representation, which links to Deputy Byrne's question. The key question is where the value is added in the international representation. For me, it is about, first, economics and trade, and, second, about alliances in Brussels and how we construct and sustain those alliances over time.

In terms of the budgetary question, we have to make choices. I believe there is ample room to make a political choice. If the argument is that there is value added in engaging in representation in X country, that can and should be done. If one can demonstrate clearly that having representation in Lithuania potentially has benefits when it comes to a complex EU negotiation of one kind or another, one has to maintain that. I believe there was a particularly poor decision in that case.

Equally, it is regrettable that the embassy in Iran has closed. Iran is an important country, as the Chairman pointed out, with a large population that has gradually been brought into the diplomatic process, partly through Ms Catherine Ashton's vigorous diplomacy last autumn. There are real opportunities attaching to the normalisation of Iran geopolitcally. We may come to regret that particular decision and the decision in regard to Lithuania. Such decisions are made within the bounded contexts I have referred to, economic and otherwise, but we would do well to reflect on the suggestions put forward by Professor Tonra last month. These include using secondments and short-term contracts to buttress the capacities we have in individual member states, particularly on important issues like agriculture, for instance, if it is France or Spain. Another important issue is the necessity of watching the legislative cycle very closely.

The second question was about enlargement and my rather pessimistic view of the current landscape. I am at odds with some of the members on these issues. The agreement between Serbia and Kosovo last April has been asserted as the breakthrough that was needed because it has implications that go beyond those two states. It certainly was a success for Ms Ashton and the European External Action Service, EEAS, but we should not come to the conclusion that it represents a decisive break in the logjam. There are many issues that feed into the phenomenon of fatigue. One is the perception that Bulgaria and Romania entered the EU prematurely - I disagree with it, but it is a view that is widespread. Another factor is the economic crisis, particularly what has happened to Greece. The Balkans is partly viewed through that prism, because of its proximity to Greece. There are ongoing problems in the western Balkans, particularly in Bosnia, which is, in many senses, an embryonic state that refuses to become a state proper. There is also a sense that we went too far too fast.

Looking at the support or otherwise for enlargement in key national capitals, it is clear there has been a decisive change. The United Kingdom, for example, was always, for different reasons, a champion of further expansion, including to Turkey. Now it seems to have gone completely cold on further expansion. Recent comments by the Prime Minister, David Cameron, suggesting that the question of the western Balkans might potentially be held hostage to the immigration debate were disgraceful and represent a very decisive change in the landscape. Similarly, the manner in which the Bundestag has insinuated itself into the German stance is very much a negative. When national parliaments effectively hold a veto at every stage of the negotiation, rather than at the end, where the European Parliament effectively has a vote, it becomes very problematic. Serbia was not able to progress last June because the Germans demanded more evidence of the commitment that is implied in the April agreement. We have moved forward since then, which is very welcome, but there remain multiple opportunities for the process to be slowed down, which was not the case previously. It is a cause for concern.