Mr. Frans Timmermans:

Some of the comments and questions are so specific that the members will appreciate that I cannot answer them. I wish I could answer them, but if I were to answer them in public they would have an effect immediately on things still to happen in the future. I am simply not in a position to pre-empt some of these elements. I want to assure the members that I have taken very careful note of these remarks. I will take them back and share them with Michel Barnier and others so that the people are very much of where this Parliament and Ireland stand on this.

As Commission, we need to prove we duly represent the interest of Ireland in this negotiation. Then all bets are off in terms of how Ireland behaves in that. This applies to every single member state. Every single member state will want to be seen as duly represented by us. However, Ireland is not every single member state; Ireland is a very special case in this negotiation. If I was not already aware of that before this meeting, this meeting has confirmed that in so many different ways.

Let me repeat something I have said publicly before. I was born in 1961. Throughout my childhood and early adulthood I was witness to terrible violence in the North of this island. We were all brought up with that. Many of us thought this could never be solved. When I was young I truly thought that this was part of life and that people would continue murdering each other for generations to come. Then this miracle of the Good Friday Agreement came about. I believe we have a political and moral duty to do everything within our power to maintain the Good Friday Agreement and everything that entails. I am sorry I cannot be clearer than that today, but I hope members will understand my personal commitment to this.

The EU has been a strong supporter of developments in Northern Ireland. I remember Belfast 30 or 40 years ago. If we look at Belfast now, what has been achieved is incredible. The EU has spent up to €2 billion in developing the North in many ways. Many years ago it was a terrible rust belt, especially Belfast. Now we should look at what is coming up there in terms of the economy. We also have reason to be optimistic. However, I am fully aware of all the difficulties in agriculture, transport, manufacturing and trade that we will face in the coming years. I again pledge that the Commission is on Ireland's side on that.

Referring to what the Co-Chairman said, there is a paradox in having a predominance of big member states, which is logical in a Union of so many small countries. The big countries are big only in name because globally we only have small member states by comparison with the rest of the world. However, the response to having big and small member states is not to take competences away from the Commission and put them in the hands of the European Council because that would be rewarding big member states. The Commission can offer protection against the force of big member states. It is what we have been doing traditionally but we need to prove we can do that every day; I agree with the Co-Chairman.

The onus is on us to prove this is not just driven by Berlin and Paris but takes into account the interests of all member states. It is not just Ireland; certain other member states have very big interests at stake here, some of which I know extremely well.

On the issue of the EU per se, it is time for those of us who believe in the EU to speak up for the EU and stop being intimidated by this populist rhetoric. The EU is not about Brussels; it is not about the European Parliament; it is not about the European Commission. The EU is about citizens who want to live in peace with other citizens with whom they have had wars for centuries. That is still the essence of the EU.

In every member state Brexit has led to less support for leaving the EU rather than more support for leaving the EU. There is not one member state today where a majority of the population would be in favour of leaving the EU. I apologise to Deputy Barrett for interrupting him, but I wondered what countries he was referring to when he said that there would be a host of countries wanting to leave the EU. While it might change in the future, at this stage I do not see it. Rather than driving euroscepticism, the shock of Brexit has led people to reconsider. Paradoxically the fact that this European Union could collapse, which I think is a reality, has brought forward more pro-European feelings than we had previously.

What is most threatening to the EU is that we take it for granted and are completely indifferent to what happens to it. The enemy of the EU is not anti-EU feeling; it is indifference about the EU because anti-EU feeling is a minority view in almost all if not all remaining member states. We need to mobilise the population for this project. I passionately believe in this project especially if we can interest younger people, not in the structures of the EU or the institutions but in the ideals of the EU. Our young generation are no longer ideological but they are very idealistic about working together with others. I think that is where Europe's future resides.

Let me be perfectly clear about this. The problem with young people is that they take Europe for granted. It is not that they do not like it. It has created their natural habitat of Europe as a place where they can go wherever they like without any problems because of cheap air fares - some Irish companies are very successful in providing that. It is not an institutional Europe or a Brussels Europe but a Europe of the people because they can travel to Barcelona for the weekend or to Riga to have a stag party or whatever. That is the reality of our children's lives. This is a Europe that should also be recognised as a positive thing. It was unimaginable for my parents for whom the German was still the enemy. I think it is a miracle.

I need to answer the specific question on Georgia. President Juncker has been very clear that in the term of this Commission up to 2019 there will be no enlargement of the European Union. There is also very little appetite in member states to start enlargement discussions. I believe we can make huge progress with Georgia.

Georgia should feel that its wish to be part of the European family, if I can put it that way, should be translated in measures in terms of co-operation, investment and visa-free travel. All that should be done and it is urgent to do that, but we should be realistic about enlargement. It is not going to happen for the foreseeable future, certainly not in the mandate of this Commission. My assessment today is that the urgency with enlargement would probably reside more with the western Balkans before we go into the Caucasus, but I am speaking beyond my brief because my brief only goes to 2019 and that will happen after 2019.

I answered the question on whether we should negotiate separately. In terms of the questions on Mr. Trump, I have been very clear that if immigration restrictions are based on religion or race, they are a discrimination which should not be allowed to happen. We have been very clear about that. We have seen also that the American judicial system works rather well in correcting these things. We can have faith in American institutions in so far as that is concerned.

We now have the Maltese Presidency and it is performing very well. In my experience over the past 30 years, the smaller the country, the more successful the Presidency because small countries can more easily sell at home that it is at the service of the 28 or later the 27, whereas when a big member state holds the Presidency, it has to prove that it brings a lot of success to that member stateper se, and usually that does not work very well. The Maltese Presidency is successful and I very much look forward to the Estonian Presidency, which will be the next Presidency, as of 1 July.

I believe I have answered-----