So good morning and welcome to our guest, Pascal Donahue, Minister of Finance and Public Expenditure and Reform. Welcome also to the many hundreds of our members and the wider public who are joining us on Zoom and on the IIEA's YouTube channel. Let me start briefly by introducing the minister. Pascal Donahue, TD has been a member of the OROC this 13 years, serving first in the channel than since 2011 in the role representing the constituency in which this institute is headquartered. Of relevance to the challenges being faced today, he previously served as Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport and as Minister of State for European Affairs. The COVID pandemic has raised a number of important, possibly existential questions about the future of the EU. In his address, Minister Donahue will reflect in some of the economic debates taking place in Europe at the moment. He'll discuss Ireland's position on these Indies debates and the role the Irish state can play in shaping the future of the EU. After the minister's presentation, we will take questions from participants using the Q&A function on Zoom, which you should see at the bottom of your screens. A reminder that both the presentation and the Q&A will take place on the record, as this event is part of the IIEA's future of the EU 27 project supported by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. And with that, I'll give the floor to you, Minister. Thanks again for joining us. Good morning, Dan, and good morning, everybody. And thank you very much for tuning in. I obviously want to thank the IIEA for inviting me to participate in the webinar. Institute has done an excellent job in maintaining discussion and debate in recent weeks. And today, I want to speak to you about three issues. The scale of the economic challenge we now face what a strong European and Irish economic response looks like the political impact of the crisis and how we might remake the global economy in response. The COVID-19 pandemic constitutes a great economic and social challenge for the world. This is such a scale that no one can address it alone. Just a couple of months, the virus has spread to every continent, placing societies and health systems under great stress. The containment measures put in place... I'm just going to pause for one moment, if you don't mind, Dan. I might just slow down a little bit, would you? Oh, that's great. Global economic landscape has been transformed with the IMF forecasting global GDP to fall sharply by 3% this year. The European economy has also been severely affected, with GDP for the EU-27 forecaster to fall by around 7% for the year. At the same time, the American economy has witnessed a historic rise in unemployment and government spending in response. Congress has approved a 3 trillion bill to provide more aid to battle the pandemic and to stimulate the economy. The Federal Reserve has mobilized an immense wave of liquidity, including over $2.3 trillion in asset purchases, effectively backstopping US financial markets. The Bank of England has said, the UK is facing its steepest decline since the Great Frost of 1709 and is committed to the purchase of yields. Here in Ireland, we're projecting national income to fall by around 10% this year, with unemployment expected to peak at well over 22% in the second quarter. A general government deficit is forecast to be in the region of 23 to 30 billion euro. To respond back to this, the government has already committed exceptional financial supports for workers and businesses. A mountain to 13.3 billion euro are over 7% of gross national income. We've been able to act decisively and proportionately because we managed our public finances carefully in recent years. And there is a clear reminder to us from our recent history. Some now appear to be arguing that we make the same mistake about public debt for Ireland as was made about private debt a decade ago. The low interest rates of today will not be the low interest rates of forever. That which is borrowed now will have to be either paid back or refinanced at a higher interest rate in the future. And the foundation of our economic stability is paying for our living standards and our public services ourselves. Central banks and savers in other countries won't pay for that decision. So over time, and as our economy grows, we need to reduce our borrowing. And this recognition in the past has enabled an economic response that has been unparalleled because coronavirus is a crisis without precedent in the modern era. There has been no playbook for governments to turn to. Instead, we've had to shape our response at breakneck speed with incomplete information and with unclear predicted outcomes. Buzzing large parts of our economy in suspension to deal with a public health crisis has posed a unique challenge to economic policy. As the historian Adam Tooes succinctly butted very recently, an entire model of global economic development has been brought skidding to a halt. And it is easier, it turns out, to stop an economy than it is to stimulate us. So our first economic priority was to protect incomes, jobs and companies through the pinnacle of the pandemic. And as we gradually reopen our economy, a different challenge confronts us, stimulating the recovery and I'll return to this in a moment. But first, I will turn to the EU's role during the crisis. Actions at EU level to combat coronavirus have demanded urgent decisive and comprehensive action at EU national, regional and local levels. And while the EU indeed was slow to respond in a coordinated way at the start, it has since proven indispensable. The economic response at EU level is based on three pillars that operate together. Firstly, the immediate measures that were taken to enable member states to support the economy in the form mainly of the triggering of the general escape clause of the Stability and Growth Act, a temporary framework to enable member states to use the full flexibility for seeing under state rules. The European Central Bank also acts with great urgency with the rapid launch of a pandemic emergency purchase program. This is a new temporary asset purchase program of private and public sector securities with an overall envelope of 750 billion euro, which when linked with previous announced measures will amount to a capacity of up to 1 trillion euro. The contrast with the ECB's response to the global financial crisis is stark. Second, the euro group has put in place three important safety nets for workers, for businesses, for governments. This package comprises the commission's sure instrument to protect jobs and workers, the EIB's COVID-19 pandemic European guarantee fund and the ESM's pandemic crisis instrument. Taken together, this package of measures amounts to 540 billion euro and it aims to minimize the short-term economic consequences of the COVID crisis. As we begin to move away from the containment measures necessary to deal with the health crisis, it's crucial to limit the economic damage and to continue to turn our minds towards recovery. The third pillar of the European response is the ambitious recovery fund that will be part of an expanded EU budget to kick-start the European economy. The recently published roadmap to recovery by the presidents of the European Commission and the European Council highlight the needs for significant investment to relaunch our economies where urgent action is required. And the recovery fund must focus on the most pressing economic needs to reboot the European economy once the health crisis has got to a safer place. It should prioritize sectors of the European economy and regions that have been most adversely affected but also those that can generate sustainable economic growth in the new normal of the post-COVID economy. In particular, it should be deployed to accelerate both the digital and green transitions in the EU. Equally, it and other funding must create a future for business models that are viable. Work is obviously continuing to develop its scope, its scale, and its funding. And next week, the European Commission will bring forward proposals on linking the recovery fund to the new multi-annual financial framework. Earlier this week, France and Germany made a really important contribution to Europe's recovery efforts with their proposal for how a recovery fund would work based on the Commission borrowing 500 billion euro to provide to member states through the EU budget. Our citizens want and they expect the European Union to be ambitious, to be transformative in its response to the unprecedented crisis. But taken together, the EU economic policy response does meet these expectations, amounting to nearly $2 trillion euro or 15% of EU economic output. My German colleague, Olaf Scholz, has suggested that proposals could be considered a Hamiltonian moment for the European Union. This year marks, as we all know, the 230th anniversary of the compromise of 1790, when Hamilton persuade the Jefferson and Madison that the federal government should assume the state's substantial revolutionary war debts. Hamilton famously described government debt as the price of liberty from the US revolution. While what has been proposed today does not amount to mutualization of debt within the European Union. The ability of the Commission to borrow significant sums to finance EU budget programs would, if agreed, represent a significant step forward in European integration. I believe, however, that the primary responsibility for the management of our economies should continue to rest at regional, at national level. However, given the scale of the crisis and in solidarity with those worst hits, the government has been strongly in favor of measures that go beyond peacetime, economic policy, or positions. Of course, these are proposals from two member states. Agreement on a way forward will require the approval of all 27, and we'll engage positively in the discussions and work with our partners to build consensus for early agreement. There are issues, and of course there are matters within this debate that will need careful work. However, the fact that proposals are being considered now, which only a matter of weeks ago would have been dismissed out of hand, demonstrates how the scale of the pandemic has overturned previous economic uncertainties. It's also a repost to those who argue that the EU lacks the commitment or political will to meet the unique economic challenges posed by the coronavirus with proportionate budgetary action. Such a proportionate response has been necessary because the scale of this crisis has raised questions about international cooperation, and therefore organizations, indeed, such as the EU. The political impact has been seen in recent opinion polls, which have shown a drop in EU support in countries that have been most affected by the pandemic. And there has been criticism of both the EU's response to the pandemic itself and the ensuing economic crisis. The scale, the speed of the pandemic, undoubtedly impact on the EU's ability to respond at first. However, this has given way to a concerted response to tackling the public health and the economic aspects of this crisis. There have, of course, been differing views among us on the right approach to take. However, this discussion, this debate, reflects the very nature of our democracies. We have seen comments that the European Union is having a bad crisis and predictions that international cooperation and globalization may fall victim to the pandemic. However, we have seen such predictions before, after the global financial crisis a decade ago, the migration crisis, or more recently, after the Brexit referendum in the UK. On each occasion, those predictions have been proven wrong. A project based on maximizing the benefits of interdependence is surely the strongest foundation for dealing with challenges that are, by definition, multilateral. However, the pandemic has revealed vulnerabilities in the global economic and international political sphere. It has struck at a time when the anchors of globalization and mutual interdependence were already under sustained pressure. We have seen the flare-up of geopolitical tensions between the UK, the US, Russia, and others amidst competing visions for the global economy and calls for de-globalization. The complexity of the global economy and financial system has led many to see interdependence as the weakness. And in seeking to provide an intellectual framework for these shifts, the Irish political economist, Henry Farrow, has developed the concept of weaponized interdependence, which is the use of commercial relationships for national political objectives. If the last economic crisis demonstrated how the interdependence of financial systems actually created higher risks, maybe this crisis is demonstrating how the interdependence of supply chains is now creating risks. The pandemic has revealed vulnerabilities in the way supply chains are structured, for example, impacting on the production and delivery of medical equipment and devices for our health services and health services elsewhere. Complex supply chains have been disrupted with knock-on effects for both manufacturers and consumers. And undoubtedly, we will see a reevaluation of how parts of the global economy are structured as we emerge from the crisis. In particular, we must acknowledge that the existing model of globalization for all of its benefits has created vulnerabilities for citizens and for states. However, the answer lies not in rejecting globalization in its entirety, but by building a better system to mitigate the risks of economic and political dependency. So what does this mean for how we restructure and change the global economy? Rather than seeking to unravel globalization or pronounce its demise, we should be seeking to adopt this to ensure a more resilient global economy through diversified supply chains, manufacturing, through working to reform the WTO, measures to improve competitiveness, and measures to improve investment and innovation in research development and research. In the process, there will be a need to reassess the balance between the efficiency of supply chains and their resilience. We've seen this balance work well in some areas. For example, in many of our food retailers here in Ireland. In practical terms, this means working towards what Commissioner Hogan calls, greater strategic autonomy in key areas such as the production of medicines and medical devices. Amidst this kind of change, Ireland will again identify strategic opportunities and we will pursue them. And as a country that is deeply embedded in global and European supply chains, I recognize that the potential for change is significant and this is an important development for Ireland. But with an economy that's based on expertise and diversity, I'm absolutely confident that this is an opportunity and challenge that we will rise to. We need to do this with care so that Ireland and Europe don't replace one vulnerability with another, or risk fragmenting the global common. This could easily erode trust between key global partners that could undermine peace, security and inhibit our ability to work together to tackle global challenges such as coronavirus but also familiar challenges such as climate change and migration. So an open trade policy remains at the core, I believe, of our recovery. As a small open economy which is integrated into the global economy, Ireland has experienced the benefits of international trade and multilateralism. We'll all be the poor if the global economy fragments under the waste of this crisis and we retreat behind national and regional walls. We will rise to this challenge. Again, at the time of Brexit, meaning that the period ahead must not only be used to respond ourselves to COVID but ready ourselves and our economy for the great challenge ahead. I firmly believe that the present crisis highlights more than ever the value of the European project and of the importance of international cooperation in responding to a pandemic that does not recognize borders and whose impact does not depend on a country's size or the size of their economy. The virus has increased uncertainty in an already complex and interdependent world. We need more international cooperation and understanding, not less, if we are to tackle this successfully. So, and in conclusion, Dan, if we think of the pandemic as a common experience, then we can find the common ground necessary to work together to support a coordinated health response, search for a vaccine and reopen our societies as we rebuild our economies. As we look ahead, I'll continue to make the case that the best way for Ireland to achieve this is to work with our EU partners within the context of the strong relationships we have within and beyond Europe. Thank you. Thank you very much, Minister. Thanks also for giving us time for Q&A as you can imagine with the numbers of people on here. There are many questions, so I'll try and get to as many of them as possible. Start off with David Garehi, the new Hanseatic League, he says, doesn't seem to have risen to the challenge of the post-COVID reality of the EU. What does Ireland's new landscape of EU alliances look like? So just as background, Ireland is one of nine countries in this new Hanseatic League of mostly Northern European countries and they have tended to be the more skeptical about deeper integration, corona bonds, et cetera, whereas Ireland's position has been different. Minister. So Dan, I think it's probably a bit too early to reach that kind of conclusion in relation to the performance of the so-called Hanseatic League. And from my point of view, the views that we have on so many issues align so closely with those countries that we will continue to work closely together in relation to national responsibility for looking after your own economy and in relation to our attitudes, for example, in relation to trade, as I have articulated in my address there, a few moments ago. And I think all of the countries in the Hanseatic League at the moment are just reflecting on the nature of the challenge that we face and trying to find a way of responding back to us that is consistent with the national views they have on issues like this, but also the recognition that this is such a different crisis to where we have been before. And I have an absolutely confident that we're all going to be worked together to find a way of supporting, for example, the recovery fund concept that I think will be put forward in more detail by the European Commission next week. So maybe, as I argued about the European Union a moment ago, it may be a little bit too early to conclude that the work of the Hanseatic League will not be able to respond back to the challenge that COVID-19 will pose to us. A follow-up from Bill Emmett on that, another alliance, the Frugal Four, Austria, the Netherlands, Sweden, and Denmark from recollection have been described as the grouping in the EU most opposed to recent developments including the Franco-German proposal earlier this week. Do you, Bill Emmett asks, do you expect the Frugal Four to water down the Merkel-Macron proposals from earlier this week? Well, the proposals from France and Germany as they acknowledge themselves are proposed in two countries, but we know that when France and Germany do reach agreement on matters, it is the foundation for how then the European Union over time can do the same. I would not use the phrase of watering down in terms of how those countries may respond back to the recovery fund prospect and recovery fund proposal, but I think it is going to be the case that what the European Union will eventually reach agreement on will be different to the proposal in its initial stage and initial iteration. So in order for everybody to reach agreement on us, I would expect the proposals that are in place at the moment to evolve, but that isn't watering down. That's simply the nature of how agreement is reached within the European Union. There was another element to the Franco-German proposal in regards to corporation tax that part of the package would involve corporation tax consolidating the corporation tax base, corporate tax base. This is something that Ireland has opposed to successive governments over two decades. How would the government's position on the corporation tax issue change in the light of this crisis? I think what was particularly important in relation to the Franco-German paper is that I encourage that particular idea in the OECD work that is underway that I'm expecting is likely to reach a conclusion in October. The views of the Irish government in relation to corporation tax are well known. They've been established, as you said, their moments go down over a 20-year period and I'll continue to act in a way that is consistent with that approach. And indeed, I've taken that approach myself over the last couple of years. But in the work that is underway now, I mean, we're going to engage constructively in the ideas that have been put forward because, for example, in relation to the digital economy, we are going to have to find new ways of how they are taxed. I've always said I expect the taxation of the digital economy will change, but equally, I'm of the very strong view that this is best on at a global level because if we can't bring all global trading partners in the digital economy, which are global in nature with us, then that only adds to the kind of risks that we're discussing at the moment. It doesn't take away from them. Thank you. Many, many questions on interest rates. Many people are interested to know what your timeframe for an increase in interest rates might be. As you mentioned in your presentation, there is a concern that money borrowed now will have to be paid back. We've announced it possibly higher interest rates but this is a risk. Many people are asking if interest rates remain low for a very long period of time, is that a big risk? Lots of big questions in there. So interest rates are mainly low for a very long period of time. Kind of itself be a risk, as many will understand because they can create an environment in which large amounts of capital move into other financial instruments and by moving into other financial instruments that with itself can create economic risks. And this has been one of the concerns, for example, that critics on to take these and have had for so long. That as we keep interest rates at a very low level for a period of time, capital goals elsewhere looking for a yield and looking for a return. And that creates economic risks in other parts of national and global economies. All that being said, I'm absolutely certain the current approach in relation to bond yields is the correct one by the European Central Bank. I think in the absence of that, national government simply would not have been able to respond back in the way they are at the moment and we could be facing another set of risks that I think we're all eager to put firmly behind us. In terms of my question regarding when I expect interest rates to rise, of course, it's the National Treasury Management Agency as recently as only yesterday were involved in the setting of death on behalf of the Irish state. So given my role in setting policy in that area, it wouldn't be appropriate for me to reveal my views in relation to when and how I expect interest rates to change. I just want to emphasize, however, that what is in place at the moment, I do not believe is going to become a normal and when that normal changes, if you have a national death of well in excess of 200 billion euro, in my new change in those interest rates can have a very significant effect on the day-to-day operation of the Irish state. And this has happened to us twice before in my lifetime. And I'm very determined that we get the balance rise between avoiding that risk developing again while at the same time borrowing the right amounts of money that we're going to need to protect incomes here in Ireland and restart our economy. And that is a balance that myself and the Taoiseach are committed to identifying and then trying to implement. A slightly different tack from Judith Randall. She thanks you for your presentation. She's interested in the resilience and supply chains for food and agriculture and particularly implications for the developing world. Maybe you could talk about certainly the Irish situation with regards supply chains of food, whether that's a concern in any way. It isn't. And my colleagues, Heather Humphreys and Michael Creed did a huge amount of work behind the scenes with our retailers and with domestic and indeed international food companies to ensure that when our supply chains did come under a bit of pressure there a number of weeks ago that we will be well equipped to respond back. And that work delivered what it was intended to deliver. And I think actually our retailers and those who work in our stores and shops in many ways have been the kind of unsung heroes in what has happened in allowing day-to-day life to continue because you'll appreciate then the level of risk and worry that can be created if shoppers and families begin to fear that they might be able to get their regular purchases tomorrow and we've avoided that happening. That said, in relation to the broader context of the question that was brought to me, a concern that I absolutely have is how the developing world, how very fragile economies are going to be able to respond back to this pandemic, what it will mean for their own safety and in turn indirectly what that will mean for security and the management in a safe way of migration across our world. And I'm deeply conscious now with some of the work that for example I was shade and our charities are doing and amidst all that we have going on and the many pressures I'm now dealing with on an hourly basis we need to find ways to continuing to support that work. We've got a question from the chairman of the IIA, Rory Quinn, who was a former finance minister as you know and maybe you'll actually reflect on this one and come back to it at the end. It sounds like it's going to be a hard one to handle if you ask me to reflect on this. As you approach the end of your current terms as a minister of finance, what are the key moments or events that you regard as the most significant during that period? So maybe we'll come close on that one, that's one to ponder I suppose. A lot of questions coming in again as well about the German constitutional court ruling from two weeks ago and the implications that might have for the ECB's purchase of government bonds which as you said has been crucial in supporting governments in financing this emergency. I know it's a difficult one for ministers to talk about court decisions but there is a lot of interest in many, many questions coming in on that one. Yeah, and it's an understandable that is happening given the prominence of the ruling and the concerns that some have about us. As you correctly say Dan, it's not appropriate for me to comment on the rulings that are made in courts in other countries, particularly constitutional courts but I'd make a couple of points from the financial market point of view that I think are important for me to emphasize. The first one is that the ruling that was made by the cash rule explicitly did not refer to the pandemic instrument that is currently being used by the ECB. So in their ruling, they made very clear that they were not commenting on the performance and operation of that intervention at the moment. The second one is that the ruling is looking for a response back to the demand of proportionality. And I know that my colleague, the minister for finance in Germany, Olaf Scholz, who updated us on this issue in a recent finance meeting is considering this ruling carefully and it's gonna be a matter for the German court to respond back to the German government to respond back to which they'll do over time. Now you will have seen the comments of Chancellor Merkel on this matter in her parliament. The German government are taking this matter very seriously as you would expect and they'll respond back, I'm sure, in a way that's very, very careful in a way that's deliberate. Question also from Patrick Cahonan, former governor of the central bank amongst other things. He says, even if Ireland's financial situation doesn't make this necessary, would there be merit in Ireland dipping in to various EU pandemic recovery funds in order to reduce the perceived stigma for other more stressed countries using them? Interesting angle as always from Patrick. And this has been a subject of debate and discussion in our weekly finance ministers meetings. Patrick will of course know better than many of us what is the effect of a country accessing official support in particular ways and the effect that can sometimes have in market access and the real difficulty of trying to manage the balance rise correctly of having an institution or fund that is available for help. But a country then by accessing that help actually ends up deepening the difficulty that country might be in the first place because it adjusts market sentiment around that country. And that has influenced thinking in relation to the three different backstops that have been put forward. And if I look at the three different backstops that have been put forward by the European Union, for example, the first one in relation to the European Investment Bank, yes, there are ways in which I can imagine Ireland will access that. We've accessed funds like that in the past through the SPCI. If I look at the shore instrument that has been booked forward by the commission, which is a lending tool to help countries evaluate and fund their way to subsidy schemes in particular. Again, while I think it's unlikely Ireland will access that because of where we are with current interest rates, it could still be the case that a group of countries accessing that together or in a coordinated way is a helpful intervention because it makes clear that an instrument like that is something that is part of normalizing how countries respond back to something like the COVID-19 crisis. In relation to the credit line of the European stability mechanism, my view on that, which a number of other countries have also reiterated, is that is only something that I think countries would want to be accessing. If they want to create absolute confidence regarding how they're going to be able to continue to fund themselves in the future. And as such, I think it is, and it is very unlikely that Ireland will find itself in the place of wanting to access that particular funding line. All that being said, it's incredibly important that all of those back stops are in place. The indirect confidence effect of that kind of architecture being there, not to mention the enhanced role of the ECB recently, of itself is all indispensable. A follow-up or a related question for Shona Murray of Euro News. Do you think access to the EU recovery fund should be based on adherence to the rule of the EU law? I think that question might fall into the territory of Rory Quinn's question, but I'm still going to answer us as it was but to me. For the recovery fund at the moment actually, I believe the recovery fund criteria should be economic. The reason why I believe that is we are responding back to the huge economic effects of this pandemic on the European project. And my greatest concern at the moment is that COVID-19 deepens the divergence between different European economies. And by deepening that divergence over a prolonged period, it creates a dynamic that weakens the economic foundations of Europe and potentially the eurozone. And I believe that it's such a risk that it's in the interest of all to avoid that we're far better off for now ensuring that the recovery fund is based on criteria that relate only to COVID-19 and its economic effects. But as Shona will know, that debate is ongoing at the moment in relation to access to other streams of European funding. One from Brona Higgins on globalization and how to address its imperfections, as you mentioned in your presentation. How do you think Ireland can contribute to strengthening the global systems that exist? Three different ways. Firstly, by making an honest case about where we are at the moment, because this honest case needs countries to make us, which is to say we have a reminder yet again that interdependence can be a source of risk as well as a source of economic rewards and a source of economic benefits. But just because that risk has changed and indeed has heightened, does not make the case for weakening interdependence or retreating back from us. And I believe that we need to make a more realistic case for a form of globalization that is going to have to adjust to the effect of this virus on our world. And that is a case that needs making. And it can't just be a case that's made by bigger countries and a case that is made by institutions or by organizations. It has to be made by elected politicians from countries of all sizes who believe that changing the nature of globalization to respond back to the needs of citizens and what we learn every day is a far better thing to do than saying that globalization itself needs to be diminished and needs to be rejected globally and by countries. Secondly, by within the European Union, making the case for a continued focus on trade and a continued focus for openness in terms of how we're doing that at the moment, for example, it's making the case that the change in state aid rules that has now happened is one that is beneficial and appropriate for now, but that over time we need to go back to a single markers that is functioning well and in which we avoid embedding imbalances that could develop across this particular period. And then the final level is even for a country that is clearly a small member of the European Union and therefore a smaller version of the global community. It is by making the case for the European project with other countries who might feel differently about it at the moment. And that is something in which this government, previous governments, and I hope all Irish governments to come are willing to make the case for. One related one from Edgar Morgan Roth, economist, he points out that the EU obliges countries to hold stocks of oil and gas and has rules for sharing of energy resources in an emergency. Will Ireland encourage the EU to develop similar arrangements to those in energy for key medical supplies? Could that be a way of improving resilience? It's a really good point and we're actually assessing where we are with energy policy at the moment from the point of view of energy security, which of course also has a European dimension. And it is that kind of thinking that I think is informing the ideas of concepts like strategic autonomy. One of the ways on which Commissioner Hogan has developed that idea recently is he's also talking about open strategic autonomy because even in areas that we might say we need to prioritize European supply chains for, we're still going to need inputs for those supply chains that we're going to be sourcing elsewhere in the world. And it's still going to be very likely that the outputs from those supply chains will be sold elsewhere in the world for periods of time. And I just think we need to get that balance right. And it's one of the points I was looking to make in my speech a few moments ago, Dan, that the rethinking of the operation of global supply chains has now really beat development for Ireland. And within this debate, we have to be aware of some of the risks of not trying to create new vulnerabilities. And we have to ensure this is a debate that unfolds in a way that is fair to countries that have developed an economic model that's of expertise in particular supply chains. And I just want to call this out as a matter that we're engaging in at the moment and that across the coming years, Ireland will need to focus on. Sarah Foley has a globalization related question. One of the big wins for Ireland from the globalization process has been attracting AFDI. The working from home phenomenon that we've seen over the past two months has raised questions as to whether we're now entering a period of a truly global marketplace or for labor and that many of the companies that are based here and bring foreign workers here to work may not do that in the future and that your town work for tech companies here may be able to do that from their homes in Italy in the future. Is that something that you worry about and there's many things to worry about right now but is that something that you see as a potential pitfall? I think it's very early in the day to reach a view on how work life is going to change as a result of where we are with COVID. I think there are many who after we work our way through the current phase of COVID-19 might look at a return to the office in a different life because of some of the challenges from working from home and also because of the impact that it can have on productivity and also because of the impact that it may have on creativity and innovation in particular. I think it is fair to say that for some aspects of the work that tech companies do, that working from home might change where they locate offices and the scale of those offices, that could happen. But on the other hand, so much of the FDI that we have here in Ireland has a very strong manufacturing aspect to us and it's very difficult if not impossible to see how that work is going to take place outside of commercial work spaces. From the globalised aspect to the local, quite a few questions. I know it's not quite on the European policy response that we're focused on mainly today but there are a lot of questions coming in about do you see any regional variation across the country in terms of the economic impact of the pandemic? So here's the one that I will be very concerned about as an issue developing that we will need to respond back to which is the impact that COVID-19 will have on our smaller towns and villages. We will all know the importance of towns and villages and the effect they have in sustaining rural life and rural work and rural communities. And if I look in the importance of high streets in our towns and villages, I do have a concern regarding what will be the effect of COVID and the ability of high streets outside of our cities to continue to sustain themselves. And I'm not sure yet if that question is going to turn into a difficulty and we'll probably know the answer to that sometimes towards the end of this year when we see how our economy is evolving in response to the opera implementation of the reopening plan. As against that, though, to sound a more positive note, if the earlier question regarding working at home goes in that particular direction, you'd have to expect that the ability of work to be done outside of our bigger cities is going to get a big boost. So maybe it's possible that what our towns and villages might lose in one hand because of the effect of COVID and, for example, how we shop and how we eat might be offset by what happens in the ability of citizens to work in new ways outside of our bigger cities. That does, I'd quickly add, heighten the importance of the road out of the national broadband plan. Brexit-related question, as you might expect, from Peter McLoone, one of our board members here. He asked, to what extent will our plans for coping with Brexit be compounded by the pressures now in Irish business as they attempt to recover from the lockdown and adjust to working with the constraints imposed by social distancing? It undoubtedly will add to the challenges that Irish companies will have across 2020. And we need to re-insert, unfortunately, the development of Brexit into our day-to-day planning again. And the discussions and negotiations that Peter and all you all will know are now well underway. And the return of Brexit to the kind of planning that our companies will need to do only does add to the challenges that we have at the moment. And we need to use the time ahead, not only to plan for how we will respond back to the effect of COVID-19 in our economy, but also to get ready for the next set of change ahead regarding how we will respond back to the effect of Brexit finally happening on the Irish economy as well. Are you, have you become more pessimistic about a no-deal outcome in recent weeks? I've lived so much with Brexit from a political point of view for so long now. I have remained and I'm pretty balanced in my assessment of where it is at the moment because the kind of moments that we're having at the moment, we've had so many other moments in our past. So I think at this point, it's too early to add to our pessimism and too early to add and create a sense of unjustified optimism. We're in the middle firmly at the moment on, it's back as a risk, it's back as a risk now that we all need to plan for and we will know just before the summer exactly what kind of an issue this is going to be. It's difficult to calibrate it now. It's very welcome, for example, that the British government published a text there now in relation to how they're going to operationalise the Irish protocol. And while obviously there's a lot of debate on the way now regarding that text and a lot of work on the way now from our colleagues in the European Commission on that text, the fact that it's actually been published is an important step. The B word, Brexit, has come up a lot, a one that's coming up a lot in the really loads of questions that are coming in is the A word, austerity. Donald O'Donnell of the Irish Independent puts in, encapsulates many of the questions. He says, there is evidence the Irish public believes that austerity is the inevitable consequence of the current crisis. Are they correct? And if not, how can policy stop the perception becoming self-fulfilling? So I believe if the right decisions are made at a global and European level, the kinds of experiences that we all went through between 2008 and 2011 and 12, if the right decisions are made at a global level, we can avoid the repeat of an experience like that again. And obviously we can influence those kind of decisions, but we can't actually make them because they depend on how the global economy is going to perform and decisions that will be made in relation to how a recovery can be supported. The experience that we are going to have ahead of us though, I believe is going to be very, very different to what we went through across that period because the cause of that crisis is obviously very different to where we were a decade ago. The cause of the crisis a decade ago was the result of economic decisions that were made. The cause of the economic challenge that we have now is as a result of public health decisions that governments have made on behalf of their states. So if the right decisions are made globally, I believe we can avoid the kind of experiences that cause such harm in the past, but that's not to say that I or a future government is going to be able to meet every need that every part of our economy has. And it is to say that decisions are going to have to continue to be made with a finite amount of taxpayers' money against many, many competing demands. That is going to continue. It was the case before the crisis. It's going to be the case as we work our way through the recovery and to pretend otherwise and to create the sense that there is an amount of money available out there that is cost-free and consequence-free of itself could create risks on investment, on consumer sentiment that indeed could be every bit as risky in the long run as fears that the austerity of our way to 13 could come back as well. Robert Shortz of RTE has a follow-up. Is 30 billion the absolute ceiling on the deficit for this year? Well, I don't think any finance minister at any point in this year would ever indicates what we believe the outturn for the year is going to be given the kind of pressure the Irish economy and the global economy is on at the moment. So what I did in stability program updates is I said on the basis of certain assumptions, there's a deficit range of between 23 and 30 billion euro. On the basis of the information that I have at the moment and on the basis of decisions that I believe are likely to be made, we are approaching now the upper end of that spectrum at the moment. And if things change further during the year, if the assumptions that we have made in relation to the recovery of our economy change as well, then the projections that I and the Department of Finance have published would then be looked at again and the point at which we will do that would be in October in advance of budget 2021. But as things stand for now, the deficit range that I have published and indeed debated in the oil on Wednesday is the best estimate that we have of where we're going to be. Final one before we go to Rory Quinn's bigger picture one. Philip Andrews asked, the recent French and German announcements also suggested modernizing in quotation marks of the EU competition rules to facilitate the emergence of European champions. Does the minister agree that changes to the competition rules are required? And if so, what changes would you favor? Maybe just the first part given that. Do you think the competition rules need to change in order to create bigger European companies? I think competition rules are so much at the heart of the single markets that it's important they're always kept under review. And I think it is likely that change will happen as a result of the experience we're going through at the moment. But as that changes the basis, from my point of view, we need to ensure that the ability to create European champions is not an ability that only big companies and big countries have. It's an opportunity that has to be open to all in the European project. Great. I don't know if you've had time to reflect on your tenure in Marion Street, but Rory's question, there are any particular moments that stand out for you that you feel were particularly significant? I think there are three moments actually that stand out in my tenure today's here. The first one is the set of decisions in relation to the wage subsidy scheme and the pandemic unemployment payment over the space of a number of days. We saw unprecedented change happen in our jobs markets with the potential for even more difficult change about to come at us really quickly. And I was really concerned about the social consequences of that and what that would mean for citizens, for families and really concerned about the ability of our states to deal with that in the way we wouldn't want to deal with us. And I believe the set of decisions that we made regarding putting in place a wage subsidy scheme in particular and the speed with which we did this within a few hours of the legislation passing Shana Darren, Irish companies were being paid that subsidy was a really important decision and deeply important to the ability of our economy to recover. The second moments that would stand out would be a set of meetings that took place in relation to Brexit and particularly difficult times in relation to that process. And they were meetings that were happening about the economic effect of Brexit on our country about getting ready for that economic effect and then how we were dealing with that issue with our colleagues and friends in the UK and making progress and that matter in the inside European Union. And there was a number of weeks and a number of meetings across that period that are ones that will always stand out for me. There's been moments of which we were all facing one hell of a test. And then the final memory will be one that will has percolated its way through my time as Minister for Finance on public expenditure. And I know Rory will perhaps uniquely understand this part of my answer, which is the many, many, many weeks of estimates meetings that happen every year getting ready to do a budget. And there are many moments of those estimates and meetings that are forever to rise a book about in my time as Minister for Finance would provide a number of chapters. But I'm not planning to write a book about any of that because there are moments that I think are best left within colleagues. I was just gonna say, you're a well-known book lover and it would be always political memoirs are valuable in terms of an understanding of what happens, so maybe in the future we could expect from you. But look, many apologies to the huge number of questions where hundreds of people online just there's no way we could get to all the questions in one hour. So apologies to people whose questions I didn't get to. Minister, you give us an hour of your time on behalf of the Institute, thanks for that. We've had a very interesting session and we very much appreciate your time. Thank you. Thanks Dan, thank you all. Have a good day.