Mr. Didier Reynders:

First, I do not want to repeat what I have said about the judicial appointments. I know there are different cultures in the different member states, but we must be in full compliance with the standards on which we have agreed, not only in the EU but in the Council of Europe. There are many difficult discussions about the way forward for the judicial appointments. A consultation of the Venice Commission is always very interesting. We took note of some improvement. Now we are sure that there are some discussions about the composition of the Commission able to propose some candidates.

About the EU financial interest, I am thankful for the intention to go forward with the approval of the transposition of the PIF directive because that is the goal.

I will respond to the Deputy's different questions. First, of course I will say that I am quite satisfied about the four pillars due to the fact that we have received a very positive reaction in all the member states. The Deputy mentioned four member states, but I want to insist that in all the member states we have had very good co-operation in the preparation of the report to the end, in the last check of the facts in the final document that we provided to member states. Of course, the report is the assessment of the Commission. It is not a joint assessment between the governments and the Commission. We are working on a very solid methodology. That is very clear. We have discussed the methodology with the contact person of the 27 member states and we want to continue to work on the same methodology, on the same four pillars.

However, I wish to add three elements with regard to what the Deputy said. First, there are other instruments. This year we will have a report on the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. If we discuss minority rights or different other fundamental rights issues, it will be possible to assess that in the report on the charter for fundamental rights. It is a separate issue with regard to the rule of law report. We will have more discussions about the European democracy action plan and about democracy. It is also a specific process. At the end, we have a discussion on all the elements of Article 2 of the treaty - the rule of law, democracy and the fundamental rights. However, in the rule of law report, to be honest, the first proposal in my mind, not that of the entire college, was to discuss the justice system first. If there is a rule of law system, the most important element is to be able to go to an independent, qualified and efficient judge to seek a correct application of the law. If one is organised by the law, that is the most important element. We have added the corruption framework, the anti-corruption framework, the media freedom and the checks and balances. Again, it is possible to discuss other issues. We have received a positive reaction from all the member states, with some action plans and some reforms to try to improve the situation. I will go back to that. We have had, as well, some usual suspects with more hesitation to having a positive reaction on what we brought.

As to the non-compliance, it is not by coincidence that we have two Article 7 procedures at present, regarding Poland on the request of the Commission and Hungary on the request of the European Parliament. Again, we will try to use all the tools at our disposal to have full compliance in all member states with the rule of law. The report is a dialogue, and it is a well-performing instrument with many member states. In the second report, we will explain the response from the member states and what is possible to see as an improvement due to the real dialogue that we have with the member states.

Of course, we are going further and forward with the infringement proceedings under Article 7. As the Deputy said, Article 7 is a difficult mechanism due to the majority rules, qualified majority or unanimity at the end to take a decision. It is true that we need to improve the situation. It is the reason we now have the conditionality. There is not only the work of referral, it is a conditionality with the MFF and the next generation EU, so the entire budget from the beginning of this year. The new regulation is in force since 1 January, so we will check the situation in all the member states from 1 January. We have said that we will provide some guidelines about the way to organise the process. Certainly, it is an important part of the guidelines to protect the final beneficiaries. If we want to suspend or to stop the funding of some policies, it is not to organise stopping the financing of, for example, all the farmers in the agricultural policy or the NGOs involved in the protection of the rule of law. It is nonsense to do that. We need to see how it is possible to protect the final beneficiaries - not all if there are problems, but the majority of the final beneficiaries.

However, the Deputy is right. It is possible to think about another kind of majority. The majority rules are an important element. We are coming from unanimity to qualified majority in many policies. Also, on the conditionality now, it will be possible for the Council or on the proposal of the Commission to decide on qualified majority. In the first proposal of the Commission in 2018, we tried to work with the reverse qualified majority, like in the macroeconomic surveillance. Perhaps, as the Deputy said, in the conference on the future of Europe it will be possible to discuss again what kind of majority rules in some fields, not only qualified majority but maybe reverse qualified majority, simple majority or absolute majority if it is possible in some fields. However, it is a very sensitive issue in all member states. In the minds of many people it is a transfer of sovereignty to the European Union when one changes the majority rules. It is true that we need to be more efficient about the verification of the rule of law.

I want to insist on the conditionalities of the new instrument. We will have, perhaps, a decision of the Court of Justice about that on the request of Poland or Hungary in the near future, but it is already possible to stop some funding of different policies. The Deputy mentioned LGBTI+ free zones in Poland. It was decided by a European agency to stop the funding of some twinnings between those municipalities and other European municipalities due to the decision to have such a free zone. It is nonsense to have that. It is real discrimination. On the basis of the charter for fundamental rights, we already have the possibility of suspending funding in a specific case. The town twinning last year was a real issue when those municipalities in Poland decided to organise free zones.

The Deputy referred to multi-speed or different formats at European level. This is not new. The Deputy knows that some member states take part in Schengen and some non-member states are members of Schengen, but not all the member states are in Schengen. It is the same for the eurozone. Of course, there is an evolution to have more members of the eurozone, but there is also some possible opting out. There are some member states out of the eurozone. It is the same, as I said, with regard to the EPPO. We have 22 participating member states. However, I am not sure it is a good idea to work with multi-speed. It may be possible to take some member states together in some policies, not in all if it is not the real intention for all the member states. At the end, the goal must be to have real integration.

Again, in the discussions on the future of Europe, to conclude on the Deputy's remarks, it will be important to think, and it is a personal idea, about how it will be possible to take new members on board the European Union. The Deputy knows that we have some discussions with candidates, such as in the Western Balkans. Is it possible to do that for some policies, not maybe a majority for all? Again, it is not new. We already have that for Schengen, the eurozone and for some instruments such as the EPPO. I know that when we are discussing freedom and security it is about opting out for some member states. The Deputy knows that better than me. Again, it is a possibility to discuss.

I thank for the Deputy for his remarks. Part of those remarks were dedicated to the future of the institutions and the organisation of the EU. The Irish Parliament can take part in the Conference on the Future of Europe.