Mr. Didier Reynders:

Deputy Ó Murchú described different kind of situations concerning rule of law. Concerning the measures we will take, we will organise the process with the use of all the tools at our disposal. These are in the treaties. Article 7 concerning infringement proceedings and the report of conditionality are more tools. We have had conditionality since 1 January. There were many concerns that it was not evident we had efficient tools in the case of, as the Deputy said, brutal and severe breaches to the rule of law.

We need to continue to improve our instruments and have better possibilities to act. We have had success with some infringement proceedings. We have received positive answers from the European Court of Justice. For example, we continue to go to the court about the independence of the Polish Judiciary. We will continue to do that when necessary. We have asked for interim measures about the disciplinary proceedings against judges in Poland. We continue to organise such a process.

However, it is true that it is very possible for more efficient tools in the future with other kinds of majority rules when we need to decide about Article 7 or conditionality. It is a fresh new instrument and we will analyse the situation in other member states.

The Deputy compared the situation in other member states and Spain. It is an internal constitutional issue with Spain and a discussion between the provinces and the national authority. If I may make a comparison, we did not see any problem in the UK when it was possible between Scotland and London to agree on a consultation with the population. It was organised and then we saw the result which was possible to take into account. One needs to organise that in full compliance with the constitutional rules in the country in question.

Again, in Spain, we have said all the time that it is firstly a constitutional issue. About sanctions against Spain because of some breaches to the different rules, the Deputy is speaking about Spain and criminal legislation. I do not have to insist on the fact that it is a very sensitive national issue. The Deputy knows that because it is one of the reasons there is some opting out in some member states when we discuss criminal issues and when we put into place an institution like the European Public Prosecutor's Office. I know there are differences. We try in different ways to harmonise the situation and to put together some elements of criminal law. For example, we have a list of Euro crimes in which we have proposed to extend the list to hate speech and hate crime. If one does that, then it is possible to harmonise the situation. It is a very sensitive situation in many member states. We need to take into account the situation there.

On the UK and the possible infringement proceedings, we ask the UK to respect all the commitments taken with the European Union in the past several months. I am thinking first about the respect for the withdrawal agreement. It is key of course. We do not want to have any hesitation if it needs to go to action with relations with the UK. It could be infringement proceedings or the possibility to go to an arbitrator. It is important to continue to insist on the fact that we ask a very clear and correct application of all the agreements between the European Union and the UK.

We have seen in recent days again some discussion about the extension of the grace on food products decided by the UK. Again, we have had a reaction and we are very open to taking action when it is needed. It is important to us to be able to act in the withdrawal agreement, in the trade agreement or maybe tomorrow another kind of agreement. We ask for full respect for what it is signed by the two parties. If we are concerned about that, we will take action.