 Good afternoon everyone and welcome to this webinar of the Institute for International and European Affairs in Dublin. We're very happy today to be joined by Judith Varga, the Hungarian Minister for Justice, and Thomas Byrne, the Minister of State for European Affairs in Ireland, who have both been generous enough to take time out from what I'm sure are still busy schedules to take part in this webinar about the rule of law in the European Union, an important and topical theme. The event is part of the IAEA's Global Europe programme of webinars and research and it's supported by the Irish Department of Foreign Affairs. I'd also like to give a special welcome and thank you to the Hungarian ambassador to Ireland, His Excellency, Mr Isfan Mano, for helping to facilitate this event. Each minister will address us for about 10 to 15 minutes and we will start with Minister Varga and then we'll move on to a moderated discussion between the two ministers and finally finish up with some questions and answers from our audience. You'll be able to join the discussion via the Q&A function on Zoom, which should be on your screens. Feel free to send in your discussions throughout the session as they occur to you and we will come to them, or as many of them as we can, once the ministers have concluded their open remarks and their discussion. All of today's presentations and the Q&A afterwards will be on the record. So you can also join the discussion on Twitter using the handle at IAEA. We're live streaming this afternoon's discussion so a very warm welcome to all of you who are joining via YouTube. Before to our speakers, Judith Varga was appointed Minister of Justice of Hungary in 2019. She was previously Minister of State for EU Relations in the Office of the Prime Minister. Before this, before that she had worked as a political advisor in the European Parliament on environmental public health and food safety issues with the Fidesz Party. She had law at the University of Miskolc and was admitted to the Hungarian Bar in 2009. So with her current portfolio in justice, she is obviously very well versed in the rule of law issues. Thomas Byrne, TD is the Minister of State for European Affairs of Ireland since 2020, and he has served previously as the Fianna Foil Party spokesperson on education. He represents Mead East in the Irish Parliament. He was previously the party spokesperson on public expenditure and reform in the Senate, the Charlotte. And he holds an LLB, a Bachelor of Laws from Trinity College Dublin, and is a qualified solicitor admitted to both the Irish and New York bars. He takes part in the work of the General Affairs Council so it's also pretty well versed in the rule of law issue which has been treated on a number of occasions in that forum. So we look forward to the minister's presentations and above all to their discussion. Our time is limited given the broad scope of the rule of law topic, and the amount of material, which is to hand already. We have a real dialogue and interchange and with some attention to specifics. The European Union does have some issues in the rule of law area. We hope that today's work can get to grips with those issues and be a useful part of the wider overall rule of law procedure. Minister Varga, welcome to the IIA, even if only virtually. The floor is now yours. Good morning, your minister, your ambassador, your Excellency, and your participants of this webinar. I'm at most honored to take part in this panel discussion of your prestigious institution. Of course, I wish I would be there personally, physically, and we could have a lively discussion in person. Although we all enjoy the digital age and all the improvements of the technology that makes it possible to have a fruitful conversation. Since the topic of rule of law has been my topic since my appointment in the Hungarian administration in 2018, I was happy to accept your invitation. But in my introductory speech, let me also give a hint on our views on the future of Europe debate and also the general setting where Europe finds its now, according to my opinion. To have a leverage intonation, let's say that set off from the shores of peace. Europe is a ship on travel voters today. But if you look back the past 15 years, we think that we have the impression as if a constant crisis would be on Europe. In 2008, we had the global economic crisis, then we had Euro crisis, we got migration and now the COVID-19 crisis. So Europe is in a constant crisis management situation. And we can say that an economic crisis has weakened in a way us and the migration crisis unfortunately divided us and then came Brexit, which actually led the genie out of the battle. And it has also shown that people have real concerns. And if these citizens' concerns are left unaddressed, unanswered, they will feel disillusioned about the European project. So it was a lesson which must be learned and make use of this listen for the sake of the future of Europe dialogue. We think, I can say that the general Hungarian position on the European project is based on the strong EU, based on strong member states. Unfortunately, during the past decade, we have seen that Europe has sort of lagged the strategic thinking and then faced these major challenges which I just listed earlier, the migration challenge, the COVID-19 challenge or any external challenge. And therefore, choose a reactive approach instead of actively shaping the global political area. So this is where we could learn and instead of finding reasons to divide our lines and digging gaps between member states, we should focus on those issues which connect us, which unite us for the sake of the fruitful project and for the success of the European communities on a global field. And the strength of Europe and the overall position in the international scene is directly defined by its relation towards the member states. It's a strong and effective Europe that is capable to assume the position of global leadership, which it is predestined for based on its economic and political power. Because if we see how strong we are, how much know-how do we have, how in many fields like climate change, just to mention all of our industry 4.0, we can lead the world. But we will only be to step into that role to preserve this global leadership if the internal conflicts are settled. And here I'm now approaching the rule of law issue because this is one of the reasons or one of the issues which are partially dividing politically the member states nowadays. I think the high time of this divide was last year's negotiations on the MMF and the RF negotiations to adopt the recovery package and the EU budget. And I think this historic agreement which was made finally with the help of the very pragmatic German presidency should also show the way forward. And we expect now the Portuguese presidency to implement that agreement which clearly states that no link can be made between budgetary resources and political and ideological expectations from certain political wings of the European political field. And one sentence about our economic policy position in the European Union which is clearly linked to the whole rule of law, ideological debate is that they always fought for the united in diversity to become a reality in the in the everyday life of the world. It means that national policies, national ideas and solutions should be as legitimate when forming European policies when those policies which are coming from Brussels. So here, we must remain free for example to choose the best fitting policy models for our unique social policy models, the economic structure, or, for example, when when we try to tackle the the historic challenge of migration because there is no or size fits all, we must focus on coordination or efforts by fully respecting our national traditions, our constitutional establishments, which are all in each and every member state, a result of a long history developed man. So we think that the culture of consensus should remain the leading political principle. We see that there are certain attempts to have so called to speed Europe where those who don't want to find or seek for consensus, because they think this is just a waste of time we think this is the this is the preservation of the unity and and the values of the EU. We, we would like to preserve the status quo. So that framework of culture consensus, the common or the shared or the national competencies framework which we joined in 2004. And whenever Hungary is criticized for being stubborn in certain political fields with migration, for example, or family policy or social policy, we would like just to ask to stick to the treaty framework and preserve those legal provisions which define which matters belong to common and shared competencies is which better should remain in the national governments and in the citizens of each country's hands. So here, I think we are facing a very interesting and long lasting debate on the future of the EU conferences, which I'm so sorry to see delayed because of the COVID pandemic, because conferences are usually implemented through physical presence. In Hungary, the Justice Minister, we already organized two conferences with the participation of Madame Schweitzer, who is the commissioner in charge. So, I think these will be the crucial issues and not very, very short in short about full of in general because I'm sure I will receive many questions about that. So I just saved some sentences for for the Q&A or for the discussion. Of course, the principle of rule of law is a basic value, no one ever questioned that. And, and my country is also firmly committed to the respect for the rule of law, not to mention that 30 years ago, our social or societies had to fight for the rule of law, so that it prevails when we were governing a country when the state functions after the regime change, it was a real achievement of this revolution, let's say, thanks God without any blood in 89 when Hungary just got rid of the communist chains and the iron curtain fell in Central Europe. So our fundamental law and the state structure of the country, or Hungary are all based on the rule of law. I often say it is like water and air for us, no question, it is this and it is everywhere, prevailing in the, in the operation of the country. And it is also a constitutional heritage of all member states. And there is no general definition to the rule of law, that's why I, I prepared with the Venice Commission quotation because our critics often say that there is a rule of law checklist by the Venice Commission. That's why I'm saying that there's no definition. And I'm saying it as a lawyer, and as a minister who listens to the professors opinion who are unitedly saying that a rule of law is, is a concept. There is a very important traditional and historic element because in each and every country we have a different path of development where we got to the actual status of all democratic establishments and the special functioning of the rule of law in each member states. And I'll give you an example that our countries where for example the, the jurisdiction is belonging to the Justice Ministry, but in some countries they are fully independent even in the, in the administration and budgetary questions for example in Hungary, we opted for, especially after the lessons learned to the fully independent model where there are self governing bodies of the judges who are deciding on their own issues and that is just a dialogue between other branches of the distribution of the powers. So the Venice Commission says that the checklist of the rule of law is neither exhaustive nor final. It aims to cover the core elements of the rule of law. And the checklist could change over time and be developed to cover other aspects, or to go into further detail. New issues might arise that will require its revision. So it also states that we have to be in dialogue. We need to have proper, honest and bona fide information about each other, so that we can have a comparative analysis. And we can share best practices, we can recommend good models which proved over time to function well, but in any event can we divide member states in two groups, those who are the good guys and those who are the bad guys. Because this tendency has been evolved over time. My final sentence is that we all know that the Magna Carta, which is one fundament of European rule of law history in 1215 comes from the Redbuthan. So it was made in 1215, so 1215, the Hungarian Magna Carta. I don't know whether you know, but it was, it is dated 1222, so just seven years after the British Magna Carta, we had the same document, the same deed to make the foundations of rule of law to function in central Europe. It is called the Golden Deed, and I would be happy to show it to you in person when you come to Estago one day. So thank you very much for your attention. Thank you very much, Minister and thank you for setting your views in the wider context of the future of Europe. You've made a number of very far reaching remarks, I think some of them we will want to pursue in the dialogue after I give the floor now to Minister of State Thomas Byrd. Thank you, Peter, and thank you for the Institute for the invitation to join this event today and indeed for the work you've done and bring us together in these difficult times and on a regular basis on on different issues and really commend the Institute for doing that. And the amount of people are going to participate on these events online is significantly greater than if we had if we've been able to do them in person. I want to thank Judith, Minister Varga for joining us and for outlining her position pandemic has given us all serious challenges. And obviously the reduction in the in person frequency of engagement is is is not as serious as some of the challenges we face, but it's still important particularly in diplomacy. So I'm thankful for the opportunity today to have an in depth conversation online. I hope in the not too distant future we can invite Judith to Ireland in person again. And I want to make clear, first of all, despite differences of approach on this issue and significant differences. We do have strong bilateral relations with Hungary. There are about 10,000 Hungarians living in Ireland and they make a very valuable contribution to our society our culture and economy and indeed our links go back many, many centuries. We're growing trade link nowadays between our two countries which are embassies and state agencies doing much to improve. So in the context of shared EU membership in the post covert 19 recovery and post Brexit I'm sure there are many areas where we can build on a relationship going forward. So in the world of rapid fire and divisive arguments and social media it's really important to have space for calm, constructive reason discussion on these issues to build understanding of respective positions. And set out what we believe to be the path forward. The rule of law is at the heart of the European Union's functioning. And there's obviously the center of current debate in the in the European Union and indeed beyond. I look forward hearing from those online. And I appreciate people taking the time to join in the engagement. Our understanding of the rule of law is, and we heard this from Minister Vargas sometimes we hear that it's a concept of no agreed definition our understanding is that there is a definable approach to it and it is. It is a concept and that is applicable. It's not a concept so elusive elusive to be impossible to be held accountable to it. We don't believe that the rule of law is a nebulous concept. It's well understood and well defined. And we agree with the definition of the rule of law provided by the European Commission the commission has stated under rule of law. All public powers must act within the constraints of the law in accordance with the values of democracy and fundamental rights and under the control of independent and impartial courts. The commission further highlights some key principles including legality legal certainty, effective judicial protection by independent and partial court separation of powers of course and equality before the law. And the Venice commissioners and Mr Vargas mentioned they've carried out extensive work in defining this rule of law. And this is included the development of the rule of law checklist. There are pillars such as legality legal certainty, prevention of abuse or misuse of powers equality before the law and non discrimination and access to justice. And these are well known and well understood and well litigated concepts as well. So under the rule of law, no one is above the rule of law, the law applies equally and fairly to everybody. No one can be all powerful in such a system. There needs to be checks and balances limits to power and accountability. And the rule of law, not only protects every one of us, but also I firmly believe has been essential to the economic and social progress of Ireland, since our independence. It provides and liberties of individuals and indeed of enterprises. It provides legal protection and space for truly free, open and developing society. So under the rule of law we are safeguarded from the consequences of unchecked power and assured that the broader interests of society are kept to the heart of policymaking. The benefits of the rule of law seem so boundless so obvious that sometimes it can be difficult to imagine a world where we would still need to argue for them. It is difficult to think that we would need to argue for something as simple as limits and powers. I assume we are agreed on that. We must continue to actively defend the rule of law in Ireland, the European Union and globally. And even when we think that argument has been one we must continue to promote and protect the rule of law. And I think as Minister Varga has said maybe in her criticism of an approach to this that it's not it certainly isn't a permanent stage of being being gains have been made and can be lost society changes and develops. Losses in relation to the law are often quicker than the gains. But I think one important point to make is that no country is perfect with regard to the rule of law and Ireland is not perfect. We all have areas that need to be improved areas where our systems could be strengthened. There was always work to be done and we've seen that in an extreme example in the United States recently and where the rule of law was temporarily overcome. But I think that they have shown that they need to do work and it's difficult work when you need to amend constitutions. But our program for government highlighted our support for the European Union's values of cooperation, peace, democracy, human rights and the rule of law. The program for government states that we will strongly advocate for democracy and democratic values and the rule of law. They're not new commitments. I mean, they're commitments that the founders of our state adhere to very strictly and indeed the when the Fina fall government came in in the 30s and teach. Amy de Valera at that time stuck rigidly and throughout terms of office to the rule of law respected and the judiciary police force in very, very difficult and challenging times for our country. And wrote our constitution was enacted by the people in the late 1930s at a very, very difficult time in Europe for the rule of law. And I think that that has those actions of the various founders of our state have led to enormous social and economic progress, because you could always depend on equality before the law and on the respect for the rule of law and for the authorities. But that developed as time went on and our understanding of what equality meant developed as time went on and our understanding of the rule of law developed to the benefit of our citizens and our society. So article two of the Treaty of the European Union states that the Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minority groups. So in Ireland, these values were given the support of the Irish people directly through referendums. And that derives from our constitution so article 29 of the constitution 29 for the Constitution provides that Ireland affirms its commitment to the European Union within which the member states that union work together to promote peace shared values and the well being of their peoples. And this is a fundamental article in our constitution, allowing us to be members of the European Union. And that is the basis of our membership for the European Union peace shared values and the well being of our all of our peoples. And that is why Ireland has firmly supported the rule of law as a core value of the European Union will continue to do so. And respect for the rule of law is is also vital for the credibility and functioning of our union. The rule of law is the cornerstone supporting mutual trust between member states, which is vital for the functioning of the European Union, not only from the point of view of peace and democracy and respect for rights, but also for the functioning of our single market and our economic problems. It is therefore very important, we believe for the European Union to have necessary tools to monitor the rule law across every member state and effectively respond to challenges as and where they arise. In particular, the Commission, which is the guardian of the treaties has an important role to play in monitoring and enforcing the rule of law. When the Commission seeks to hold member states accountable to the promises they have made, this is not overreach or mission creep this is the Commission's role and function, and we support it fully. We support the Commission in this role, even when it may not suit Ireland, and even in those cases what Ireland is challenged by the Commission. So, based on our support of the Commission's role, we welcome the publication last September of the first annual rule of law report by the European Commission. The report offers a comprehensive overview of the state of the rule law across the European Union with specific chapters in every member state. We believe the Commission did tremendous work last year and delivering this report in spite of COVID-19, which demonstrated a real appreciation of the importance of the rule of law in every member state. In Ireland, we actively engaged with the European Commission preparation of the report, not in a defensive way, but in a cooperative way, knowing that the work we would all do together would be to mutual benefit. We were fairly consulted, and we welcomed the independent and impartial review of the rule of law in Ireland. And like every member state, we're always open to criticism. And again, I'm hoping in the near future to have a debate in Parliament on the rule of law. And that will be on the Commission's report, I hope, so that every country, and we may well be criticised by members of our own Parliament in terms of what the Commission has said about us, or maybe issues relating to other countries, but we certainly have no hesitation or difficulty in looking into whatever issues are there in our own country. So examples of areas that the Commission considers to be of concern in Ireland, and they have been difficult issues at times. The number of judges in Ireland in comparison to the European Union average rules on state advertising and media, and these are issues that have come up from time to time as political controversies and they need to be an best under the program. Criticism may sometimes be difficult to hear for all of us, but it is important that the Council of the European Union has an objective basis in which to conduct its dialogue on the rule of law across the member states. The Commission is best placed to provide that objective basis. And we believe, in fact, and traditionally, the Commission, as a small member state, we've seen the Commission as a great protector, and not just only of small member states, but of the Union as a whole and the interests of the European Union as a whole, which is where we get our, I suppose, power influence and access to prosperity in the single market. So we're going to continue to cooperate with the Commission and contribute to their annual iterations of the reports, and that's going to happen again, I think, very, very soon. We accept monitoring of the rule of law is not enough. As a Union, we need to be able to respond appropriately to challenges as they arise. We already have infringement procedures whereby member states can be challenged before the Court of Justice. These procedures are fundamentally very important to hold us all and every member state to account. We've been open also to new initiatives to respond to challenges to the rule of law. We're also open to persuading our friends in the other member states of when particular issues arise as to what we believe their direction should be and to take to listen to what their friends and colleagues in other member states may be saying. Ireland has strongly supported also the introduction of a strong and effective rule of law mechanism to protect our budget. And that is something as a net contributor to the European Union budget over the next few years. There's something that citizens in this country are very demanding of. So Ireland fully supported and fully wanted the best possible economic response to the COVID crisis to ensure that other countries wouldn't get left behind. And we wouldn't get left behind because we realize the importance of the whole benefits each and every member state. So when the whole does well or when parts of the European Union are do can do well through stimulus to the recovery fund. Ireland benefits as well notwithstanding the fact that we are a net contributor. So the agreement reached in this last in December is a very important step to ensure that the Union can respond more effectively to internal challenges to values we've all accepted as member states. It's not a perfect mechanism, but it does for the first time bring that rule of law conditionality into our budget. So once it is introduced, Ireland would support fair, proportionate, non-political and effective implementation of it. So there's other tools at its disposal such as Article 7, which I know that that's a challenging topic and I'm sure Jesus will have a view on it. But it's important that we can speak openly of it. We fully support the continuation of the Article 7 procedures and we hope the discussions at council level can continue towards a constructive resolution. Between European Union member states there have always been, I'm sure, will be disagreements. There will always be frank and challenging conversations to be had in my short time as minister. I have had those challenging conversations with other member states, but those member states are friends and allies and still it was very strongly, for example, most recently in the context of Brexit, but it is still important to have those challenging conversations. And I think that that is to all of our benefit and I have no doubt that other member states will have things to say to us from time to time. But, and I believe that the internal challenges that we all face can be addressed to dialogue. So today is an important event where we have the opportunity to expand on our positions in detail, better understanding to refuse. This all forms a really important part of the process. I hope to shed some light on our position. I look forward to the questions which I'll endeavor to answer in the best possible way. Thank you. Thank you very much, Minister Bern. And thank you for such an interesting and specific expose of the Irish position. I think if listening to the two ministers, there are points of commonality, but clearly there are points of difference. And I guess the hinge in a way in practical terms is now the handling of the report that Minister Bern has has just spoken about the the rule of law report from last year. The hand that the commission has done its work. It has passed the report to the council and indeed also to to the parliament. And the European Council has done its work at the end of last year and clearing the way for the MFF and the recovery fund, while at the same time coming to a, I think it's fair to say a complex agreement agreed text around the regulation on protecting the financial interests of the of the union. Could I ask each or both of you, how now is the Council Minister Bern you you sit on the General Affairs Council, Minister Varga I'm sure you're involved in the follow up to the report. What is the Council ministers going to handle the bringing the taking forward of the rule of law report. I think you had some discussion in the General Affairs Council last October, but I but if I'm if I'm correct I think there are discussions to take about this seriatim and focusing on various member states is that correct and how do you see the, how does each of you see this process in the Council evolving either minister first. And then I take the floor. Thank you very much. Actually, it is in the hands of the Portuguese presidency to, to direct the agenda. I haven't seen so far the detailed proposals for the next meeting. And from previous projects or previous plans we saw that there will be certain groups of member states who will be analyzed in a semester. So I, I don't know the next list of countries on this scrutiny. We had the first round of this dialogue in October or November. As I, as I remember well that was Belgium and Denmark, Bulgaria on the on the agenda in this review cycle but coming back a bit to the principles, you mentioned that in both pitches, you saw some commonalities and I really like this because I think basically we don't agree in our opinions. I think the only difference is that my country, besides Poland has so far the real and pure experience, how in practice those rule of law procedures are working. I have the real experience how political this tool can become because there is no doubt that I fully agree with all what Minister Bern has just said that rule of law is having those elements, which are one of our greatest values to preserve and peace democracy freedom, human dignity, non discrimination, the full functioning of the state, legal protection, equality before law, these are all accepted and well known elements of the rule of law concept. So what I'm, I'm talking about when I'm saying that it should not be used for political or ideological blackmailing, then we actually end up with our differences because it is so far hungry and Poland who suffered from those political procedures under the cover of full of law. But what we see whenever we engage in dialogue and in writing or orally, we refute all the arguments and explain why are legal methods or or establishments in our nations, functions, so and so. There is no real answer no real dialogue there is only a statement that there is something wrong with you but no real explanation to it so when we come to the detailed discussion we see that whenever we have a have a political difference in positions, especially in migration. We are not talking about legal issues we are talking about different concepts about the future of Europe we don't think that the continent should get rid of its. origins, let's say, why it became the best place of the world, and it should be kept for member states to decide with whom they want to live with, and whenever we have a legal issue with the migration. For example, we have infringement cases, but at the end of the day there is a real difference that we don't want to make Europe an immigrant continent, and this is a difference of political opinion, this is another, this is not the issue at the end of the day, the same. So what we think about the concept of the family, what we think about the role of religion, what we think about national identity. So, these are all different concepts how power country can and should function and democracy is one of the core values of course of the European Union it is also provision in article two of the treaties and democracy is a very important value, it means that citizens should decide on their governments and decisions should decide on their political directions for a certain period, according to the rules of democracy, this should also be respected so if there is a different choice in politics, then it should not be actually in the name of rule of debate, to blackmail to change these positions and unfortunately we are realizing this, and this is actually the meeting point of two different world aspects. There are the progressives, and there are those who are preserving the status quo, and it does not mean that the majority opinion should not respect the minority opinions so far in Europe, mostly the leftist liberal progressive thinking prevails if you look at the government if you look at the landscape in Europe. So these are the majority of the governments, mostly liberal progressive ideas, but still in some countries we have conservative, we have non liberal ideologies, and this is just a minority opinion so far but still a legitimate opinion. And we still believe that we can fight for certain values to protect, to preserve, and this is where all those debates are arising. So, unfortunately, the commission's rule of law report, which we actually said that it is invalid because there is no treaty basis for the commission to prevail in this rule of law dialogue because it is the member states intergovernmental issue where the mutual respect can be preserved. That's why in our views the rule of law report and review cycle is not a legitimate tool in the hands of the commission. Unfortunately, we see that it is using double standards. It was a mere proof in the September report. I'd like to give Minister Byrne some chance to address the same question if you may, if you like. Thank you. Mr Byrne, I'm taking forward of the handling of it, but also the fear of the apprehension that the agreement reached in December may turn out to lead to an unpassed in the sense that the regulation in all likelihood will be sent to the Court of Justice of the European Union. Yeah, and none of this is easy, but I think we've come really to the fundamental difference of approach in terms of what the European Union is doing. We don't see it as political. We see it as absolutely essential, so we don't see the political bias. I would have to say, though, in terms of the discussion at the council, that's difficult, 27 member states, we're taking them in turns, we would be discussed in April and we'll have to listen to criticisms, maybe due to some criticisms of Ireland, I don't know, but we'll have to listen to them and take them on board. I think that's where that's that's that is very useful, actually, but it is difficult sitting around a table and I'm trying to, in the limited time that's available, particularly online to discuss these issues. I think what is important is that we follow what the council, I think, and the Commission wants to do is have debates in national parliaments. I think that would be important too, because we can give it maybe a greater airing to the issues there and remind us what the issues are. I don't see this issue, though, as a debate between progressives and the right. I mean, political opinion. The whole point of the rule of law is that political opinion can exist within it. All shades of political opinion can exist within it, provided that we stick to the values of democracy in particular, and respect for the courts and free media. And for those independent thinking to thrive and for society to change and develop, and for all points of views to be respected and that needs to happen. So I don't see this as this rule of law debate is not. It's a debate for the fundamental values of the Union and for the fundamental values of our society, not a debate about particular political viewpoints. And those particular viewpoints and the whole range of them can within the law, can survive, can thrive, can promote themselves, and then it's up to the people themselves whether they want to accept those particular viewpoints and we've had lots of examples of of that in Ireland. And they that changes and develops and certainly some conservatives don't like that but they're in our system, they're absolutely free to put their own points of view stand for election and to have judges rule on issues, not in accordance with what might be a political outcome, but in accordance with what what the law says. And I think that's that's where we make that's where we make the difference is we do not see this as political thing we have been. We've worked very, very closely with with Hungary and Poland I think their leaders have shown themselves very capable of working very closely with European colleagues and the Commission for the benefit of citizens that's absolutely you know there's no data but that we do work well on many issues. And on this there was a difference of opinion and they've been set out and fundamentally by the Commission but I would also say this and I keep coming back at this point and I say this to our, our friends and other in other countries as well. You know if there's any doubt about the rule of law in your country, any doubt about adherence to basic values and I think the very fact that there's a doubt there with the outside world means that you must respond. Otherwise you'll do damage to your image and that affects your ability to do business your ability to trade. And that's that's not what we should be about so if anyone criticizes us. In terms of our fundamental values in terms of how we operate our court system we will take those criticisms very very seriously indeed because we as a small open trading economy depend on companies who want to come to trade first of all trade with us and maybe set up business here but they depend on legal certainty, they depend on an independent court system, and that's a we strive for achieve. And so I think it's not just for this societal benefit for the benefit of the people was very much in our economic interest as well. Thank you very much. Well, look, I think you helped each of you to set out. I'm afraid rather differing positions now on the specific issue of following up the report on the rule of law in the general affairs council because one of one of the fields that the report is invalid and illegitimate I really wish the general affairs council and its participants, the best of luck and effort in in carrying forward the work in in the months that remain. I think we have to turn at this point is made to give the audience some chance to input their questions. Mr Varga, you won't be surprised to hear that quite a few of the questions are specifically for yourself. Perhaps you wouldn't mind given the time that we, the limited time that we have, if I group three of them together with that be all right. This is from a writer for political lily bear, asking about the Hungarian governments. She says refusal to implement rulings from the court of justice of the EU. The second question is from the Financial Times Valerie Hopkins, asks about your attention's minister to submit a bill to regulate the domestic operations of large tech companies and social and that social media sites limit the visibility currently obviously of Christian conservative right wing opinion. So the question is, do you plan to implement a penalty fine for social media sites that remove a block posts which are not illegal, similar to an act proposed in Poland. The third question for you is, is more historical if you like in the sense that the Central European University is no longer or has left. I think that's the last for for Vienna I think. Why, why is this taking place. Was it a case of intimidation towards that university and indeed towards the Hungarian Academy of Sciences so some tough questions for you there minister. Thank you very much. I know the journalist. I'd like to read them from here. So I will start from, from the final question. The University has made its own choice to leave the country no one has actually forced the institution to leave the country. And let me say that the very legal provision, which was questioned by see you and we had the improvement procedure where we are now in a phase of implementing the call decision made to criteria to conditions obligatory for those universities coming from a certain country of origin like in the US or from Indonesia so outside of the new that they have to have an international agreement and military agreement with the state of origin and with the state of Hungary. And the second criteria was to have a real effective educational activity in the country of origin. If you check the Bavarian law, for example, it has the same two conditionality for a third country university to establish a degree in European, so in a Bavarian state. So this is a legal issue here we are in a dialogue with the Commission services as always. So, what I say that there were outside of the Center even European University, other academic institutions and universities in the same legal situation and they all complied with the law. So, right from the beginning it was on the center European University which made politics and political debate out this out of this two legal provisions. I know little buyer, she's a constant critic of Hungary in the political I wish I could have the same volume of articles every day for the Hungarian position in the political as much she has every week so the mantra against my country is mostly coming from, from linear buyer but I'm fighting hard to get into political at least three times a year. I'm often refused because I just wanted during the rule of law dialogue for this veto situation last November and December to appear with an article with an op-ed and I was rejected by the political because I was already that year twice in the political so this is about the equality of tools. But I would like to correct lily buyer, and I would like to ask her to, to present this propelling in every article of Hungary has always in every and each case fully complied with all European Court of Justice judgments, unlike other countries that are countries who, instead of actually complying with the judgment they are paying the fines not complying so I would like to make it clear from a very, very important legal perspective that Hungary is always complying with every court of court of justice judgments so we never refused to comply to comply with the judgment. This is an ongoing well established dialogue with the commission services in each and every legal differences what we had in the past we always got to compromise common solution. This is up to the commission legal services and the Hungarian Justice Ministry. So I just would like to correct it very harshly in the press. Hungary has always fulfilled the judgments unlike other countries. This is, this is fact. To Valerie. How are you. It's nice to hear from you about the social media. Yeah, I would also like to make and ask you for the correct interpretation of my words, no one is talking about any kind of social, what I'm always talking about is to check whether the rule of law principle is still valid in the online world. Whether the tech giants are also operating in a transparent and fair way. It's not only Poland who was thinking about any kind of legal proposal. It's actually France, Germany, the European Union so it's happening everywhere that the seemingly arbitrary censorship exercise by the tech giants must be somehow looked at, because this is an issue for a wide range of the society. So it's not only a question of the freedom of the speech but also an economic question because many, many economic actors nowadays are building up their businesses in the online sector. They are actually shut down for two days. It's a big economic loss for them. So it's a very complex issue. And I just would like to ask Valerie as well in the financial times to have a very correct interpretation of the of the bill or the projects. I'm checking how these state giants are operating, whether it is transparent enough, the same objective is there with the commission, and I never thought that on certain matters I will agree with Commissioner Europe. But for in the first year, so things it's, she has concerns about the non transparent operations of the tech giants. So this is, this is all about the rule of law transparency, fair treatment, fair trial. So these are, I think, common values. I have a question from Professor Roland McCray at University College London, asking Minister Minister Varga to respond to detailed criticisms of the Venice Commission on the question of judicial independence in Hungary, but could I bring some balance perhaps to the discussion. Could I ask Minister Byrne first perhaps to comment on the situation in Ireland currently where we've pointed I think a judicial council but I'm not sure if it's up and running yet minister. Yeah, and that comes under the setting of my colleague, the Minister for Justice and clearly we have a program for government commitment to make sure that the this, this is upheld and that we have an independent judicial council. It's not yet fully operational, but this whole issue again has been of some considerable controversy within Ireland, but I think it's fair to say that no government has taken a, a defensive approach to it. And I think everybody has tried and this is what I would urge our Hungarian colleagues to do, is to try to look at what is in the best interests of our country, the rule of law and our citizens within the country but also as well to ensure that people outside the country can look at us, and I guess that's a country that we want to interact with we want to do business with. It is applying to international standards and, you know, the, for example, the Commission identified maybe a reduced number of judges in Ireland compared to other countries. And that's something that we'd have to, we'd have to take cognizance of and deal with, but what I would say time and time again is not in a defensive way, and or in a way that denies it as a problem but in a way that says right how can we address this because many countries can be addressed relatively easily. And sometimes we agree on common issues, or disagree fundamentally with Judith on the issue of, on a point that I think she's made on tech companies which that maybe right wing thought isn't promoted there. I mean, I think the evidence certainly in the States is the opposite. In fact, that right wing thought seems to be some of the most popular posts in Facebook, particularly in the last six months. I don't know what the situation is like in Hungary, but we all have concerns about tech companies and, you know, particularly in a safe fundamental issues of violence or bullying, for example, and they are they are certainly taking measures and there's always more can be done by actually I think on the tech companies that should be done really at a super national level rather than individually. Thanks minister. Mr Vargas, if you would like to respond to the question about the Venice Commission's views on judicial dependence. And I think also, if I'm not mistaken, there was a CJU case in relation to the judges retirement as well. The judges are ready not to get the word that the retirement of the judges back in 2000. I forget 2012 13 perhaps the question was specifically aimed at the Venice Commission's views on judicial. Actually, I cannot detect the, the special case because Hungary is in in a constant dialogue with the Council of you, and of course with the Venice Commission, and maybe the professor is referring to our discussions and dialogue, which are dating back to 2012 13 and 14 we made the judicial reform and also the media reform. And through a constant constitutional dialogue, we were fully harmonized with also with the opinion of the Venice Commission, they all go hand in hand with European Court of Justice issues and Venice Commission opinion. We are always engaged in this, in this dialogue, and we were fully complying and we got the stamp from the Venice Commission so there are declarations. That's why we sometimes don't understand why in 2020, or 21 we still have to talk about judicial independence when our system was approved by the Venice Commission, seven, eight years ago. So, this is also going against the very legal principle that next we see them so when there is, there was already a decision by the court that you are okay then why to open up always the cases and the Hungarian courts as I mentioned in my introductory speech are one of the most independent models in in Europe, because in many countries, for example, in Germany, Austria, the Justice Ministry so the executive has a certain influence and connection and link, constitutional link with the jurisdiction here in Hungary we have no actually no any constitutional any practical nothing because it was especially after communist times was designed in a completely fully independent faith because this was the only guarantee to get rid of also the older models of communism. So, here, but if the professor has any specific question, he or she can actually directly address us and I'm happy to answer. Thank you. Thank you. We've practically run out of time but I have a good question that is directed to Minister Byrne but I think both ministers could, but very briefly to respect our time limits. I have an answer and it is this from Shona Murray of your own use. It's actually to Minister Byrne, but as I say both could answer. Are you not concerned minister that the violations of EU values principles and rules of law by hungry although question more general that the problem of there being violations of the rule of law within the European Union, seriously damage the EU and its standing internationally and its credibility as an interlocutor on rule of law issues or widely. I don't believe that it damages the EU as a body internationally. I think certainly if we were to ignore it and not deal with it. I think it certainly would. And I think certainly countries who are on the wrong side of rule of law issues are certainly damaging their perception of them internationally and that is very damaging to those countries but I think the agreement of the European Council in December and perfect as it is, is a major step forward. And we now do have conditionality in the European budget as I say it's not perfect it's imperfect but you know we have to deal with the circumstances that we have and the procedural rules that we have in terms of how these things were adopted particularly European Council. And so I actually think the opposite to what Shona says is that the fact that this is taken so seriously that the, you know, this is a major part of the discussion on the budget at the European Council and there's a major result out of it I think actually stands to the European Union's credit. And I think that we do see problems with the rule of law across the world. And what I think the fact is that the European Union is actually quite frankly doing something about it. And that is in contrast to other states and we'll see what happens particularly in the United States where there certainly was it. I mean obviously there was an invasion of the Capitol building that has the Parliament of America. And that's a serious violation of the rule of law. And they will have to take action in relation to that. And we'll see but this is a problem the world over. We will not thrive, we will not survive, unless we're governed by the rule of law. Yeah, well, Mr Varga you will have the final word. What do you think about the standing of the EU and it's, it's mission under the under the treaty I think it's the second or the third article if I'm not mistaken to promote its values in the wider in its wider international relations. Do you see any difficulty for that task from the debates that we're just talking about, and also indeed from what Minister Byrne has referred to the changes that are that are taking place in the international order not least at the moment in the United States. So that's a very wide question as the final requires more than a final answer I guess requires another conference for discussion. I'm afraid. And of course, as a journalist, a question included that we are a community of values, of course we are a community of values so those who want to join me, they have to share these values. I think this is this is evident. But I usually say in the important policy that we are mostly collecting friends not enemies, this is the principle of foreign policy so the cooperation and the mutual respect has to prevail as well instead of lecturing countries or lecturing the world, I think this is this is very important international policy to be respectful towards everyone and have a straight strive for dialogue and mutual cooperation and compromise and understanding. Let me just come back to the question of the user news or European voice I'm sorry I made a mistake and but at least the presumption of innocence should prevail, especially when journalists are usually defining the rule of the situation in member states I used to live in Brussels for nine years and every morning I opened up the daily news. The hunger bashing was pouring from the articles. So I think in a perfect word, especially a perfect word ruled by rule of law. It should not be the media who decides who is a good country and who is not a good country it should be independent courts, or international forum, like the Venice Commission decides on who is right on the path of towards rule of law So, Thomas just said that it has a very pragmatic aspect how rule of law functions in a country and I fully fully agree with him. The economic factor, not only the social not only the legal factor. Investors are coming to country how they feel safe when it comes to the investments, and I can happily tell you that foreign companies are happily living and investing in safe environment in Hungary. This is a very, very active environment now, especially Central Europe is having a very, very good dynamic today. So I often tell to my critics, please come to Hungary, please settle down, pay your taxes for at least 10 years, and know your children in our schools and families, and you will enjoy living with us, because this is who we are and sometimes we are bluntly honest, and having a very firm position on certain European issues but in any case, we are very pro-European country, and we are doing not something different but every other country protecting our interest in cooperating with others. So this is my final. Thank you very much Minister. Well, just in wrapping up, I'll just repeat the three words that you opened with respectful dialogue and cooperation because we've managed today a very productive, I think a productive discussion on what is a tricky sensitive neuralgic even topic. And for that I want to thank both of our ministerial participants in particular. I want to thank of course our IEA production team who have brought it all together, the Hungarian ambassador for facilitating the event, and indeed our audience for their participation and for their questions. Thank you all very much indeed. I'm looking forward to the next IEA event on this global European topic. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much.