Resoconto integrale delle discussioni

Mercoledì 18 settembre 2019 - Strasburgo

7. Recesso del Regno Unito dall'UE (discussione)

  Presidente. – L'ordine del giorno reca la discussione sulle dichiarazioni del Consiglio e della Commissione sul recesso del Regno Unito dall'UE (2019/2817(RSP)).

  Tytti Tuppurainen, President-in-Office of the Council. – Mr President, we have once more gathered to discuss the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union. It is an unfortunate situation and many citizens and businesses continue to suffer from the uncertainty caused by Brexit.

In July, the UK got a new government and a new prime minister. Unfortunately, it is increasingly clear that this has not helped to clarify the situation or the UK’s negotiation position. When it comes to the most difficult questions such as the Irish border, the UK has not tabled any new concrete proposals yet. Furthermore, opinions in the parliament in London remain divided. Only the firm rejection of a no-deal Brexit has been able to attract the majority. Still, the UK Government is insisting on its red lines. As the deadline of 31 October is fast approaching, we are faced with more, rather than less, uncertainty.

This rather bleak situation should, however, not distract us from our priority, which remains an orderly withdrawal to put an end to the uncertainty caused by Brexit. I hope that we can still achieve an orderly Brexit. This is why we have asked the UK to put forward concrete details and operational ideas regarding what appears to be the main stumbling block, namely how to ensure the absence of a hard border on the island of Ireland, while respecting the Good Friday Agreement and protecting the integrity of the single market.

The latest developments in Westminster and the call for a further extension make it very difficult to predict how things will unfold. We have to acknowledge that currently, a no-deal on 31 October is a quite likely outcome, not least because the UK Government...

(Cheers from certain quarters)

keeps on repeating they are ready to leave without a deal. Therefore, preparedness efforts have to be stepped up and measures finalised quickly at EU and national level in close cooperation among Member States and with the Commission, building on the last package of measures tabled by the Commission and on those already adopted. These new legislative activities at this early stage of the new institutional cycle will add to an already heavy agenda.

We are confident that by working together we can deliver. I’m encouraged in this respect by the speed at which our two institutions were able to reach agreement on the previous Brexit-related proposals. The Presidency, with your cooperation, is determined to facilitate the adoption of the last batch of contingency measures in good time.

While the point of departure for the future relationship will largely depend on whether the UK decides to leave with or without a deal, we will in any scenario need to address our fundamental priorities with the UK: safeguarding citizens’ rights, honouring the UK’s financial obligations resulting from its membership of the EU, and providing an insurance to preserve the integrity of the single market, the level playing field and the stability on the island of Ireland.

In the meantime, this uncertainty and the tensions it generates are further testing our unity and resolve. It is therefore all the more necessary, on the one hand, to resist the temptation of bilateral deals at sectoral or national level and, on the other hand, to reflect our common purpose in the swift adoption of the necessary contingency measures.

Let me conclude by noting the large degree of convergence that exists between your draft resolution and the priorities of the Council. This is a clear illustration of the commonality of purpose of our two institutions as regards Brexit. So thank you very much for your attention and I look forward to this discussion.

  Jean-Claude Juncker, président de la Commission. – Monsieur le Président, Mesdames et Messieurs les députés, je vous remercie de votre invitation, c’est toujours un plaisir pour moi que de pouvoir m’adresser à vous, de parler devant le Parlement et de parler avec le Parlement.

Au cours des cinq dernières années, la Commission européenne a toujours pu compter sur la clairvoyance, la coopération et le soutien de votre assemblée. Cela vaut également pour le travail que nous avons accompli ensemble sur la question du retrait du Royaume-Uni. Cette assemblée reste, je le sais, ouverte. Elle reste au travail.

Michel Barnier et moi-même avons déjeuné lundi avec le premier ministre Johnson. Vous ne serez pas surpris d’apprendre que le premier ministre nous a dit que le Royaume-Uni continue de vouloir un accord, mais aussi qu’en tout état de cause, le Royaume-Uni quittera l’Union européenne le 31 octobre, avec ou sans accord. Nihil novum sub sole.

Cela veut dire que le risque d’un no deal reste très réel.

(Applause and cheers from certain quarters)

These are my best friends and groupies – don’t be surprised that they are shouting!

Cela veut dire, disais-je, que le risque d’un no deal reste très réel. Ce sera peut-être le choix du gouvernement du Royaume-Uni, mais ce ne sera jamais le choix de l’Union européenne. C’est pourquoi je préfère me concentrer sur ce que nous pouvons faire pour parvenir à un accord – accord que je crois toujours souhaitable et toujours possible.

(S'adressant aux députés qui ont manifesté précédemment)

You have to applaud, no?

Vous ne serez pas surpris non plus que la question principale soit celle du filet de sécurité, le backstop. Tout le monde en a entendu parler, mais tout le monde ne se souvient pas des raisons pour lesquelles il a été agréé entre les 27 et le gouvernement du Royaume-Uni.

Le filet de sécurité, le backstop, est une solution opérationnelle à un problème pratique, le problème causé par le Brexit pour l’île d’Irlande. Ce problème, d’ailleurs, ne se poserait pas si le gouvernement du Royaume-Uni n’avait pas décidé de quitter l’Union européenne.

Le backstop vise trois objectifs: éviter une frontière physique sur l’île d’Irlande, préserver l’intégrité du marché unique et surtout la place de l’Irlande dans ce marché, et protéger la coopération Nord-Sud et l’économie insulaire – the all-island economy –, un élément essentiel pour la paix et la stabilité en Irlande, consacré dans l’accord du Vendredi saint.

J’ai dit au premier ministre Johnson que je ne nourris aucun attachement émotionnel à l’égard du filet de sécurité. Mais j’ai clairement indiqué que je reste profondément attaché aux objectifs qu’il sert. C’est pourquoi j’ai invité le premier ministre britannique à faire des propositions concrètes, opérationnelles et par écrit sur les voies alternatives qui nous permettraient d’atteindre ces objectifs.

Tant que de telles propositions ne seront pas présentées, je ne pourrai pas vous dire en vous regardant droit dans les yeux que de réels progrès ont été réalisés. Mais ce que je peux dire, prenant le contre-pied de beaucoup d’articles, notamment dans la presse britannique, c'est que les entretiens que nous avons eu furent amicaux, constructifs et en partie positifs.

La Commission est prête à travailler tous les jours, du matin au soir – avec quelques interruptions tout de même – pour trouver des solutions au niveau technique et politique. Je ne suis pas sûr que nous réussirons, il nous reste très peu de temps, mais je suis sûr que nous devons essayer.

J’ai demandé au premier ministre britannique de préciser les arrangements alternatifs qu’il pouvait envisager et j’ai proposé de politiser, au sens noble du terme, les négociations entre l’Union européenne et le Royaume-Uni, en chargeant mon ami Michel Barnier, le premier ministre britannique et le ministre compétent pour le Brexit de prendre en main eux-mêmes les négociations, pour qu’elles ne restent pas au seul niveau technique.

En juillet 2016, les 27 ont convenu que ce serait une erreur de concentrer toute notre énergie sur le Brexit. Nous nous sommes mis d’accord pour forger une Union plus forte à 27, en nous concentrant sur les moyens d’améliorer la vie quotidienne de nos concitoyens. Deux mois plus tard, j’ai pris la parole devant ce Parlement pour prononcer mon discours sur l’état de l’Union et présenter mes idées et propositions pour l’avenir. Ce discours, chose exceptionnelle, a été salué par tous les dirigeants de l’Union européenne réunis à Bratislava et a inspiré le programme des dirigeants.

That means the 27 members of the European Union have spent two-and-a-half years negotiating with the UK looking for ways to organise our divorce. During this time, the European Union has shown great unity of purpose and solidarity with the Member States most affected. This unity is our most precious resource and our greatest asset. It will continue to guide me over the next weeks, and I’m sure it will continue to guide this House also in the future.

(Applause)

  Michel Barnier, négociateur en chef. – Monsieur le Président, bonjour à chacune et chacun d'entre vous, Madame la Ministre, merci de me permettre aux côtés du président Juncker et en complément de ce qu'il a dit très clairement de revenir dans cette brève intervention sur les 2 points clés de nos discussions actuelles avec les Britanniques, la question de l'Irlande et de l'Irlande du Nord, et aussi celle de la relation future, qui est au moins aussi importante puisqu'il faudra reconstruire d'une autre manière un partenariat avec ce grand pays ami, allié, voisin que restera le Royaume-Uni.

Le président Juncker a rappelé que la demande fondamentale du gouvernement britannique Johnson, c'est la suppression du backstop, ou à tout le moins son remplacement. Vous le savez, le Royaume-Uni et l'Union européenne, l'Union européenne et le Royaume-Uni se sont mis d'accord en novembre 2018, il y a presque un an de cela, sur ce backstop. Il a donc été agréé par les 28 chefs d'État et de gouvernement et a reçu l'appui très fort de votre Parlement.

Et pourquoi, Mesdames et Messieurs les députés, ce sujet est-il aussi fondamental pour nous tous? Simplement et gravement parce que c'est en Irlande que le Brexit crée le plus de problèmes. C'est en Irlande que le Brexit comporte le plus de risques. C'est le seul endroit où le Royaume-Uni a une frontière terrestre avec l'Union européenne.

Il existe une situation politique spécifique que nous savons bien, liée à une histoire souvent tragique, une situation spécifique aujourd'hui avec le Good Friday Agreement, dont le Royaume-Uni et l'Irlande, notamment, sont les garants. La raison de notre insistance sur ce point, comme l'a dit Jean-Claude Juncker, elle n'est pas idéologique, elle ne l'a jamais été. Elle est totalement pragmatique: il s'agit, à travers ce qu'on appelle le backstop, d'avoir un filet de sécurité, une sorte d'assurance qui nous permette de préserver en toutes circonstances ces trois exigences rappelées par le président de la commission. Nous ne voulons pas du retour d'une frontière physique en Irlande, nous voulons protéger le Good Friday Agreement, le Belfast Agreement, dans toutes ses dimensions.

Nous devons préserver l'intégrité du marché unique, de notre marché unique, et enfin, nous voulons maintenir le all-island economy, la coopération Nord-Sud, encadrée dans le Good Friday Agreement. Je rappelle d'ailleurs que l'exercice de mapping que nous avons fait avec les autorités britanniques montre combien cette coopération Nord-Sud est encadrée par le droit, soutenue par les politiques et par les budgets européens depuis le début.

Le nouveau gouvernement du Royaume-Uni nous a donc, et encore ce lundi à Luxembourg, expliqué les dispositions du backstop qu'il n'aime pas. Ça ne suffit pas de nous expliquer pourquoi il faudrait supprimer le backstop. Nous de notre côté, simplement et sérieusement, nous avons besoin de solutions juridiquement opérationnelles dans l'accord de retrait pour répondre précisément à chacun des problèmes, pour prévenir chacun des risques que crée le Brexit.

Et c'est sur ces objectifs que nous nous étions mis d'accord clairement avec le gouvernement de Theresa May. Je prends juste un exemple concret, que je peux connaître assez bien pour avoir été il y a quelques années ministre de l'Agriculture et de la pêche. Mesdames et Messieurs les députés, tout animal vivant, tout produit, notamment tout aliment, qui arrive en Irlande du Nord en provenance de Grande-Bretagne entre non seulement sur l'île d'Irlande, sur le marché irlandais, mais entre dans le marché polonais, luxembourgeois, allemand ou danois, mécaniquement, immédiatement. Et nous devons exercer un contrôle, pour protéger les consommateurs, préserver la sécurité alimentaire, prévenir tout risque de maladie animale. Nous n'avons pas la mémoire courte et c'est l'intérêt aussi des citoyens et des consommateurs d'Irlande du Nord, comme ceux de toute l'île, aussi bien que des consommateurs du reste du Royaume-Uni.

Il y a donc derrière ce backstop, je le dis calmement et à nouveau, des garanties très concrètes dont nous avons besoin et dont tous les citoyens, sur l'île d'Irlande, ont besoin pour la paix et la stabilité, pour la vie et la relation économique quotidienne sur l'île et naturellement, je le redis, pour la santé et la sécurité des consommateurs des 27, la sécurité des produits, la protection des budgets nationaux. Voilà à quoi servent aussi les contrôles à chacune des frontières extérieures du marché unique et que nous devons assurer en toute hypothèse.

J'entends bien, nous entendons bien aussi les questions, les remarques du premier ministre britannique sur le caractère démocratique ou non démocratique du backstop. C'est évidemment au gouvernement britannique lui-même, de s'assurer du soutien des institutions nord-irlandaises sur l'accord de retrait qu'il signerait au nom de tout le Royaume-Uni. Nous avons déjà prévu plusieurs dispositions dans l'accord de retrait, notamment sur l'implication de ses institutions et des différents comités dans la mise en oeuvre du backstop si un jour il devait être activé. Sur cette question comme sur les autres, je redis, après le président Juncker, que nous restons disponibles pour écouter toute proposition britannique, y travailler jour et nuit, dès l'instant où cette proposition apporterait du progrès.

L'autre sujet clé, et je termine sur ce point, Monsieur le Président, Mesdames et Messieurs, c'est celui de notre ambition commune pour la relation future de ce que nous avons appelé le partenariat stratégique que nous devons construire ou reconstruire avec le Royaume-Uni, après le Brexit. C'est l'objet du deuxième document à côté du traité sur le retrait, qu'on appelle la déclaration politique, qui a été agréé avec le Royaume-Uni en novembre dernier et qui ouvre la voie à ce partenariat très large en matière de coopération économique, coopération sectorielle, coopération judiciaire et policière, coopération en matière de défense, de politique étrangère.

Dans son volet économique, ce partenariat prend comme point de départ un accord de libre-échange mais il laisse dans le texte actuel la porte ouverte à davantage d'ambition s'il y a une volonté commune. Et nous avons évidemment cette volonté d'être le plus ambitieux possible avec le Royaume-Uni dans notre relation économique future, par exemple à travers une union douanière.

Cette relation économique doit évidemment être accompagnée par des garanties de level playing field. Là aussi, Mesdames et Messieurs les députés, je reconnais que c'est une expression assez technique que celle de level playing field. Il y a derrière cette expression des réalités humaines, sociales, territoriales et un choix de société que le Royaume-Uni devra faire sur l'équilibre nécessaire entre le bon niveau de régulation et le marché économique.

Or, le gouvernement britannique, c'est le point sur lequel je veux insister, souhaite aujourd'hui revenir sur les engagements pris par Theresa May dans ce domaine du level playing field. Mesdames et Messieurs, avec un grand pays si proche, important comme le Royaume-Uni, qui réalise un peu plus de la moitié de son commerce avec nous, avec le marché unique, un partenariat économique ambitieux exige un socle de règles du jeu communes.

Dès lors, je veux le dire pour que les choses soient claires pour tout le monde, Mesdames et Messieurs les députés, pour tout le monde, le niveau d'ambition d'un futur accord de libre-échange que nous devrons négocier en toute hypothèse et conclure avec le Royaume-Uni, ce niveau d'ambition dépendra clairement des garanties que nous aurons ensemble mises sur le papier en matière sociale, environnementale, en matière de concurrence ou en matière d'aides d'État.

Mesdames et Messieurs les députés, j'ai voulu parler de ces deux sujets qui sont actuellement en discussion avec le gouvernement de Boris Johnson. Cela dit, nous ne perdons pas la vue d'ensemble. Je veux rappeler simplement pour conclure pourquoi nous avons voulu depuis le départ un retrait ordonné du Royaume-Uni, qui vaut beaucoup mieux qu'un no deal, et nous savons de quoi il est question quand on parle de no deal, et je recommande que chacun ne sous-estime pas les conséquences pour le Royaume-Uni, évidemment d'abord, et aussi pour nous, d'une absence d'accord.

Nous voulons cet accord pour protéger les droits de 4 millions et demi de citoyens européens au Royaume-Uni et de Britanniques dans chacun de nos 27 États-membres, et ce projet de retrait sécurise ces droits, tous ces droits. Nous voulons sécuriser l'avenir pour les porteurs de projets qui bénéficient de fonds européens sur les territoires. Voilà pourquoi nous avons obtenu avec le Royaume-Uni que tout ce qui a été décidé à 28 soit bien payé jusqu'au bout à 28. Nous voulons garantir, je l'ai dit, la paix et la stabilité en Irlande et, au bout de la route, une route qui est assez longue, comme vous le voyez, nous voulons créer les conditions de confiance nécessaires pour bâtir notre relation future telle qu'elle était esquissée dans la déclaration politique.

Si le Royaume-Uni sort sans accord, Mesdames et Messieurs les députés, je veux rappeler que toutes ces questions ne disparaissent pas. Nous les avons réglées dans l'accord de retrait, mais s'il n'y a pas d'accord de retrait, toutes ces questions sont là. La question de la sécurité des citoyens, de la paix en Irlande, de la protection du marché intérieur en Irlande, comme celle du budget et nous devrons les régler en toute hypothèse, préalablement à un futur partenariat avec le Royaume-Uni.

Les conséquences du Brexit ne sont pas théoriques. Vous m'avez souvent entendu dire ici dans cet hémicycle qu'elles étaient innombrables et souvent sous-estimées sur le plan humain et social, sur le plan financier et budgétaire, sur le plan juridique et technique. Elles sont considérables, et vous l'avez souvent rappelé, comme vous le faites à nouveau dans votre résolution aujourd'hui.

Près de 3 ans après le référendum britannique, Mesdames et Messieurs, il ne s'agit certainement pas de faire semblant de négocier. Il est de notre responsabilité de poursuivre ce processus avec de la détermination, avec de la sincérité. Nous continuerons de le faire en concertation permanente, en toute transparence avec les 27 gouvernements au nom desquels nous négocions, Madame la Ministre, et je remercie la Présidence actuelle. Nous continuerons de le faire en dialogue et en toute transparence avec votre Brexit steering group, que je remercie, et avec l'ensemble des groupes et des commissions de votre Parlement. Ce sera toujours, ça a toujours été, ça restera notre attitude dans cette extraordinaire et complexe négociation.

  Manfred Weber, on behalf of the PPE Group. – Mr President, after the Brexit referendum three years ago, the Brexiteers claimed, ‘the EU is finished. The EU doesn’t work’. Over three years later, the EU is strong, is alive, is united. It knows exactly what it wants. At the moment, it is not Britain that is leaving the EU, but jobs and business leaving the UK.

(Heckling)

One—third of British businesses are planning to leave, or are already leaving, Britain. Everybody here regrets – well, not everybody, but mainly we regret here in the plenary – the Brexit outcome, but I must tell you, during the election campaign it was a powerful argument to tell the Europeans that it’s stupid and it creates a lot of uncertainty if you call the European Union into question. That’s why you helped us a lot to convince Europeans that this is a stupid approach.

(Applause)

Monday’s meeting with Michel Barnier, Jean—Claude Juncker and Prime Minister Johnson was again a missed opportunity to clarify things, and to bring new proposals to the table. And the Parliament where we can discuss the current state of play is the European Parliament, not the Commons, unfortunately. Brexiteers claimed that Westminster would ‘take back control’, and now they’ve shut it down. Is this the idea of democracy, of tomorrow in Great Britain, I have to ask the Brexiteers?

Ladies and Gentlemen, meine sehr verehrten Damen und Herren! Eine grundsätzliche Überlegung geht mir durch den Kopf, die mich bewegt, und zwar die Überlegung, dass das Volk durch den Premierminister vertreten wird und dass der Volkeswille umgesetzt werden muss. 51 % – das ist die Mehrheit, und das ist zu respektieren, aber 51 % bei einem Referendumsausgang ist nicht das gesamte Volk. Das gesamte Volk wird vertreten in einem Parlament, in einem Plenum des Parlaments, wo Interessen ausgeglichen werden. Dort wird das Volk vertreten. Und wenn dann auch noch zusätzlich gesagt wird: „Ich muss Volkes Meinung durchsetzen gegen das Parlament“, dann werden Grundsatzfragen gestellt, ob das der richtige Ansatz ist, in der heutigen Welt unsere Gesellschaften zu führen. Führung heißt nicht Spaltung, sondern Führung heißt zusammenführen in den heutigen Gesellschaften. Das macht mich schon sehr nachdenklich, die Entwicklung in Großbritannien.

Für die Europäische Volkspartei ist klar: Wir werden die heutige Entschließung mit unterstützen. Ich möchte mich bei Michel Barnier für seine Arbeit bedanken, ich möchte mich bei Guy Verhofstadt, bei allen Kollegen der Brexit Steering Group für die Arbeit bedanken. Wir haben als Parlament wieder mal gezeigt, dass wir geschlossen unsere Positionen vertreten, dass wir die Verlängerung nur akzeptieren, wenn sie gut begründet ist, dass wir zu den Verabredungen stehen, die im bisherigen Austrittsvertrag fixiert sind, dass dahinter gute Argumente stehen und dass wir auch für neue Vorschläge offen sind.

Aber eines möchte ich als Warnung aussprechen: Bei allen Diskussionen über neue Vorschläge, die jetzt diskutiert werden, muss klar sein, dass die Europäische Union nicht zulassen darf, dass vor unserer Haustüre mit den Standards Europas – Sozial- und Umweltstandards – Dumping betrieben wird. Das dürfen wir nicht zulassen bei allen Diskussionen, die auf uns zukommen.

Der Brexit ist unkalkulierbar geworden, und deswegen müssen wir uns auch auf das worst-case-Szenario vorbereiten. Und eines ist klar: Wenn die britische Politik nicht aus ihrem deadlock rauskommt, dann ist es wohl das Beste, die anstehende Frage wieder an die Menschen zurückzugeben. Die Bürger in Großbritannien sollten über die Zukunft entscheiden.

  Iratxe García Pérez, en nombre del Grupo S&D. – Señor presidente, un Brexit sin acuerdo sería una mala noticia para todos, pero sobre todo supondría un desastre para el Reino Unido.

No se trata solo de nuestra opinión. La reciente publicación del informe Yellowhammer por parte del Gobierno británico alerta de los peores escenarios de un Brexit sin acuerdo y derrumba la utopía inventada por Boris Johnson. Interrupciones en los pasos del Canal de la Mancha, incremento notable de los precios de la electricidad, reducción del suministro de alimentos y medicinas con un grave impacto para las poblaciones más vulnerables e incertidumbre jurídica para los cientos de miles de ciudadanos británicos que viven en la Unión Europea y para los ciudadanos europeos que viven en el Reino Unido.

No voy a pretender que determinados diputados cambien su actitud con respecto a esta situación. Lo único que pido es respeto. No soy ingenua. No pido que respeten a esta Cámara a la que llevan mucho tiempo sin respetar. Pido que respeten al pueblo que dicen representar, porque sus risas se convierten en angustias, en incertidumbres y en preocupaciones de millones de personas que están atentos a este debate.

(Aplausos)

En este contexto, las principales fuerzas proeuropeas de esta Cámara manifestamos en esta propuesta de Resolución nuestro firme apoyo a una prórroga del artículo 50 para evitar un escenario catastrófico, sin acuerdo, si el Reino Unido necesita más tiempo para celebrar elecciones generales o un nuevo referéndum. Podrán contar con nuestro apoyo. El responsable del actual caos solo tiene un nombre. El actual responsable del caos tiene un nombre: Boris Johnson.

«El carácter de un hombre es su destino», decían los griegos. «Y yo coincido con ellos», afirmó el primer ministro en El factor Churchill, su libro de 2014 sobre el estadista británico. A raíz de los últimos episodios, el destino parece reservar a Boris Johnson la destrucción del hermanamiento histórico entre el Reino Unido y el resto de Europa.

Nuestro grupo ha trabajado de manera responsable para mitigar las peores consecuencias del Brexit. Desde esta Cámara los socialdemócratas exigimos a Boris Johnson y a su Gobierno que garanticen los derechos adquiridos de los ciudadanos de la Unión Europea que residen en el Reino Unido. Para nosotros es una cuestión fundamental.

Estamos profundamente preocupados por las declaraciones confusas, contradictorias, del ministro del Interior británico sobre el fin de la circulación después del 31 de octubre. La ciudadanía nunca debe pagar el precio de los errores de sus representantes. Tengámoslo muy claro.

Nuestra prioridad sigue siendo una salida ordenada. Y, para ello, el Acuerdo de Retirada es el mejor instrumento. Protege los derechos de la ciudadanía, evita una frontera entre la República de Irlanda e Irlanda del Norte, estipula las obligaciones financieras del Reino Unido y protege la integridad del mercado interior.

Los socialdemócratas siempre hemos visto el Brexit como un error histórico y estamos dispuestos a apoyar al pueblo británico si decide revertir esta decisión.

Bien haría el primer ministro británico en recordar las palabras pronunciadas en Bruselas por el que fuera el héroe de su infancia, Winston Churchill, ante una sesión conjunta del Parlamento belga el 16 de noviembre de 1945: «No veo razón por la que no puedan surgir los Estados Unidos de Europa, los cuales unificarán este continente de un modo nunca conocido desde la caída del Imperio romano y en el que todos sus pueblos puedan vivir juntos en prosperidad y en paz».

  Guy Verhofstadt, on behalf of the Renew Group. – Mr President, I think it’s important to recall that the British Parliament may be shut down but we are clearly showing today, with this debate, that the European Union is not.

(Applause)

It’s fantastic that the Brexit Party and Mr Farage are making so much noise because they can’t do it in Westminster anymore, so they have to do it here.

(Applause)

By the way, they are not even elected in Westminster.

(Applause and heckling)

As you know, colleagues, Eurosceptics like something: they like bashing Europe by saying that the European Union is undemocratic. And you can be sure that in a few moments they are going to repeat that. Well, I can tell you that Jean—Claude Juncker and President Tusk can do a lot of things, but at least they cannot close the doors of this House. That is not possible. So if the Eurosceptics, in the coming hours or the coming minutes, again want to make a ridiculous comparison with the Soviet Union, from now on they can point the finger at Westminster instead of at Strasbourg or Brussels. That seems to me to be a good way forward for them now.

My hope is that, with the vote and the resolution today, we will reiterate our unity about Brexit: a unity that means Parliament, that means the Commission, that means the Council and that means the 27 Member States. There is no discussion about this. Brexit is bad. It’s a bad idea, but it has at least one positive effect, and that is to reunite Europeans and to make the European project, since Brexit, more popular again. That is what we have seen in all the public opinion inside the European Union.

(Applause)

In fact, the message of the people during the elections was very clear: reform Europe, don’t destroy Europe, don’t leave Europe. That was the case in all our Member States and it was also the case in Britain because nearly 40 of the 73 elected British MEPs are Remainers today.

(Applause)

That brings me to the main point, namely the outcome, the deal that I think is still possible. We, as Parliament, set three conditions in our resolution and I want to recall those three conditions. The first is to safeguard the rights of our citizens, for the Europeans and the British alike. Today I have to tell you that this has not been achieved. Every day in the British press there are examples of people who have already been living in Britain for a decade – even two decades – and who cannot have this so—called settled status.

So I think we need a fundamental shift in the way the UK Government applies at least that part of the Withdrawal Agreement. What we don’t need is the bureaucratic application that we have now. What we need from the British Government is automatic registration of all our EU citizens. I know – and you know – that Boris Johnson, the Prime Minister, very much likes to compare himself to movie characters. Well, concerning citizens’ rights, instead of playing the angry Hulk, I think he should be inspired by another character, the caring nanny in the film Mrs Doubtfire, with the late Robin Williams.

Secondly, I want to come back to the other problem, the Irish backstop – or maybe, Michel, let’s call it something else: if they have a problem with ‘backstop’, we’ll call it a safety net. I think that is something we can certainly agree on. We need such a safety net and not only for economic reasons. The main reason why we need the safety net is to make sure that violence does not return on the island of Ireland. That is the main reason.

(Applause)

And I have to tell you that I find it completely irresponsible of a number of British MPs, especially hardline Tories, not to accept this. I have to say that, as we speak – and I ask Michel Barnier and Jean-Claude Juncker if they can confirm this during the debate – there has not been one legally feasible and practical alternative put on the table by the UK at this moment. So, clearly, I have to tell you that the idea in the British press today to limit the backstop to agricultural products is not enough because they represent only 30% or 35%, I think, of the total imports of goods and services across the border.

Also, a backstop cannot be ended unilaterally by Stormont because that is not a safety net: it would be a permanent instrument for blackmail during the coming negotiations. A safety net needs to be a safety net in the hands of both parties, not only of Northern Ireland but also of the European Union.

My final remark is on the future relationship. I think it’s good to repeat this because we are a new Parliament. More than 60% of our Members are new so it’s important that we recall this. It’s good to repeat that this Parliament will never accept an agreement with the UK whereby Britain can have all the advantages of free trade and zero tariffs and not be aligned with our ecological, health and social standards in the future. That will not happen.

(Applause)

I can tell you one thing. I know that there are some people in Britain who think that these Europeans, at the end of the negotiations, will give in. Well, that may be possible, but we are not stupid. That means that we will not kill our own companies. We will defend our own companies, we will defend our own economy, we will defend our single market and we will never accept what people call a ‘Singapore by the North Sea’. That will not happen.

(Applause)

Finally, we all know how Brexit started. It was an attempt by David Cameron to heal the divisions in the Conservative Party and the consequence has been enormous divisions in British society. What we will not allow, as Europeans, is for this Brexit to create turmoil and divisions in our European Union and in our European project.

(Applause)

  Philippe Lamberts, au nom du groupe Verts/ALE. – Monsieur le Président, chers collègues, nous n'avons pas choisi le Brexit, mais nous respectons le choix d'une majorité d'électeurs britanniques et la meilleure preuve en est que nous avons, de bonne foi, négocié un accord qui permet la séparation - que nous regrettons - entre le Royaume-Uni et l'Union européenne.

Mais je voudrais préciser que la décision prise par le Royaume-Uni de quitter l'Union européenne ne le libère pas des obligations juridiquement contraignantes qu'il a contractées pendant 45 ans comme membre de l'Union européenne et au titre des accords de paix dit du Vendredi saint, qui ont quand même mis fin à un conflit ayant coûté la vie à 3 000 personnes et ruiné celle de tant d'autres.

Nous regrettons que le premier ministre britannique, ainsi qu'un nombre important de représentants au parlement britannique ignorent ou feignent d'ignorer l'existence de ces obligations.

La position affirmée par le premier ministre britannique consiste, pour résumer, à dire aux Européens: je vous demande d'ouvrir une brèche de 500 kilomètres dans le marché intérieur. Cela tout en affirmant la volonté déterminée d'engager à l'égard de l'Union européenne une politique de dumping fiscal, social et environnemental intolérable. Vous comprendrez que cette attitude n'est pas de nature à créer dans le chef des 27 États de l'Union et de nous-mêmes, ici au Parlement européen, la confiance nécessaire pour trouver une issue négociée à l'impasse actuelle.

C'est dire si la perspective d'une sortie sans accord reste d'une actualité brûlante et est donc loin d'être écartée. Je veux dire à toutes celles et ceux, en particulier au Royaume-Uni, qui se réjouissent d'une telle perspective ou qui s'imaginent que, face à une telle perspective, les 27 plieraient l'échine, je voudrais simplement leur dire ceci: c'est qu'entre deux maux, celui que constituerait indéniablement une sortie sans accord et celui, bien pire, d'une atteinte irrémédiable à l'intégrité du marché intérieur, les 27 choisiront toujours le moindre de ces maux.

Mais je ne voudrais pas terminer sur cette note et le pire n'est jamais sûr. J'ai l'honneur et le bonheur de compter au sein de mon groupe politique 11 eurodéputés britanniques. Ils font partie de ces millions de Britanniques qui savent où se trouve l'intérêt de leur pays, c'est-à-dire au cœur de l'Union européenne. Je le dis clairement ici: si le Royaume-Uni, que ce soit par la voix de son premier ministre ou par toute autre autorité constituée, devait demander à l'Union européenne une extension du délai prévu à l'article 50, nous devons accéder à cette demande. Tant qu'il existe une possibilité pour que la raison prévale, nous devons tout faire pour saisir cette possibilité.

  Marco Zanni, a nome del gruppo ID. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, rimango allibito ogni volta di più dall'avversione verso la democrazia che quest'Aula e i rappresentanti di quest'Aula dimostrano.

Ci si permette di dare lezioni di democrazia a una delle democrazie più antiche del mondo, a uno dei parlamenti più antichi del mondo, quando questo Parlamento e queste istituzioni hanno dimostrato, negli anni e anche ultimamente, di avere un'avversione ai principi democratici, di escludere le minoranze dalla rappresentanza o di avere un processo decisionale che molto spesso non è portato avanti dai rappresentanti eletti di quest'Aula ma da burocrati non eletti da nessuno.

Lo specchio di quest'arroganza si percepisce dall'incipit della risoluzione che la maggioranza dei gruppi parlamentari di quest'Aula ha scritto e che ci apprestiamo a votare. L'incipit di questa risoluzione recita: "considera la Brexit un evento deplorevole...". Per voi l'esercizio democratico, il massimo esercizio democratico, il referendum, è un evento deplorevole. Vi permettete di dare lezioni di democrazia al parlamento inglese: questo è vergognoso.

La cosa estremamente preoccupante è che questa avversione non è relativa solo a quello che stiamo vivendo sulla Brexit: nella storia recente, o meno recente, dell'Unione europea ci sono un sacco di esempi di come queste istituzioni, le istituzioni dell'Unione europea, siano state avverse alle decisioni dei cittadini: c'è l'esempio dell'Irlanda, c'è l'esempio della Francia, c'è l'esempio dei cittadini olandesi e l'esempio dei cittadini greci, che hanno detto no a ingerenze forti di Bruxelles ma, purtroppo, sappiamo che le cose sono andate in maniera diversa.

Più che preoccuparmi della chiusura del parlamento inglese, che è una pratica prevista dalla legge inglese, mi preoccuperei dell'avversione che questo Parlamento ha per i risultati elettorali e soprattutto per i referendum: passa il principio che le decisioni prese liberamente dai popoli che non piacciono a queste istituzioni devono essere in qualche modo, e in modi anche magari non proprio ortodossi, cambiate.

Io credo che il vero punto della Brexit sia la paura che le istituzioni europee hanno, la paura che qualcuno possa mostrare un'altra via e la paura che il Regno Unito fuori dall'Unione europea possa dimostrare che forse questa istituzione non è perfetta, forse questa istituzione ha commesso degli errori e forse qualcuno può liberamente decidere di prendere un'altra strada e di dimostrare che si sta meglio, o si può stare meglio, anche al di fuori dell'Unione europea.

Questa è una libera scelta dei cittadini britannici e noi abbiamo l'obbligo di rispettarla. Andare a uno scontro e voler punire, come qualcuno in quest'Aula e in queste istituzioni vorrebbe, i cittadini del Regno Unito solo perché hanno deciso liberamente di prendere un'altra strada non rende onore al progetto che volete sostenere.

In questi tre anni non ho ancora visto un serio esame di coscienza da parte di queste istituzioni e da parte di quest'Aula, un esame di coscienza per andare a capire le radici profonde del perché uno Stato membro ha deciso di abbandonare l'Unione europea, del perché uno Stato membro ha detto basta a questo progetto che voi considerate infallibile ed ineluttabile ma che ha evidenti difetti.

Piuttosto che guardare quello che accade nel Regno Unito, mi preoccuperei della grave crisi istituzionale, economica e politica che oggi affligge l'Unione europea, una crisi interistituzionale tra il Parlamento, il Consiglio e gli Stati membri, una crisi interna anche al Parlamento, con i gruppi politici estremamente spaccati e divisi che sono riusciti a eleggere e a confermare sul filo di lana il Presidente della Commissione e un futuro politico che ancora non si vede.

Non date lezioni a chi ha scelto liberamente di prendere un'altra strada ma riflettete più profondamente sui problemi profondi che queste istituzioni hanno, altrimenti l'Unione europea non avrà alcun futuro.

  Geoffrey Van Orden, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, may I first of all thank Jean Claude Juncker and Michel Barnier for their broadly helpful and positive remarks this morning. The British Government wants a deal, not any old deal but one that is acceptable to the British Parliament and the British people, and we need to get it over with quickly. So we must leave on 31⁰October: we should have left on 29⁰March, then on 12⁰April, now on 31⁰October. What’s the point of further delay? Some of you may think that if we drag this out a bit more then there’ll be a change of regime in Britain, maybe a change of heart, but I believe this is total delusion.

(Applause)

What sort of relationship do you want to see with Britain in the future: a positive one based on friendship and goodwill and mutual interest, or one based on anger and bitterness and exclusion? Everyone engaged in the process who genuinely seeks agreement must redouble their efforts to get a deal. This requires goodwill and flexibility on both sides. Remember that, in the EU, nothing is possible and everything is possible if there is political will.

On EU citizens, the British Government has been very clear, they are welcome to stay, and it is committed to protecting their rights. More than a million applicants have already been given settled status under the British scheme and there is lots of time for the rest to apply. The European Union needs to adopt a similarly generous approach towards British nationals.

(Applause)

The outstanding problem is, of course, the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. No⁰one has a greater interest in peace than the people of Northern Ireland and the British Government. For all its failings, we are committed to the Belfast Agreement, the so-called Good Friday Agreement. This agreement, by the way, does not mention the border. It is, however, based on parity of esteem between the two communities, the two traditions in Northern Ireland. And please don’t forget that the majority of people in Northern Ireland are Unionists, they’re proud to be both Northern Irish and British and they wish to remain so. Some in this House seem to have forgotten this.

So both the EU and the UK must apply some creative thinking to find alternative arrangements to the safety net, as I much prefer to call it. I don’t think the Verhofstadt resolution, by the way, contributes anything useful at this stage. We would like to see a Brexit steering group that is truly democratic, fully representative and a real source of wisdom and ideas, not just repeating tired mantras.

(Applause)

After all, the final deal needs the approval not only of the British Houses of Parliament but of our European Parliament as well.

And colleagues, I say to all of you who represent parties of government: it’s time to get cracking. Pick up your phones, I know Mr⁰Barnier needs no instruction, but he needs to do a deal and the Council must urge him to get on with it before it meets on 17⁰October.

Let’s not lose the opportunity for that fresh and exciting partnership between the European Union and the United Kingdom to serve all our people well in the years ahead.

  Martin Schirdewan, im Namen der GUE/NGL-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Als ich neu hier im Parlament war, hörte ich mal, wie ein Brexiteer sagte: Ich muss ein Imperium zerstören. Was er natürlich meinte und worauf er sich bezog, war die Europäische Union, aber erreicht haben die Brexiteers mit ihrer Politik lediglich, dass sich das Vereinigte Königreich in der größten politischen Krise seit Jahrzehnten befindet. Eine Krise, für die die Arbeitnehmerinnen und Arbeitnehmer, die Rentnerinnen und Rentner und auch die kleinen und mittelständischen Unternehmen die Zeche zu zahlen haben werden.

Diese Politik ist weder im Interesse der britischen noch im Interesse der europäischen Bevölkerung. Die Regierung von Boris Johnson weiß das auch ganz genau – Stichwort Operation Yellowhammer. Was wie ein schlechter Titel eines James-Bond-Films klingt, dahinter verbirgt sich eine Lageanalyse der britischen Regierung, die davon ausgeht, dass es zu Versorgungsengpässen bei Medikamenten, bei Nahrungsmitteln kommt, dass soziale Unruhen aufkommen, dass der Konflikt in Nordirland wieder entsteht. Aber die Regierung scheint genau diese politische Strategie zu verfolgen. Ich sage Ihnen: Das ist ein absoluter Irrweg.

Wir reden hier auch nicht über abstrakte Dinge, wenn wir über einen Brexit mit oder ohne Abkommen reden. Wir reden hier darüber, dass zum Beispiel ein deutscher oder ein polnischer Krankenpfleger nicht weiß, ob er noch eine Aufenthaltsgenehmigung in Großbritannien haben wird, um dort im Gesundheitssystem zu arbeiten. Gleiches gilt für die Arbeitsgenehmigung. Wir reden darüber, dass eine britische Rentnerin nicht weiß, wie es mit ihren Rentenzahlungen weitergeht, wenn sie in der EU lebt. Und wir reden auch darüber, dass eine Familie in Belfast, die ihre Kinder morgens in die Schule schicken möchte, vielleicht in Zukunft wieder Angst haben muss, dass auf der Straße etwas passiert, so wie es früher in den Jahren des Bürgerkriegs gewesen ist, wenn Sie diese Politik fortsetzen. Darüber sprechen wir, wenn wir von einem harten Brexit sprechen, und dagegen muss auch die britische Politik endlich etwas unternehmen und den Willen dazu zeigen.

Wenn ich an Großbritannien denke, dann fällt mir ja vieles ein, zum Beispiel eine wehrhafte Demokratie, die dem Faschismus widerstanden hat. Ich denke an ein Kolonialreich mit all den Schattenseiten einer Kolonialgeschichte. Ich denke an ein Land, das Denker wie Thomas Hobbes und John Maynard Keynes hervorgebracht hat. Und als Sozialist erinnere ich mich, dass Karl Marx in London Asyl gefunden hat.

Aber woran ich ganz bestimmt nicht denke – und da geht es mir ähnlich wie dem Kollegen Verhofstadt –, ist die Comicfigur Hulk. Ich sage Ihnen, eine Comicfigur wird weder den Friedensprozess in Nordirland bewahren noch die sozialen und zivilen Rechte der Bürgerinnen und Bürger schützen. Das kann nur eine kluge Politik erreichen – dafür stehen wir als Linke hier im Europäischen Parlament, und deshalb unterstützen wir die vorliegende Entschließung.

  Ivan Vilibor Sinčić (NI). – Poštovani predsjedniče, danas govorimo ovdje o Brexitu. Ima nekoliko pokušaja da se opstruira britanski referendum, rezultati britanskog referenduma. To je apsolutno krivo.

Što je logika opstruiranja britanskog referenduma? Ponavljati referendum dvaput, triput, četiri puta dok odgovor ne bude drugačiji. Je li to logika referenduma? To je svođenje demokracije na apsurd. Htio bih se za početak osvrnuti na jedan citat, odnosno parafrazirat ću Edwarda Greya, britanskog ministra vanjskih poslova, negdje s početka Prvog svjetskog rata, koji je rekao ovako nekako: „Odnosi, dogovori, riječ, to mora nešto vrijediti. Ako ne vrijedi, ostaje nam samo top, ostaje nam samo da navalimo jedni na druge.”

Ovaj referendum mora nešto vrijediti. To što je britanski narod rekao, to mora nešto vrijediti i to se mora ispoštovati. Za vam ne govori, također, nešto o volji britanskog naroda, što je ovdje meni s lijeve strane 29 zastupnika iz stranke Brexit, najjače stranke u ovom Parlamentu. Merkeličin CDU ima 23, Brexit ima 29. Meni to nešto govori o volji britanskoga naroda.

Htio bih također reći da je to ono što je prošlost. Međutim, pogledajmo u budućnost. Neki, prije nekoliko tjedana ovdje, gospođa Von der Leyen govorila je o zajedničkoj vanjskoj politici kao nečem što tek treba napraviti, što će se donositi preglasavanjem. Smatram to vrlo opasnim, ne može Von der Leyen definirati mojoj Hrvatskoj što će misliti, kakav će stav imati prema Bosni i Hercegovini, Srbiji, Iranu, SAD-u, Malti ili bilo kome drugome. To je put u još gore narušavanje odnosa. Dosta je više integracije i federalizacije. Sve ovo navedeno jača euroskepticizam, neki će ovdje reći opasan je euroskepticizam. Može biti, kako za koga. Ja bih htio reći opasan je eurofundamentalizam. Ili Merkeličin način ili nikakav način. Ne dozvoljava se redefiniranje odnosa, ne dozvoljava se redefiniranje politika. I ako se redefiniranje ne dozvoli, Brexit će biti tek početak. Zalažem se za izmjenu članka 50. Ugovora o funkcioniranje Europske unije, da se ubrza i pojednostavi izlaženje onih zemalja čiji narodi tako odluče.

IN THE CHAIR: MAIREAD McGUINNESS
Vice-President

  Danuta Maria Hübner (PPE). – Madam President, we are having this debate and will vote today on this Parliament’s fifth resolution on Brexit on a day when the British Parliament is under suspension. What a paradox, one might say. Yes, I am convinced that most of us here continue to regret that Brexit takes place and we continue to be committed to Brexit in an orderly fashion.

The withdrawal agreement to which this House has contributed by working very closely with Michel Barnier – thank you, Michel – this agreement provides legal certainty to all those affected by Brexit, on both sides, but in particular citizens and small businesses and citizens’ rights remain the major concern of this House. This agreement facilitates this, the unprecedented – and I must say impossible to understand – withdrawal of a modern state from a preferential trade area and the disentanglement of links created during 45 years of British membership in the Union, with the least amount of disruption.

This agreement creates also a good foundation, also political, upon which to build future relations between the EU and the UK. Once it is finally approved, it will open the door for a status quo transition, giving time to negotiate alternative arrangements and a future relationship. The backstop, a temporary insurance policy tool, which is a measure of last resort, in principle never to be used, is an important part of this agreement.

I regret that the UK has not, so far, put forward legally viable and operative alternative arrangements that could replace the backstop, delivering on all its objectives. We are patiently waiting for this to be done. There is still a chance for agreement and I believe that we must be clear that a no-deal solution would be entirely the responsibility of the British Government. We know that even with the best preparedness, no deal is only a mitigating mechanism. No deal does not provide for a transition with a potential extension, it does not solve the issue of citizens’ rights, the Irish border, the budgetary settlement, and let me say that in spite of everything that was said by the Prime Minister, I still hope for a deep, broad and close relationship based on regulatory convergence and respect for a level playing field.

  Pedro Silva Pereira (S&D). – Madam President, we are here once again to discuss Brexit democratically, freely and openly, as any parliament should be able to do at such a crucial moment. In fact, this European Parliament is the only fully operational parliament representing British citizens today. The joint resolution tabled by the Socialists, together with other major political groups, shows how united we are in asserting our position on this regrettable process of withdrawal of the UK from the EU.

We fully respect the will of the British people. But if Brexit is to happen, it should be done in an orderly way, as no—deal is for sure the worst way to do it. Of course, we heard Mr Boris Johnson saying that he wants to reach an agreement with the EU without the Irish backstop. If not, the UK will leave the EU by the end of next month anyhow, even without a deal. But if Mr Johnson was really serious about the willingness to reach an agreement in the next few days, he would, by now, have made a very simple gesture: to put forward a written proposal on workable and legally operative alternative arrangements.

He has failed to do so, and so he has failed to give evidence that he is serious about the willingness to avoid no—deal.

So let me make it crystal clear: should the UK crash out of the EU without a deal, this would be entirely the responsibility of the UK Government, no one else. Both the House of Commons and the House of Lords approved an act obliging the UK Government to ask for an extension of Article 50 if an agreement has not been reached. There was never a mandate for no—deal given by the British people. There is now no mandate for no—deal given by the British Parliament. Therefore, we welcome the fact that this resolution makes clear that the European Parliament would support an extension of Article 50 to avoid a no—deal scenario.

The way we see it, an extension of Article 50 is also important for the UK to find a political solution and, when the time comes, to give control back to the people so that people can have a final say on Brexit.

(Applause)

  Barbara Ann Gibson (Renew). – Madam President, today we are in danger, grave danger, danger as perilous to the European Union as it is to the United Kingdom – the danger of allowing our fatigue with the almighty debacle that is Brexit to make us too anxious to move on just to end it. The danger is to democracy, to stability, to the rule of law, to the sovereignty of parliaments everywhere and to the rights of citizens. I urge this Parliament to support the motion, to overcome your Brexit fatigue, to support an extension of Article 50 to allow the UK Parliament the time needed to defeat the would-be dictator who has lied and cheated and silenced the mother of all parliaments. The danger is real.

(Applause and heckling)

Brexit in any form is bad, bad for all of us, and a no-deal Brexit is a disaster. It is worth taking the time needed to allow us to fight to stop it.

(Applause)

  Alyn Smith (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, Brexit has been a matter of frustration from the very start, a thing to be regretted, a thing of sadness, and from a Scottish perspective it has also been a thing of grave injustice. We voted to remain within our family of nations, the people in Northern Ireland voted to remain within our family of nations, the peace process there is sacred and must be protected.

Scotland’s argument is not with you, I assure you, it is with a dysfunctional broken Westminster that’s not fit for the modern world, not fit for the interconnected, interdependent world we live in. I don’t ask you to solve our domestic problems – you must deal with the interlocutors you’re dealt, I’m sorry for that – I’m trying today to avoid a terrible mistake for all of us, for Scotland, for the UK and for the European Union.

I hear the argument every day back home that we need to get Brexit delivered, we need to get Brexit done, we need to get Brexit past us. I hear the argument here also that you’re sick of British nonsense. Me too, if it’s any consolation! I appreciate you want an orderly process to mitigate the damage of Brexit, and I’m sorry, colleagues, I have news for you: there is no good Brexit. There is no sustainable answer to this.

The people that you are dealing with, the empty vessels of the Conservative Party, have even now exited the Chamber and their tormentors have absolutely no plan for a durable, sustainable future relationship. If Brexit happens with or without a deal, they will use that as a pretext to slash and burn at home in the UK, in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and in England. Social dumping, environmental dumping, economic dumping, right off your shores ...

(Loud protests from certain quarters)

There is no such thing as a good Brexit. There is no such thing as a good outcome to this.

I cannot support the resolution today despite your best efforts and your good faith. I do not believe this Withdrawal Agreement will deliver because of your interlocutors. Scotland has other chances in this. We need more time to reverse Brexit. Please give us that time.

(Applause)

(Hubbub)

  Gunnar Beck (ID). – Frau Präsidentin! „Großbritannien vor dem Chaos“ unken die britischen und spotten die deutschen Medien, ähnlich wie bei der Hysterie vor dem Brexit-Referendum. Ernste Folgen drohen dennoch. Großbritannien ist der drittgrößte deutsche Exportmarkt und mit den USA zusammen der profitabelste. Für die Rest-EU ist es der zweitgrößte Absatzmarkt. Bei einem harten Brexit droht der Verlust zehntausender deutscher Arbeitsplätze, vor allem in der Automobilbranche. Hinzu kommt der Wegfall des britischen Nettobeitrages von 10 bis 12 Mrd. Euro. Die Kosten träfen vor allem das allzeit willfährige Deutschland.

Now why then is the EU resisting an amicable divorce? The UK has negotiated in good faith, perhaps rather too much faith when it agreed to all the EU’s initial demands over the negotiation timetable, EU citizens’ rights and the divorce bill. The EU responded by concocting the issue of the Irish backstop.

But who seriously believes that sporadic or electronic customs checks will lead to the resurgence of violent terror in Ireland. Not even Michel Barnier, who is trying to use the backstop to keep Britain in a permanent customs union or to force a referendum. Against the entire financial and political establishment, and against all received politically correct opinion, the British people voted to leave the EU by a majority of 52% to 48%, exactly the majority by which this Parliament confirmed EU Commission President von der Leyen.

Seventeen point four million British citizens voted for Brexit. The largest number of British people who ever voted for anything! Now Michel Barnier is a shrewd and skilful negotiator, but he’s trying to reduce the UK to a vassel state or alternatively is risking massive job losses in the EU. Either, or – either outcome is unacceptable.

(Applause from certain quarters)

  Peter Lundgren (ECR). – Fru talman! Brexit präglas i dag av ett ställningskrig mellan Storbritannien och EU där båda sidor har svårt att komma med konkreta lösningar. Observera att vi bara för ett halvt sekel sedan hade en helt annan situation. Storbritannien avstod då från att gå med i Europeiska gemenskapens kol- och stålunion i början på 50-talet av liknande skäl som i dagens brexitsituation.

Samma sak 1957 när britterna menade att en tullunion av EG-typ med enhetliga, ofta protektionistiska utvärtes tullar skulle bli alltför mycket av en tvångströja för det frihandelsinriktade Storbritannien. Varpå man genast som konkurrens skapade det öppnare och politiskt bindande European Free Trade Association, EFTA, tillsammans med bland annat Sverige, som – vill jag tillägga – klarar sig med ett hundratal anställda jämfört med EU:s närmare 50 000 anställda totalt i alla olika institutioner.

De brittiska väljarna har gjort sitt val och de valde att lämna EU. Det måste respekteras. Nu måste vi politiker leverera både här och i Storbritannien.

  Martina Anderson (GUE/NGL). – Madam President, my Irish passport says that it is the entitlement and birth right of everyone born on the island of Ireland to be part of the Irish nation. As this resolution clearly states, we Irish in the north of Ireland are therefore entitled to EU citizenship where we reside.

Whilst the backstop is essential to prevent a hardening of the border partition in Ireland to protect the all-Ireland economy and North-South cooperation, it takes us out of the EU against our will. We in the north of Ireland voted to remain. It is important that this Parliament recognises, as stated in the resolution, the legitimacy of whatever choice is freely exercised by the majority of the people in the north of Ireland as to our right to change its status, our right to self-determination as recognised in the Good Friday Agreement in British and Irish law.

The European Council statement stated that in the event of Irish reunification all 32 counties would remain in the EU. French President Macron stated that the solution to the Brexit problem is Irish reunification. Lord Ashcroft’s opinion poll, like others, shows a majority in favour of Irish reunification. The Good Friday Agreement provides a peaceful, democratic pathway back into the EU for the people of the north of Ireland and that should be respected by all.

  Nigel Farage (NI). – Madam President, well, one thing is clear and that is, from the emollient tone we have heard this morning from Juncker and Barnier, that we are actually very close to the deal on the backstop being agreed at the summit on 17 October.

Of course, both sides will try and present this as a negotiating victory. It may be worth reminding ourselves that this treaty even without the backstop is a very bad deal for Britain. It will leave us trapped inside European Union rules, it will leave us under the auspices of the European Court and, having given everything away in the Withdrawal Agreement, the worst part is that any future relationship relies on good faith.

We put ourselves entirely in your hands. We put ourselves indeed at your mercy, and I would suggest that events that we’ve seen across Europe this week do not indicate that good faith exists. I am, of course, referring to the pipsqueak Prime Minister of Luxembourg, who set out to ritually humiliate a British Prime Minister in the most astonishing way, only to be greeted like a hero by President Macron at the Elysée Palace yesterday.

And it’s very clear to me that keeping us trapped inside this was Barnier’s objective from the start, to keep us inside the Customs Union. We’ve heard from other speakers today that the fear is that the UK breaks out of the Customs Union, breaks out of single market rules and that we become more competitive and we become much wealthier outside the European Union than within it.

Mr Verhofstadt, we want no part of your European empire. The only way forward now, to deliver on the referendum, is for a clean-break Brexit. Once we’ve done that we will have a grown-up conversation about trade and about the way forward.

(Applause from certain quarters)

  Esteban González Pons (PPE). – Madam President, when I was a young student and started to get involved in politics, I looked at Great Britain as the highest example of what a democracy should be. Not any more. Today, British democracy is a shadow of what it was because of politicians like Nigel Farage. Today, when Great Britain is living its darkest hours since the war, its parliament has been shut down. This parliament, in the very last moments of the negotiations, is open; the British Parliament is closed. That’s the reason why we must all speak English here today, because we are representing not only the European people, but also the British people. This is today the British House of democracy as well.

(Applause)

Today, Great Britain has been taken over by nationalist politicians, unable to see beyond their own physical and mental borders. We have been negotiating in the fairest possible way. We have always acted in good faith. We never lied. Jean-Claude Juncker and Michel Barnier are good negotiators, but they are gentlemen as well. I’m wondering if the current British Prime Minister can say the same.

We will not oppose an extension if it is required, but we want to know until when and why, because we have no more time to waste. I urge the Prime Minister to respect the British Parliament, and I urge him to respect democracy in Europe because Brexit now is not only a disaster but also the biggest mistake of current times.

  Richard Corbett (S&D). – Madam President, we have a chaotic political situation in Britain at the moment, but colleagues should not for one moment think that this Prime Minister, nor that lot over there, represent the entire British nation. They do not.

(Applause)

Although Mr Johnson claims that he is seeking a deal, he has not put any actual proposal on the table, and the ideas he sometimes floats for a solution are ones that would not be acceptable either here or to the British Parliament. He is, in fact, heading towards a no—deal Brexit. But the British Parliament has legislated to prevent such an outcome and to require him to ask for an extension rather than have a no—deal Brexit. A majority in the British Parliament – remember he is now a minority government; he has lost ministers and has expelled members from his party – and every single opposition party, namely Labour, the Liberal Democrats, the Greens, the Scottish Nationalists and the Welsh Nationalists, now wants a new referendum. In such a referendum, faced with a Boris Johnson deal or a no deal, they would campaign to remain in the European Union. It is important for colleagues to remember that. No matter how frustrated you are with the British Government and its Prime Minister, bear with the British people.

Public opinion is shifting on this. A new referendum is justified because Brexit bears no resemblance whatsoever to what that lot said during the referendum campaign. They said it would be easy. It’s difficult. They said it would save lots of money that would all go to the NHS. It’s costing a fortune. They said it would be good for the British economy and jobs. The opposite is proving true. That is why leave voters are entitled to say, ‘this is not what I was promised; this is not what I voted for’. It is also right to give the British people another chance to look at this. Please bear with us. Please give us that necessary extension. Ask your Prime Ministers to give us the extension necessary for us to sort this out.

(Applause)

  Naomi Long (Renew). – Madam President, I was elected as a cross—community, pro—European voice for the people of Northern Ireland, a majority of whom voted to remain in the EU referendum, and for Remain parties in the European elections. Membership of the European Union matters to us. Our European citizenship is a shared identity uniting our people, both unionist and nationalist and the growing number of us who identify as neither.

The Good Friday Agreement was founded on European principles of interdependence and cooperation. It must be protected. Yet our government, propped up by the DUP, refused to hear us. The DUP did not speak for a majority in 1998 when they opposed the Good Friday Agreement. They do not speak for the majority in Northern Ireland now, either on Brexit or on the backstop.

There can be no good or sensible Brexit, but a no—deal Brexit would be catastrophic in Northern Ireland. Ignore those who say that no—deal is no problem. Listen to those who live and work across the border. They know differently. The UK Parliament is working to try to avoid a no—deal Brexit. We now need EU leaders and this Parliament to give them the time they need to succeed and we appreciate your patience. Brexit will affect all of our futures. It is important to get it right, not just get it done.

(Applause)

  Molly Scott Cato (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, from the start, Brexit has been about control, but far from taking back control from Europe, Johnson and Cummings have lost control of the country. The nationwide protests about the prorogation of Parliament, an outrageous usurpation of power unmatched since the 17th century, have meant the British Prime Minister is unable to appear in public anywhere in the UK, or even, as we see recently, in Luxembourg. We now know what ‘take back control’ really meant; it means taking control away from our representatives in Parliament, taking control away from the civil servants, taking power away from those who are upholding the rule of law.

Brexit has not given control to the people, or to Parliament, but to wealthy oligarchs who want to avoid paying tax and to global corporations which want to tear up the laws that protect people and planet. This is why the commitment to an equal playing field on environmental standards, employment rights and consumer protections in Parliament’s resolution is so important. We cannot allow a race to the bottom, where the UK ends up as a tax haven, a sweatshop or goes back to being the ‘dirty man of Europe’.

Tragically, five million EU citizens have lost control of their lives and been shamefully turned into bargaining chips, as they struggle to keep their families together and their lives on track. I deeply regret that this Parliament has failed to suggest that their rights should be ring-fenced in our resolution. Although the situation in my country is chaotic, and democratic institutions are being tested to breaking point, both our MPs and our courts are taking positive action to protect democracy. The clear message of our resolution today is that we look to the European Council to grant the UK the extension we need to enable the democratic forces in Britain to regain control and end the political crisis. Only we, the people, can resist the tyranny of Johnson and his cabal. We depend on our friends in Parliament, and in the Council, to give us the time we need to take back control from the moneymen and the oligarchs.

Only a people’s vote can guarantee that the majority who now wish to remain at the heart of Europe can stop the Brexit nightmare.

(Applause from certain quarters)

  Jaak Madison (ID). – Madam President, on 23 June 2016 the European Union membership referendum was held in the United Kingdom. On that historic day, a 51.89% majority chose to leave the European Union. There have been more than 1000 days since the referendum took place, and every single day since then political elitists – both in the UK and in the EU – have held the people of Great Britain and Northern Ireland hostage. The decision of the UK voters to leave the European Union is binding, and those in power have a legal duty to give effect to the results of the referendum.

Certain politicians may think they possess superior wisdom by preventing Brexit, but they should be reminded that even though the people may not be the ones who govern, legislate or interpret the law, they are the source of that power. This is something the political elitists of our time conveniently tend to forget. The EU is quick to preach to third countries about democracy and the rule of law, but in its own backyard democratic results are only respected when they correspond with the ideology of the EU federalists.

The possibility to join the EU was always accompanied by the corresponding possibility to leave. However, what has become clear is that politicians are doing everything in their power to prevent the UK from leaving the EU. Even the Guy Verhofstadts of this world can be seen in a video drinking to the fact that they have succeeded in keeping the UK hostage for at least five years.

Boris Johnson brought new hopes that Brexit might finally be delivered. However, the House of Commons constantly undermines him, most recently by voting in favour of rendering a no-deal Brexit unlawful and effectively taking away hope.

The Council could block a third extension. Johnson could negotiate a different deal or leave without a deal. The people of Europe will not be silenced and will not be held hostage. By ignoring the will of the people, the EU is becoming the architect of its own downfall, unfortunately.

(Applause)

It is time for the EU to listen to the people and to respect democracy and the sovereignty of nations, and it is time for the EU to practice what it preaches.

  Jan Zahradil (ECR). – Madam President, we have six weeks to Brexit and, if nothing happens, the UK leaves on 31 October without a deal. But still many people in this House make the mistake of thinking and believing that we have a deal and that there are only some troublemakers on the UK side that are blocking it and they have to be brought to their senses. But all this is not true. We do not have a deal. We have just a draft that was dismissed three times in the House of Commons and which the current UK Government – a pretty legitimate government – doesn’t accept.

There’s a saying that ‘it takes two to tango’. But unfortunately, it seems that we are dancing pretty much alone. So a sensible option, I feel, has to be for the EP to ask the European Council to mandate the European Commission to renegotiate the deal. Otherwise, we will end up in six weeks with no deal, with very damaging consequences for our economies.

  Luke Ming Flanagan (GUE/NGL). – Madam President, the number one thing we’ve got to do here is respect people’s positions and respect that the people of the UK voted to leave. Those that voted to leave need to respect that this causes massive problems for people in the border areas. At the moment, the best solution available is the backstop. We must, however, be prepared for a crash-out. If this happens, then the principle of EU solidarity will be truly tested. Up until now, this solidarity has come in the form of words. Yet again today we hear from Jean—Claude Juncker about solidarity.

Ireland exports a quarter of a million tonnes of beef to the UK every year. If we lose this market, then we will need to find other markets immediately. Who better than our European neighbours? Do we have the capacity? The answer is yes. If the UK crashes out, then Ireland needs a new market. We imported, in the EU, over 300 000 tonnes of beef from the Mercosur countries last year. In the case of no deal, we need the new Commissioner for Trade, Phil Hogan, to turn this off to a trickle if he really means solidarity.

  Diane Dodds (NI). – Madam President, firstly I would like to reaffirm my strong belief that an orderly withdrawal process is the best and preferred way forward for the European Union, for the United Kingdom and, to be specific, for our neighbours in the Republic of Ireland.

I have always believed that this is in our interests and will work to achieve this end. However that withdrawal agreement must not damage the constitutional and economic integrity of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland’s place within it. The agreement must also meet basic democratic tests. The backstop endangers these fundamental principles. This House has confirmed on a number of occasions its adherence to the Belfast Agreement. Indeed it was referenced this morning by President Juncker and Mr Barnier. One of the core principles of that agreement is parity of esteem between the two traditions in Northern Ireland, meaning that citizens from both the Unionist and nationalist traditions are treated and heard equally.

Just last week the former Irish Prime Minister, Bertie Ahern, himself an architect of the Belfast Agreement, spoke out on the importance of parity of esteem, and is quoted as saying ‘any solution has to include the Unionist people, because parity of esteem in the Good Friday Agreement is both sides.’ Let’s be clear, the letter sent to the European Institutions and which gives rise to the statement in paragraph 5 of the resolution was not signed or supported by a single member of the Northern Ireland Assembly from the Unionist tradition. Every Unionist party which stood in the European elections did so on a platform of rejecting the backstop. A recent opinion poll says that 81% of Unionists are against the backstop. There is a democratic problem with the backstop, Mr Barnier, and you cannot wash your hands of it. Not only would Northern Ireland be subject to swathes of legislation with no control or representation, the Union ...

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Antonio Tajani (PPE). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, la commissione per gli affari costituzionali, che ho l'onore di presiedere, ha deciso di dar voce alle organizzazioni dei cittadini europei che vivono nel Regno Unito, ivi compresi gli irlandesi. Abbiamo deciso di ascoltare anche le rappresentanze dei cittadini britannici che vivono in Europa.

Questo Parlamento ha il dovere di dare voce agli europei. Ci sono 600 mila miei compatrioti che vivono nel Regno Unito, dobbiamo dare voce agli irlandesi del Nord, agli irlandesi della Repubblica d'Irlanda, dobbiamo dare voce ai britannici che vivono in Europa. Questo è il luogo della democrazia, questo è il luogo dove i cittadini devono sentirsi difesi. Lo dobbiamo fare anche per ridurre la distanza che c'è tra queste istituzioni e le popolazioni europee.

Abbiamo chiesto anche l'autorizzazione ad andare come commissione AFCO al confine tra Irlanda del Nord e Repubblica d'Irlanda, per andare a dare un segnale di attenzione, per far capire – perché lì è il nodo del problema – cosa bisogna fare per rinforzare la pace. È fondamentale il backstop, perché i segnali che stanno arrivando – anche ai servizi segreti britannici – sono molto preoccupanti, ed è anche fondamentale tutelare laggiù, visto che ci sarà una frontiera flessibile, le nostre imprese e la nostra agricoltura: ricordiamo la vicenda della mucca pazza.

Con una frontiera flessibile e senza una difesa del mercato interno l'Europa economica corre molti rischi e questo Parlamento ha il dovere di difendere cittadini e imprese.

  Brando Benifei (S&D). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, siamo vicini al 31 ottobre senza che il premier britannico Johnson abbia messo sul tavolo una proposta politica che possa essere discussa credibilmente dai leader europei. Aumenta quindi il rischio di un'uscita senza accordo e aumenta l'impressione che questa sia oggi l'opzione preferita dalla leadership del partito conservatore, mentre l'opposizione guidata da Corbyn ha portato avanti con successo iniziative per bloccare questa prospettiva disastrosa.

Il Partito Democratico italiano, che rappresento in questo dibattito, vuole difendere i 3 milioni di cittadini europei che vivono e lavorano nel Regno Unito, tra cui figurano oltre 700 mila cittadini italiani, così come anche moltissime nostre imprese che con il Regno Unito commerciano da sempre, contribuendo attivamente alla ricchezza dei nostri paesi.

Se il Regno Unito lo richiederà saremo pronti a sostenere un'estensione della scadenza dell'articolo 50, ma solo come strumento chiaro per scongiurare un'uscita senza accordo, con una chiara prospettiva.

  Billy Kelleher (Renew). – Madam President, I wish to support the resolution and, in doing that, I also want to say that I accept the decision of the United Kingdom in terms of leaving the European Union. But, equally, there’s an obligation on the United Kingdom to accept that a great democratic process took place on the island of Ireland in 1998, where people, North and South, overwhelmingly supported the Good Friday Agreement. In that Agreement, we talk about an all-Ireland economy and we talk about parity of esteem. Just to put it in context: day in, day out, people cross an invisible border. They go about their daily lives. A crash—out Brexit will have implications for that freedom – the freedom to go about commercial life, social life, cultural life and sporting life.

So, in the context of this debate, I support the resolution and I ask the United Kingdom, in particular, to accept that it has duty-bound responsibilities to uphold the integrity of the Good Friday Agreement, bearing in mind that it is also a peace process. So when I accept the fact that the United Kingdom wishes to leave the European Union, I expect the United Kingdom to do its duty and honour the Good Friday Agreement.

(Applause)

  Jill Evans (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, I have represented Wales in this European Parliament for 20 years. It has been my greatest privilege and my greatest challenge, but now we face the most challenging times of all. Westminster has failed Wales. It does not work for the people. It is a parliament in turmoil. But I ask you to look beyond that at other things that are happening.

Over recent months, I have marched with many thousands of people all over Wales in support of independence, and that support is growing. Forty percent of people now saying they would support Welsh independence if it meant that Wales could remain in the European Union. We have the right to determine our own future. To resolve the current crisis, we must put the whole thing back to the people in a referendum, and we need the time to do that. I will continue to work for that and for Wales’s future in Europe.

  Harald Vilimsky (ID). – Frau Präsidentin, meine sehr geehrten Damen und Herren! Erlauben Sie mir, zunächst mein großes Unverständnis dafür zum Ausdruck zu bringen, dass zwei große Verhandler – die Europäische Union, aber auch das Vereinigte Königreich, die ja beide an sich selbst postulieren, in der westlichen Welt große Einflussträger zu sein – nicht und nicht in der Lage sind, einen direkt demokratischen Volksentscheid entsprechend umzusetzen.

Schauen Sie, wie es in diesem Haus aussieht: Es gibt zwei große Lager. Die einen sagen: Brexit ist etwas Gutes; die anderen sagen: Brexit ist etwas Schlechtes. Meine Meinung dazu: Es ist völlig unerheblich, was sie dazu sagen. Es ist auch unerheblich, was ich sage. Einzig und allein maßgeblich ist, was eine Mehrheit der britischen Bevölkerung sagt. Und es ist unsere heilige Pflicht, Respekt zu zeigen vor einer Mehrheit einer britischen Bevölkerung, die klar entschieden hat.

Daher: Nutzen Sie bitte die Zeit bis zum 31. Oktober, um aufeinander zuzugehen, ein Ergebnis herbeizuverhandeln, das effizient, professionell, fair und herzeigbar ist, und hören Sie auf mit diesem Kasperltheater!

  Geert Bourgeois (ECR). – Voorzitter, onze fractie mag geen deel uitmaken van de werkzaamheden van de stuurgroep. Dat is een smet op het democratisch blazoen van dit Parlement, maar toch zal de NVA-delegatie uit Vlaanderen de resolutie goedkeuren. Wij willen immers alles doen om het tot een deal te laten komen. No deal is a bad deal! Wij hopen dat onze onderhandelaars verder constructief en - nu er een kleine opening gemaakt schijnt te worden - met de nodige flexibiliteit onderhandelen, met respect voor de principes van de backstop en met respect voor de integriteit van de interne markt.

Wat de toekomstige relatie betreft, heeft mijnheer Barnier terecht beklemtoond dat er meer is dan handel. Ik wil er ook op wijzen dat er naast defensie, veiligheid enzovoort nog onderzoek en ontwikkeling is, universitaire samenwerking, de blue economy enzovoort. Wat de steunmaatregelen van het globalisatiefonds betreft, wil ik erop wijzen dat slechts enkele procenten van onze uitvoerende bedrijven meer dan 49 werknemers hebben.

  Clare Daly (GUE/NGL). – Madam President, it’s all so easy to pretend, as many people have here, that Brexit is all about the crazy Brits. If Brexit is about anything, it’s about the failure of the neoliberal ideology entrenched in EU institutions, thanks to Lisbon and Nice, and, ironically, also entrenched in the ideology of the ruling classes in Britain. It’s about soaring rents, declining wages, privatisation and undermining of public services, conditions that exist in many countries throughout the European Union.

Let’s not lie about it – it is about democracy. You know what: the UK might not be doing too well in the democracy stakes, but neither is the European Union. So, while I don’t care about the establishment in Britain cannibalising itself, the people on the island of Ireland have to live our lives and we cannot have a hard border. We have to have our human rights respected and not sacrificed. If people here really believe in solidarity and a peaceful and socially just Europe, as I do, we have to abandon the road that this European Union is on and abandon neoliberalism.

  Martin Edward Daubney (NI). – Madam President, we’ve heard a lot today about Emperor Verhofstadt’s plan to build a new European empire. Today he compared Boris Johnson to Mrs Doubtfire. Let’s face it, Mr Verhofstadt is the Darth Vader of Europe and this place is his Death Star, where national democracy comes to die. As for the Empire, I’m here for the 17.4 million to strike back.

75 years ago, my forefathers fought and died on European soil fighting fascism. Today, we are here to liberate the United Kingdom from the European Union. For the past three years, despite paying GBP 1 billion a month for membership, we have been treated with nothing but contempt, and today it got worse. As for the so-called level playing field, I’d hate to play football against you, Mr Barnier, as the match would be rigged. Brexit has shown that the European Union does not believe in democracy. Today, we are expected to vote to call Brexit a regrettable event. Well, let me put it into language you understand: ‘je ne regrette rien’. We are leaving the European Union and we have no regrets.

(Applause)

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – Madam President, in time historians might describe Brexit as the incredible sulk by the self-styled Incredible Hulk and his allies, who want to leave the European Union, come hell or high water, on 31 October, regardless of the consequences for people, for prosperity or for peace on the island of Ireland. For that reason, we are so grateful in Ireland for the solidarity of the EU26, articulated so well by President Juncker and Mr Barnier here this morning. Mr Juncker said that they are standing in solidarity with the most affected states and showing unity of purpose. It couldn’t be stronger or clearer. Mr Barnier also outlined very clearly the necessity for the backstop.

There is another consequence of Brexit, and that is that after the Good Friday Agreement, the relationship between Ireland and the United Kingdom grew and became friendlier, culminating with the Queen’s visit to Ireland in Croke Park a few years ago. That now has been replaced, unfortunately, by tension and suspicion. I hope, however, that if the United Kingdom asks for an extension of Article 50, and I’m encouraged by what I heard here today, it will be granted. If only, number one, to give Mr Johnson the time to come forward with the abundance of solutions he told our Prime Minister he had for the backstop, and maybe also to give time to the good people of Great Britain to take back control from the Brexit buccaneers who want to leave, regardless of deal or no deal.

  Katarina Barley (S&D). – Madam President, being a British as well as a German citizen, Brexit is quite an emotional topic for me, as for many others I guess, and the most emotional part is obviously the backstop. What is hardly ever mentioned though is that the backstop is only a temporary solution until a final agreement is signed. So why is it such a problem? It is because there is a lack of mutual trust and we see that today very clearly. Some British people fear that they will be bound to the EU forever and, at the same time, the EU wants guarantees that there will be no hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland, and that is exactly the point. It is not only about the UK. It is also about Ireland and we have every right to discuss this here because Ireland is going to stay in the European Union.

So what can we do? Exactly the opposite of what some politicians in Britain and here in this House are doing, which is to become more and more aggressive and to use war metaphors – and I say this explicitly as a German and British citizen. We will stay neighbours anyway and we should stay good neighbours, in peace.

(Applause)

  Nathalie Loiseau (Renew). – Madame la Présidente, je voudrais remercier Jean-Claude Juncker et Michel Barnier d'être devant notre Parlement, un Parlement qui possède le privilège de vous entendre et de débattre du Brexit, sans que personne ne songe à le suspendre.

Notre Parlement prendra ses responsabilités. Jamais nous n'accepterons de porter préjudice à l'île d'Irlande, ni par un mur, ni par le retour de la violence. Jamais nous n'accepterons de porter préjudice à l'intégrité et à la solidité de l'Union européenne. Jamais nous ne transigerons sur la paix, sur les droits des citoyens, ni sur les intérêts de l'Union européenne.

Notre Parlement sait dire ce qu'il ne veut pas. Il sait aussi dire ce qu'il veut. Notre attitude a toujours été et reste dictée par l'amitié et le respect que nous portons au peuple britannique, mais nous ignorons à ce jour ce que veut le gouvernement britannique. Nous ignorons par exemple si le Royaume-Uni demandera un nouveau report du Brexit et s'il a une raison valable pour le faire. Le gouvernement britannique ne nous dit ni quand, ni comment, ni vers où il veut quitter l'Union européenne.

Cette situation ne peut pas durer. Nous avons besoin de savoir si le Royaume-Uni nous respecte autant que nous le respectons, et se respecter implique de se dire la vérité.

  Ciarán Cuffe (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, yesterday I heard Mr Barnier speak about a fragile peace. He talked about meeting women in Ireland who cross the border every day for work. They said to him ‘We don’t want it to start up again.’ I appeal to Mr Farage, and indeed to Mr Johnson, visit the border, hear their stories, they are heartfelt and they are real.

In Northern Ireland the tensions are always present. Violence is never far away. My Irish colleagues Clare Bailey and Vincent Martin have first-hand experience of this. They proposed a confirmatory vote for those who live in Northern Ireland: let the UK exit the backstop whenever it wants but first put a question to the people of Northern Ireland – best of both worlds in a free-trade area or the UK only? Let them decide.

The poet Seamus Heaney once wrote ‘Believe that a further shore is reachable from here. Believe in miracles …’. Like Heaney, we have to believe in miracles, but we must not lose hope that a solution can be found.

  President. – Thank you, Mr Cuffe, and I approve of your choice of poet. I have quoted him in this Chair.

  Antonio Maria Rinaldi (ID). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, sentendo i colleghi in Aula ho capito che la preoccupazione maggiore è quella di chiedere la ripetizione del referendum nel Regno Unito, magari finché il risultato è quello gradito. La democrazia funziona in un'altra maniera. D'altronde in Aula, quando la signora Ursula von der Leyen è stata eletta soltanto per nove voti, nessuno ha chiesto la ripetizione, anche se la metà di questo Parlamento non era d'accordo.

Vorrei semplicemente ricordare che il Regno Unito è acquirente netto di beni e servizi da parte dell'Unione. Cosa significa penalizzare il Regno Unito? Dopo a chi venderemo le nostre automobili, a chi venderemo le nostre derrate alimentari e i nostri macchinari?

Allora cerchiamo di metterci d'accordo ma soprattutto cerchiamo di riunirci in modo propositivo. Quando si è voluto sostenere il sistema bancario ci sono state delle riunioni anche di notte e immediatamente si è trovata una soluzione. Perché non si vuole arrivare a una soluzione nei confronti del Regno Unito? Io propongo a tutti i colleghi...

(La Presidente toglie la parola all'oratore)

  Ангел Джамбазки (ECR). – Уважаема г-жо Председател, все по-ясно очертаващата се перспектива за излизане на Великобритания от Съюза без сделка, така нареченият „твърд Брексит“, застрашава интересите на всички. За Европа това развитие на ситуацията би означавало затруднен внос-износ на стоки в посока Великобритания, а в самото Обединено кралство – икономическа несигурност и заплаха за мира в Северна Ирландия.

Обединеното кралство ще напусне Европейския съюз, но няма да напусне Европа. Страната ще остане един от най-големите икономически партньори и сигурен съюзник в НАТО. Партньорството в сферата на сигурността е особено важно за тези от нас, които ще останат в Съюза. Необходимо е да се намери решение на проблема с границата с Ирландия, което да задоволява настоящите възражения на Обединеното кралство по въпроса.

Лидерите на Европейския съюз трябва да разберат, че в настоящия си вид решението за ирландската граница, предложено от г-н Барние, би застрашило конституционната цялост на Обединеното кралство и е неприемливо за британските ни партньори. Можем да очакваме бързо и ефективно решение на кризата около излизането на Великобритания от Съюза единствено след постигането на съгласие по този въпрос. В противен случай ще допринесем за излагането на риск не само на икономическото развитие на Европа, но и нейната сила. Наред с това можем да загубим доверието на един от най-важните си партньори.

  Eugenia Rodríguez Palop (GUE/NGL). – Señora presidenta, para España el Brexit es un estado transitorio que no augura nada bueno. En nuestro país, la comarca de Gibraltar se enfrenta a un escenario probablemente catastrófico. El caso del Brexit amenaza a la frontera entre Gibraltar y España; hoy una herida abierta por la que pasan más de 28 000 personas diariamente, entre 13 000 y 15 000 trabajadores transfronterizos, personas para las que no tenemos ningún plan de contingencia fiable, acordado y financiado.

No sabemos todavía cómo vamos a evitar que sus permisos de trabajo no se modifiquen negativamente, que no disminuyan sus retribuciones ni sus pensiones o que no se deteriore la atención sanitaria a la que tienen derecho. Si el Reino Unido sale abruptamente de la Unión Europea, habrá colas de más de cuatro horas en la frontera, se ralentizará el suministro de alimentos y medicinas, el abastecimiento de las empresas, las importaciones y exportaciones y la afluencia de turistas.

El camino de rosas con el que fantaseó Johnson se ha convertido ya en un lodazal intransitable, con un Parlamento amordazado y millones de personas en la estacada. Ojalá les dejen elegir libremente, pero, si se marchan, háganlo asumiendo sus responsabilidades. Dejen ya de jugar al póquer con la vida de la gente.

  Lance Forman (NI). – Madam President, this is my first speech in this august Chamber, and hopefully my last. As I entered this building for the first time I saw a huge billboard with a quotation about free and fair elections. But I ask you all, what is the point of free and fair elections if the result is dishonoured? What is the point of free and fair elections if the losers refuse to accept defeat? What is the point of free and fair elections if freedom and fairness is sacrificed, because the elite think that they know best?

The EU holds itself out as the torch bearer of global democracy, giving hope to oppressed people, but what is the point when it resents the democratic vote of its own people?

In a few weeks, our Prime Minister Boris Johnson, my friend, may be forced to ask for an extension to the Brexit negotiation deadline. If the EU truly believes in democracy, it has to reject that request, even if it doesn’t like the outcome. If you believe in democracy you have to stand with the British people. Our exit is long overdue.

(Applause from certain quarters)

  François-Xavier Bellamy (PPE). – Madame la Présidente, derrière les éclats de voix de ce matin, il y a des réalités très concrètes et des risques très concrets pour l’avenir de nos pays.

Le peuple britannique a fait le choix de quitter l’Union européenne et ce choix doit être respecté, mais notre dialogue de ce matin n’aura aucune utilité s’il s’agit seulement de commenter la vie politique britannique. Il s’agit d’abord pour nous, comme vous l’avez rappelé, Monsieur le négociateur, de rester vigilants et concentrés sur l’essentiel: la protection de l’intérêt de tous les citoyens. En cas de sortie sans accord du Royaume-Uni, nous deviendrons tous plus vulnérables face aux menaces qui pèsent sur notre sécurité, et plus fragiles dans nos capacités de défense.

La coopération avec nos voisins britanniques est un élément essentiel pour nos forces de renseignements, nos forces de police et nos forces armées. Demain, nous pourrions nous trouver moins efficaces ensemble pour faire face à la menace terroriste ou pour protéger nos intérêts stratégiques.

Notre économie, elle aussi, serait durement impactée dans un contexte déjà difficile et je voudrais attirer votre attention, en particulier, sur le coût important que représenterait une sortie sans accord pour les pays proches des îles britanniques. Vous me permettrez de citer la France, en particulier, qui gérerait en cas de no deal le poids que représenterait la gestion d’une frontière terrestre rétablie avec la Grande-Bretagne. Dans ce désastre économique, il faut évoquer un secteur en particulier, celui de la pêche, parce que la fermeture des eaux britanniques serait une double peine que nos amis britanniques et nous-mêmes nous infligerions les uns aux autres.

Bref, des milliers de personnes nous regardent et attendent de nous une seule chose. Soyons responsables. Avec le regard d’un nouvel élu, je suis surpris par le tour que prennent nos débats. Nous ne sommes pas là pour refaire un match ou pour recommencer un référendum tranché par les électeurs, mais pour préparer un accord et nous comptons sur vous, cher Michel, pour continuer à travailler dans ce sens.

  Sylvie Guillaume (S&D). – Madame la Présidente, au milieu de l’incertitude sur les options de sortie de l’Union européenne du Royaume-Uni et de l’incompréhension soulevée par le comportement du premier ministre britannique, la position du Parlement européen arrive à point nommé.

Au travers de la résolution, notre message destiné à la classe politique et aux citoyens britanniques est d’ailleurs particulièrement limpide. Les Européens privilégient une sortie ordonnée, qui garantisse la paix civile en Irlande, qui respecte les droits des citoyens européens résidant au Royaume-Uni et ceux des citoyens britanniques installés dans l’Union, soit une sortie ordonnée conforme aux règles européennes et dans le respect des engagements financiers du divorce.

Notre message est également clair sur une extension du délai à laquelle nous nous résoudrions si les élections devaient intervenir.

Maintenant, nous attendons avec impatience que le premier ministre britannique fasse des propositions intelligibles et prenne ses responsabilités. Et puisque j’en suis à parler d’un premier ministre qui prenne ses responsabilités, je voudrais qu’on ait une pensée attristée à l’égard de quelqu’un dont nous lisons qu’il souffre silencieusement depuis trois ans et s’interroge tous les jours sur le sens de tout cela, David Cameron, qui, pour des raisons tactiques, a déclenché ce chaos bien peu conforme à la grande tradition démocratique britannique.

  Luis Garicano (Renew). – Madam President, more than 150 000 Spaniards live in the UK and, in turn, 300 000 Brits live in Spain. For all those citizens, what Mr Farage called a clean break Brexit is a very, very dirty Brexit indeed. Their situation is truly dramatic.

Just last week, I was in the UK talking to Spanish citizens. Their concern has to do with the so-called ‘settled’ status, which is anything but settled. It is just a PDF number they get on their email that actually confers no rights if Mr Johnson and Mr Farage proceed with their no—deal charades. We need to put ourselves in the skin of those citizens who, after possibly decades living in the UK, have no certainty about whether their lives there can continue.

The EU is doing what it must to protect its citizens. The UK is not. We must stand with these proposals, and we must avoid a no—deal Brexit that would be catastrophic for all European citizens.

(Applause)

  Terry Reintke (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, let’s be honest. A lot of people are tired; a lot of people are exhausted. They want to move on. They think that, if we do not grant the extension, then we can go about other business and we can actually get rid of all this drag that we have been seeing in the last month and in the last years.

But, let us make no mistake. If we do not grant this extension and if there is a no—deal Brexit, none of this nightmare would be over. The question of the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland would not be solved, the budgetary questions would not be solved, and the question of the EU and UK citizens and what their future is going to be would not be solved. So now is not the moment for short—sightedness. Now is the moment for solidarity with the hundreds of thousands of British citizens who are marching in the streets. They are calling on us and counting on us to grant this extension in order to give them time to get out of this deadlock and find a solution to this mess that we are in.

(Applause)

  President. – I think you get the prize for sticking exactly to your time. Well done!

  Zdzisław Krasnodębski (ECR). – Szanowna Pani Przewodnicząca! Przysłuchując się tej debacie, zadaję sobie pytanie: jaki wniosek można z niej wyciągnąć? Na co powinniśmy się przygotować? Otóż wniosek jest następujący: powinniśmy się przygotować na jak najgorszy scenariusz, czyli brak porozumienia. Rzekomo nikt tego nie chce, ale prawdopodobnie jest to scenariusz, który nas czeka.

Chciałem podkreślić tylko jedną rzecz: odpowiedzialność, odpowiedzialność za ten historyczny moment i za tę katastrofę, której rozmiarów nie możemy jeszcze przewidzieć, spadnie na obie strony. I mam nadzieję, że pan Jean-Claude Juncker i pan Barnier, nasz główny negocjator, również sobie zdają z tego sprawę.

Ja uważam, że negocjacje powinny zostać jak najszybciej wznowione i przeprowadzone, żeby uniknąć tej konsekwencji, która nam grozi. A odkładanie terminu brexitu w nieskończoność również prowadzi donikąd, do jeszcze większego chaosu i do niepewności prawnej, więc proszę Panów, żeby podjęli odpowiednie działania.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE). – Madam President, it is evident that we didn’t want the exit of the United Kingdom and, even if we regret it, we fully respect the choice of British people. All the negotiations were carried out in a true spirit of cooperation and good faith, finding the best solutions for both sides. All this time, very much due to the stolidity, serenity and true British phlegm of Michel Barnier, we have shown goodwill, good faith and respect.

If any European politician or leader has not respected, on any occasion, the British position or institutions, that is regrettable. Please read our lips: we are open to consider your proposals, if you present them. We are open to an extension, if that is justified. You can believe us; we want to make your life easier, but we expect reciprocity. It is time to urge Prime Minister Johnson. It is unfortunate that you decided to turn to American superheroes to express the inclination of the British Government when you have much better sources of inspiration in modern and popular British literature.

Mr Johnson, do you really believe that what we need here now are the hard skills of the Incredible Hulk? Wouldn’t the skills of the very British, much smarter and magical Harry Potter serve you better, Mr Johnson?

(The President cut off the speaker)

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 171(8))

  Ben Habib (NI), blue-card question. – For three years we’ve heard that the EU is a rules-based system. Mr Rangel mentioned the preparedness of the EU to negotiate with us a new form of withdrawal agreement, perhaps some alteration to the backstop. But I just want to remind this Chamber that, by its own volition, clause 12 of the agreement which gives effect to the extension until 31 October prohibits any opening of the Withdrawal Agreement and any further renegotiation of that agreement. So how is it that this rules-based system can take that approach?

  President. – I am not going to ask you to even answer that because the question came after the 30 seconds. The rest was a statement.

  Javier Moreno Sánchez (S&D). – Señora presidenta, el Reino Unido quedará sumido en el caos si acaba produciéndose un Brexit duro que nace —recordémoslo— de las mentiras de unos dirigentes políticos irresponsables que engañaron a sus ciudadanos y que han llevado al actual Gobierno a vulnerar los pilares de su propia democracia, cerrando el Parlamento británico.

Ante este contrasentido histórico, que perjudicará tremendamente a todos los ciudadanos europeos, y especialmente a los británicos, la posición de la delegación socialista española es clara y contundente, en línea con la propuesta de Resolución que vamos a votar hoy: «No» a un Brexit duro. «Sí» a una salida ordenada, basada en el Acuerdo de Retirada sellado por los Veintisiete.

Un acuerdo no negociable que garantiza, ante todo, la salvaguardia de los derechos y la protección de nuestros ciudadanos. Un acuerdo que preserva la paz en Irlanda mediante el backstop para evitar el restablecimiento de una frontera física con Irlanda del Norte y garantizar la integridad del mercado interior de la Unión.

Señorías, el tiempo apremia. Por eso, apelo a la responsabilidad y al sentido de Estado del Gobierno británico para enderezar el timón. Aún estamos a tiempo. Puede haber marcha atrás.

(La presidenta retira la palabra al orador).

  Nicola Beer (Renew). – Madam President, the scenario of a no-deal Brexit is real. Among the relevant political groups of this House we all agree on the catastrophic consequences of a hard Brexit, in particular for the citizens of Ireland and the British overseas territories, not forgetting, of course, the United Kingdom itself.

The work on contingency measures is in full swing and I particularly appreciate the Commission’s recent proposals to provide support to small and medium-sized enterprises. This should be done comprehensively.

But, above all, I sincerely congratulate our colleagues in the British Parliament on their determination to put their Prime Minister in his place. This move gives hope – hope for an orderly withdrawal agreement or even for a second chance for them to remain as a part of the European Union. We all, together, should take this chance, and God save the United Kingdom.

(Applause)

  Benoît Biteau (Verts/ALE). – Madame la Présidente, chers collègues, l’hypothèse d’une sortie du Royaume-Uni sans accord n’est plus à écarter. Dès le 1er novembre, les conséquences pour l’agriculture européenne et la pêche seront considérables. Elles sont pourtant très mal évaluées. Ce qui est certain, c’est que les secteurs de la viande bovine, des produits laitiers et des vins et spiritueux seront les plus fortement touchés.

Le Brexit risque d’être une crise sans précédent, et nous avançons dans le brouillard et sans boussole.

Les producteurs irlandais de viande bovine sont au bord du gouffre, comme l’a relevé notre collègue Flanagan tout à l’heure. Le commissaire à l’agriculture Phil Hogan en a d’ailleurs parfaitement conscience. Il a déjà pesé de tout son poids pour arracher une aide de 50 millions d’euros sur le budget agricole en 2020 pour amortir ce choc. Les inquiétudes de M. Hogan sont légitimes. La Commission européenne doit donc d’urgence présenter devant ce Parlement un projet global pour soutenir tous les paysans européens touchés par ce Brexit.

  Veronika Vrecionová (ECR). – Paní předsedající, za necelý měsíc a půl dojde k brexitu. Tento fakt je znám a měli by se s tím smířit i ti, kteří si brexit nepřejí. Řada poslanců v tomto sále prosazuje přímou demokracii. Zdůrazňuji, že já mezi ně nepatřím. Referendum je jejím nejčistším prostředkem, a pokud k němu sáhneme, je potřeba respektovat jeho výsledek. Evropská komise a Rada by měly využít zbývající čas k nalezení dohody, která zabrání tomu tzv. tvrdému brexitu. Ten poškodí nejen Velkou Británii, ale také zbývající státy Evropské unie, jejich občany – naše občany a firmy. Aby byla dohoda uzavřena, musí s ní souhlasit obě strany. Je evidentní, že se stávajícím návrhem Velká Británie nesouhlasí. Tato dohoda se proto musí změnit. Považuji za nebezpečné stále trvat na něčem, co nefunguje.

  Esther de Lange (PPE). – Madam President, as you know, the reason I went into politics was called foot-and-mouth disease, an animal disease which, as they do, does not stop at borders and which touched my country, the Netherlands, yours, Ireland and also France and the United Kingdom at the beginning of this century. Hundreds of thousands, even millions, of farm animals were killed on account of a disease against which they could have been easily vaccinated, and the outcry that this created in rural areas was not heard in London because the British Government at the time did not want to change the so-called non-vaccination policy. So it was this House which represented the interests of both Europeans and British in order to change that policy, and which worked together with places like Northumberland and the Scottish Borders.

Fast-forward 20 years, and the constructive, pro-European Tories I worked with at the time have been purged from their party by people who can’t even be bothered to attend this full debate. Westminster is closed for business and it is once more this Parliament that is representing the interests of both British and European citizens. And, like a majority – a majority – of British citizens, this House doesn’t want a no-deal Brexit either.

But let me also be very clear: we will not accept access into our European market for products with lax financial oversight, in the case of the financial sector, or low environmental standards and low animal-health standards. And if you want to know why, go and ask the farmers in Friesland and Northumberland alike.

(Applause)

  Miapetra Kumpula-Natri (S&D). – Madam President, membership or not, the British remain among us and we live together. We are the representatives of citizens from the different Member States, we take this seriously and we cooperate with our British colleagues here deeply and in a warm way. Parliamentarianism needs to be protected. It is the core of democracy. In Parliament, different ideas meet and then we look at a way forward. In a western democracy, governments represent the will of the majority of the parliament.

In the UK, a law designed to stop a no-deal Brexit passed in both Houses of the UK Parliament. So, in principle, we should not worry, but now it seems that Prime Minister Johnson is trying to take control away from his parliament, to take control away from the British. The new UK leadership is still flirting with the idea of a no-deal Brexit and they appear to have become more hard line. The EU should remain calm, principled, united and reasonable. We cannot decide on behalf of the Brits, but we will give them time if they want to clear this mess up.

  Dita Charanzová (Renew). – Paní předsedající, nebudu opakovat řečené. Myslím si, že naprostá většina z nás si brexit nepřeje. Někteří stále doufáme, že k němu možná vůbec nedojde. Obávám se ale, že britský ministerský předseda je připraven hodit Spojené království přes palubu. Odejít bez dohody. Nic horšího by se nemohlo stát. Komise proto musí pokračovat v přípravě i na tento scénář. Ale nejen to. Komise a členské státy musí mít krizový plán pro evropský byznys. Nenechat ho padat spolu s brexitem. Musíme trvat na právech více než tří milionů občanů EU, kteří dnes žijí na ostrovech ve velké existenční nejistotě. Neví, do jaké Británie se 1. listopadu probudí. Britská politika brexitu připomíná hledání jednorožce. Nic neplatí. Mění se termíny, odvolává se dohodnuté, řeší schválené. Čas utíká velmi rychle a nelze se divit, že EU dochází trpělivost.

  Zbigniew Kuźmiuk (ECR). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Zabierając głos w tej debacie, chciałbym zwrócić uwagę na trzy moim zdaniem najważniejsze negatywne konsekwencje wyjścia Wielkiej Brytanii bez umowy.

Po pierwsze, niepewność co do praw obywateli Unii mieszkających na terenie Wielkiej Brytanii. W umowie były one zagwarantowane na tym samym poziomie co obecnie. Prawdopodobny brak w kolejnych unijnych budżetach kwoty ok. 50 miliardów euro, które Wielka Brytania zgodziła się zapłacić jako zobowiązania za lata 2019-2020, a także części zobowiązań po roku 2020.

Problemy w handlu z Wielką Brytanią. Unia Europejska ma ogromną nadwyżkę w tym handlu. W 2017 roku wynosiła ona ok. 100 miliardów funtów. Brak porozumienia oznacza, że będzie on musiał być prowadzony w oparciu o reguły WTO, a więc z wprowadzeniem ceł, kontyngentów wwozowych czy innych ograniczeń pozataryfowych. Wydaje się, że choćby z tych trzech powodów należałoby także ze strony Unii dążyć do tego, aby wyjście Wielkiej Brytanii odbywało się jednak na podstawie wynegocjowanej umowy ze zmienioną deklaracją polityczną, w której znajdą się gesty dobrej woli adresowane do Wielkiej Brytanii.

  Luděk Niedermayer (PPE). – Madam President, I guess everything important about Brexit has been said. The position of the EU 27, the Council, Parliament and the Commission is clear and transparent and stable. Still, we should not miss the opportunity to reach an agreement – an agreement that will reduce the cost of Brexit for all Europeans. By this I mean also Europeans from the UK as well as from the continent. If an extension would increase the chance of such a result, we should grant it.

Still, I guess there are things that we should learn from our friends from London that can make our society better and avoid the crisis that is ongoing in London.

First of all, I believe that politicians should sometimes admit that personal interest and power – even victory in elections – are less important than the future of the country and society.

Second, I believe – and this is not just for politicians – we should talk to each other more, at least in situations where our views are not so different. We should construct bridges rather than build walls.

Last but not least, we should promote a culture that prefers the facts and truth over lies. This is very important. We should, together with civil society, schools, experts and other parts of society, make sure that the current alarming trend where lies are rewarded over the truth will not continue and will be changed, and that the biggest liars will not become presidents or prime ministers.

  Bogusław Liberadzki (S&D). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Nie kwestionuję prawa Zjednoczonego Królestwa do wyjścia z Unii Europejskiej, natomiast zwracam uwagę na coś takiego jak odpowiedzialność polityczna za losy Europy. I tą odpowiedzialnością polityczną za losy Europy Komisja Europejska, Parlament i Rada się kierują. Czyli bronimy naszych obywateli (chcę powiedzieć, że prawie milion Polaków mieszka na Wyspach Brytyjskich), chronimy nasz przemysł, handel, transport, nasze interesy gospodarcze.

Natomiast ten brak odpowiedzialności jest cechą charakterystyczną dla rządu Wielkiej Brytanii. Odnoszę wrażenie, że rząd brytyjski sądzi, iż pokój czy wojna w Irlandii to jest nasza powinność, nasz problem, że to nie jest problem brytyjski. Brytyjczycy chcą zachować korzyści, nie chcą natomiast podzielić się odpowiedzialnością. Nie mamy konstruktywnych projektów rozwiązań. Po brexicie życie się będzie toczyć. Podstawowa rzecz to zaufanie. I starajcie się, rządzie brytyjski, takie zaufanie u nas wzbudzać, bo bez tego zaufania nie będzie dobrego rozwiązania.

  Ilhan Kyuchyuk (Renew). – Madam President, three years after the referendum, British citizens are sending us a strong signal that Mr Nigel Farage is not the voice of British society. Every day, they are expressing vocal opposition to Brexit, and the presence of so many pro-European British MEPs in this Parliament is the real proof of the fact. A change is much needed now, because Brexit continues to be pursued for Tory advantage, but without a plan on how to deliver it.

By insisting that the backstop be removed from the Withdrawal Agreement, but without proposing a working solution, the UK Government refuses to secure an orderly withdrawal. Families, children, students and all our citizens want to have certainty. More than three million non-British EU citizens – of whom a quarter of a million are from my home country of Bulgaria – have been living in legal limbo, but also in frustration, anxiety and disappointment, since the referendum. As we all see, Brexit is a bad idea and it should be stopped.

  Kris Peeters (PPE). – Voorzitter, er is al veel gezegd, maar één ding is duidelijk, en wel dat de brexit ons voor een grote uitdaging stelt. Een no deal zet 1,2 miljoen jobs op de tocht in de Europese Unie en voor België alleen wijst een schatting op een banenverlies van 42⁰000, waarvan 28⁰000 in Vlaanderen. Vooral de kmo's zullen het zwaar te verduren hebben. Wij merken allemaal dat de Britse regering geen uitweg meer ziet in hun zelfgekozen brexit. En nu de onvoorspelbaarheid groter is dan ooit moeten wij Europa voorbereiden op een no deal in het belang van de bedrijven en de Europeanen.

De Europese Commissie heeft op 4 september een aantal voorstellen gedaan inzake het Fonds voor de globalisering en het Solidariteitsfonds, om daar geld voor vrij te maken. Maar het is heel belangrijk dat ook kleine en middelgrote ondernemingen hiervan kunnen genieten. In punt 14 van de ontwerpresolutie die voorligt en die ik volledig onderschrijf, is heel duidelijk omschreven en wordt ervoor gepleit dat dit Parlement de financiële ondersteuning van kleine en middelgrote ondernemingen in geval van een no deal snel mogelijk moet maken, waarbij wij er wel van uitgaan dat die de volgende dagen en weken nog afgewend kan worden.

  Tonino Picula (S&D). – Poštovana predsjedavajuća, prošle su tri godine od referenduma o Brexitu. Vjerujem da je većina u ovom Domu bila iznenađena rezultatom jer su željeli drugačiji rezultat. No, dogodila se podrška onima koji dugo vremena u Bruxellesu vide dežurnog krivca za domaće konflikte. Ali ni nakon tri godine od referenduma Ujedinjena Kraljevina nije spremna preuzeti odgovornost za Brexit ili odgovornost za odustajanje od istog. Pregovori su zaključeni, čestitke gospodinu Barnieru na obavljenom poslu, Europska unija je svoje pozicije utvrdila.

S druge strane Kanala vladaju potpuno drugačije prilike, politički kaos i neizvjesnost, i to u zemlji koja je u velikoj mjeri udarila temelje parlamentarnom sustavu i demokratskom odlučivanju, u zemlji čiji je Parlament danas suspendiran. Danas je tamo teško razlikovati što je smislena strategija, a što tek politički blef u bijegu od odgovornosti. Jedno je sigurno: što god da se dogodi s Brexitom, rezultat ne smije ugroziti koheziju Europske unije koju smo uspješno postigli u ovom pitanju.

  Vladimír Bilčík (PPE). – Madam President, European citizens are in the core DNA of this Parliament and it is our essential duty to protect them whenever we can. This Parliament has always supported the united EU approach to dealing with Brexit and its negative consequences for the lives of Europeans, and I am glad that the proposed parliamentary declaration maintains the emphasis on the unity of the EU27.

However, I do feel it is even more important to maintain the unified European approach to Brexit especially now, in order to protect citizens from all EU Member States, smaller and larger, who are residing in Britain. In particular, we have to be strongly united in our insistence that the UK Government exert the utmost effort to offer the settled status to all qualified EU citizens without any unnecessary technical hurdles and political delays.

At the same time, we in the EU must be united in facing the potential consequences of a hard Brexit for the rights of all European citizens in the UK. However much we strive to avoid a hard Brexit, we must be ready to face it together in unity for the sake of equal protection of all EU citizens, should we be confronted with a worst-case scenario of the UK’s departure from the Union.

Let’s remember that the unity of the EU27 has been at the core of our successful negotiations with London and we must, therefore, reinforce it in the run-up to the most difficult decisions on Brexit.

  Evelyn Regner (S&D). – Frau Präsidentin! Seit drei Jahren haben die Brexit-Hardliner keinen Plan, wie sie die Europäische Union verlassen wollen. Wir warnen hier in diesem Haus: Ein no-deal wird alle treffen. Die Europäische Union garantiert im Arbeitsrecht die Gleichheit von Mann und Frau, Arbeitnehmerrechte, Mutterschutz, Teilzeit, Elternzeit, Gewerkschaftsrechte. Mit einem harten Brexit wird diese Garantie wegfallen.

Zu den größten Verlierern des no-deal werden vor allem Frauen in Großbritannien gehören. Sie sind nicht so mobil wie Männer, sie sind häufiger in sozialen Berufen, sie sind häufiger im Gesundheitsbereich, im Handel beschäftigt, und sie beziehen häufiger Sozialleistungen für sich und ihre Familienangehörigen.

Deshalb: Solange wir eine Hand ausstrecken können, sollten wir dies tun. Eine ausgestreckte Hand ist immer besser als die zynische, selbstzerstörerische come-what-may-come-Mentalität.

  Γεώργιος Κύρτσος (PPE). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, νομίζω ότι το θρίλερ του Brexit έχει κοινά σημεία με το θρίλερ του Grexit το 2015 και ο Boris Johnson, αν και είναι τελείως διαφορετικός από πολιτική άποψη, έχει κοινά σημεία στην τακτική του με τον Αλέξη Τσίπρα. Και οι δύο έβαλαν το κομματικό συμφέρον πάνω από το εθνικό συμφέρον. Και οι δύο για ένα διάστημα υποκρίθηκαν ότι διαπραγματεύονταν, ενώ, ουσιαστικά, πηγαινοέρχονταν στις πρωτεύουσες. Και οι δύο υποκρίθηκαν ότι δεν τους ενδιέφεραν οι συνέπειες των πράξεών τους και ότι δεν είχαν αίσθηση του ρίσκου.

Ο Τσίπρας όμως προς τιμήν του έκανε την τελευταία, έστω, στιγμή μια στροφή 180 μοιρών, πιεζόμενος από εμάς, πιεζόμενος από τη σκληρή πραγματικότητα και βοηθούμενος από τον Πρόεδρο Juncker. Δυστυχώς, δεν νομίζω ότι ο κύριος Johnson θα ακολουθήσει το καλό παράδειγμα του κυρίου Τσίπρα και πιστεύω ότι δεν θα βελτιώσει την πολιτική του. Θεωρώ λοιπόν ότι πρέπει να παρακολουθούμε το βρετανικό Κοινοβούλιο, τον βρετανικό λαό και τη βρετανική νεολαία και να τους στείλουμε το μήνυμα ότι είμαστε μαζί τους.

  Christel Schaldemose (S&D). – Fru Formand! Tak for det. Storbritannien vil forlade EU. Det synes jeg personligt er rigtig ærgerligt, men det er Briternes beslutning, og det skal vi selvfølgelig respektere. Men hvor er det både ærgerligt - ja det er nærmest utilgiveligt - hvis den udmeldelse skal finde sted på en måde, hvor det bliver et hårdt brexit. Det får kæmpestore konsekvenser for utrolig mange mennesker på begge sider af kanalen. Det kommer til at koste jobs, det kommer til at berøre familier og studerende, det kommer til at gå ud over vores forskning. Jeg beder indtrængende om, at vi kan give det lidt mere tid, så vi kan finde en løsning på brexit, så det ikke behøver være et hårdt brexit, men at vi kan håndtere det på en måde, som ikke går ud over vores borgere og vores erhvervsliv. Jeg vil derfor stemme for den beslutning, der betyder, at vi opfordrer til, at vi får lidt mere tid til at få forhandlet en aftale på plads. Lad os nu ikke få et hårdt brexit, det er ikke til fordel for nogen som helst. Tak.

  Jörgen Warborn (PPE). – Fru talman! Det finns mycket att säga om brexit men jag ska begränsa mig till två punkter. Min första punkt gäller handelsrelationerna. Storbritannien är Sveriges femte största handelspartner och den här handeln skapar naturligtvis jobb och välstånd i hela Europa. Men om redan 43 dagar och cirka 13 och en halv timma riskerar vi att få en hård brexit och detta skulle naturligtvis slå mot jobben och minska vårt välstånd.

Vidare så är jag glad att det finns skrivningar i resolutionen om att man kan förlänga tidsfristen. Samtidigt är det ju bra att det finns villkor till den här förlängningen, men jag tycker att vi ska tolka förlängningsvillkoren så generöst som möjligt när vi nu får en begäran från britterna. Helst ser jag att britterna stannar kvar i unionen, men oavsett vilken relation EU och Storbritannien kommer att ha i framtiden så kommer jag att kämpa för att handelsrelationerna ska vara så goda som möjligt.

  Heléne Fritzon (S&D). – Fru talman! Läget i Storbritannien är allvarligt. Om några veckor kan Brexit innebära att Storbritannien faktiskt kraschar ur EU. Ett brexit utan avtal kommer allvarligt att skada både brittiska och europeiska intressen, men också mina svenska intressen.

Konsekvenserna vet vi. För både människor och företag blir följderna av en hård brexit mycket stora. I mitt land har vi till exempel 100⁰000 svenskar som befinner sig i Storbritannien för att arbeta eller studera och som varje dag är oroliga för sin framtid. För alla britter är det är också en mycket osäker framtid. Europaparlamentets resolution är mycket balanserad och den betonar de viktiga krav som vi tidigare har ställt för ett utträde. Avtalet finns där och med en öppenhet om den politiska deklarationen så kan vi värna vår framtid.

Jag vill uppmana Boris Johnson: ta det ansvar som man gör när man sitter i en regering! Se till landets bästa!

  David McAllister (PPE). – Madam President, I would like to underline a lot of things that have been said by colleagues this morning, but I would like to add mention of one dimension to a no—deal Brexit when it comes to foreign policy.

Michel Barnier was referring to the political declaration and, yes, in the political declaration the EU and the UK have agreed on a broad future relationship with a free-trade area, police and judicial cooperation, and close cooperation on foreign policy, external security and defence. Following a no—deal Brexit, the United Kingdom could no longer collaborate in existing and future projects of the European Defence Agency or in military projects under Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO). Moreover, it would be difficult for UK defence companies to participate in projects under the European Defence Fund.

These are additional arguments, dear colleagues from the far right, why it is so important to avoid a no-deal under all circumstances. I would like to welcome this motion for a resolution and I would like to thank our colleagues in the Brexit Steering Group for once again doing a great job.

(Applause)

  Seb Dance (S&D). – Madam President, let’s be clear about where the blame for this mess lies. You start with impossible promises, saying we can keep the existing trade relationship with Europe, but rip up the rulebook. You then say we can negotiate from a position of strength despite leaving the world’s largest economic bloc. You then decry all opponents of this fantasy as traitors, and you move on to say the British people voted for medicine and food shortages. They did not. The country I love is better than Johnson, it’s better than them.

Mr Barnier, you wish to move on, we all wish to move on, and I know many of my colleagues are fed up with this debacle. I get it, I understand it. But let’s not pretend that the Withdrawal Agreement would be sustainable without public sign—off. The British people need to put the reality of Brexit up against remaining in the European Union. Give us the time and give us the options. That’s the only sustainable way forward.

  Radosław Sikorski (PPE). – Madam President, I’d like to start by congratulating Mr Barnier for the professional way in which he has conducted these negotiations. The authors of Brexit said that they would be cutting themselves off from a corpse. We’ve proven to be a very lively corpse. Well done! It looks to me like a deal is within reach. The point at which British red lines and our red lines are coinciding is the wish for no hard border in Ireland, and therefore the solution is for there to be a Northern Ireland-only backstop by whatever name. I understand that we would be willing to go along with that, so a deal depends on whether or not the British political process can accede to that. I hope it does.

The Brexiteers, the English nationalists, cheer for a no-deal Brexit. Your own government says it will be a disaster. I only have one statement for Mr Farage and his accomplices: if you get your way, and the British Government proves to be correct in its assessment of a no deal Brexit, don’t blame us for the consequences. I support the motion.

  Domènec Ruiz Devesa (S&D). – Madam President, almost 70 years ago we Europeans decided to establish our political union, and we did so because we knew this was the best way to preserve peace in Europe and also to tackle transnational challenges that now are very obvious to us, like climate change. Unfortunately, in 2016, in the Brexit referendum, a narrow majority in the UK voted for leave. At the time it was said that this was an existential crisis of the European Union. But now, three years afterwards we see that the existential crisis indeed is in the United Kingdom. The Union is as strong as ever, as others have said before me, and now the question is: is Boris Johnson ready to fulfil the legal obligation deriving from the bill approved in the House of Commons?

We certainly hope so, because a no—deal Brexit will be catastrophic.

  Frances Fitzgerald (PPE). – Madam President, what many forget and others choose to ignore is that beneath the soundbites and the strong—man politics, there are real people, women and men, families, whose livelihoods and business – and indeed very safety – are at risk, as well as the peace on which these livelihoods are built.

This European Union, this democracy, has been clear from day one that it is determined to do all it can, deal or no deal, to avoid the need for a border and to protect the peace process. Remember, an international treaty underpins this peace process, and co—guarantors. We can never forget that. We know that any additional ideas put forward by the UK will be strongly welcomed and examined by the European Commission. However, this European Parliament will not give its consent to any withdrawal agreement that does not contain the safeguards outlined in the backstop. To date, the backstop is the only solution on the table that avoids any physical infrastructure. As the great Mr John Hume, a former office holder both of this parliament and Westminster, once said: ‘when people are divided, the only solution is agreement.’

Catch-the-eye procedure

  Michaela Šojdrová (PPE). – Paní předsedající, víme všichni, že odchod Británie znamená oslabení pro EU a znamená také oslabení pro Spojené království. Nechápu, jak může pan Farage tvrdit, že Spojené království bude silnější, že to pro něj bude výhodné. Ano, možná vůči malým evropským zemím, ale určitě nebude ve výhodnějším postavení vůči Spojeným státům, Číně či Rusku. Nebude, bude slabší Spojené království. Proto mě velmi mrzí tento přístup. A já jsem si jistá, že občané, když rozhodovali v referendu, tak nerozhodovali pro tento chaos, pro neřízený odchod, který znamená obrovskou nejistotu. A odejde-li Británie skutečně bez dohody, pak stejně bude muset jednat o nové dohodě, aby naplnila podmínky, které jsou zásadní, tzn. finanční vyrovnání, vyřešila postavení milionů občanů EU, kteří jsou v Británii. Takže odchod bez dohody je katastrofou pro obě strany.

  Julie Ward (S&D). – Madam President, under the Johnson premiership we are witnessing the decline of decency in the age of populism. Johnson is a most disreputable Prime Minister, and an embarrassment both to his party and to country. A misogynist, a homophobe, an Islamophobe, a dangerous clown – a dangerous clown chosen by less than 2% of our population. He plays fast and loose with people’s lives. His no—deal Brexit threatens shortages of food and life—saving drugs, threatens peaceful coexistence. Yes, Brexit will cost lives, as well as livelihoods – and it already has.

We have a government policy decided by an unelected advisor, Dominic Cummings, who is a man in contempt of our parliament. Is this taking back control? We have a government that is eroding trust in our institutions, from the civil servants to the courts, judges, our democratic foundations ...

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Bill Newton Dunn (Renew). – Madam President, I have a question for Commissioner Barnier. I’m not sure if he’s got an opportunity to reply in this debate, but quite simply: if there is no deal, is it correct to say that exchange of information between Europol, our policing centre, and all UK police forces, would stop, and therefore that the opportunities for organised crime in the UK would be much, much greater?

  Ellie Chowns (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, I want to start by apologising for the behaviour of a small minority of my compatriots, both in this Chamber and in my country. They do not represent the decent, polite and pro-European majority of my people.

(Applause from certain quarters)

Brexit is a mess created entirely by leavers because they’ve never been able to agree on what type of Brexit they wanted. It’s a mess that has laid bare the broken nature of UK politics. We need a people’s vote so that the British people can finally choose between one clear leave option and remain, which is by far the best deal for us. We therefore need more time. No deal, crashing out, cannot be an option. It would be an act of catastrophic self-harm. So I urge colleagues to do everything possible, whatever their role, to help us avoid such an outcome. Just as we in the UK are doing on the streets...

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Hermann Tertsch (ECR). – Señora presidenta, yo quería advertir sobre los intentos de presentar la Unión Europea como una unidad que es vigilada por unos savonarolas como el señor Verhofstadt, porque eso podría asustar a otros que nos sentimos cómodos todavía en la Unión Europea y queremos reformarla. Queremos reformarla, queremos que evolucione, pero queremos estar dentro. Desde luego, si oímos el tono de algunos y la falta de respeto hacia la voluntad de los británicos, que ya ha sido expresada y que debe respetarse, asusta un poquito.

Por eso creo que es importante que se llegue a un acuerdo. Es verdad que va a ser difícil, pero tiene que haber un esfuerzo de buena voluntad, porque vamos a tener que coexistir con los británicos, que son una pieza fundamental de la defensa occidental, del mundo occidental, y con ellos vamos a tener que compartir muchísimas cosas, no solo el mercado, no solo el comercio, no solo la defensa, sino el futuro. No rompamos tantas lanzas en este momento. Es importante la convivencia y el respeto.

  José Gusmão (GUE/NGL). – Senhora Presidente, os britânicos pronunciaram-se, em referendo, sobre o Brexit e, portanto, este Parlamento não tem o direito de exercer pressão ou de dar opiniões sobre o resultado desse referendo.

Este Parlamento tem a obrigação de respeitar esse resultado, porque é de respeito pela democracia de que estamos a falar. E as intervenções que não vão nesse sentido não são um bom contributo para podermos ter uma solução amigável e negociada para o Brexit.

No entanto, não é obrigação nem do nosso ponto de vista de direito deste Parlamento, associar-se à irresponsabilidade do Primeiro-Ministro britânico em querer provocar uma saída sem acordo que põe em causa o Acordo da Sexta-feira Santa - que, convém recordar, é um acordo de paz - e põe em causa os direitos dos imigrantes europeus no Reino Unido e dos imigrantes britânicos na União Europeia.

Esses direitos têm que ser defendidos e as instituições europeias, a começar pelo Parlamento Europeu, têm a responsabilidade de defender todos esses cidadãos mesmo com uma saída sem acordo.

  Francisco José Millán Mon (PPE). – Señora presidenta, se ha mencionado la importancia de las consecuencias negativas que el Brexit tendrá para las dos partes en muchos ámbitos. Yo quisiera detenerme en las relaciones pesqueras entre la Unión Europea y el Reino Unido, que tan bien conoce el negociador principal, el señor Barnier.

Si finalmente el Brexit tiene lugar sin que entre en vigor el Acuerdo de Retirada y la transición prevista, debemos minimizar los daños para la flota pesquera que faena en aguas del Reino Unido. Me gustaría que, a través de las medidas de contingencia que tomemos una y otra parte, pueda asegurarse el acceso, mantenerse el acceso a estas aguas, al menos de forma temporal, mientras se negocian los acuerdos de la relación futura entre unos y otros. Sí, ya sé que no les gusta, pero a nosotros sí.

Y aquí voy a detenerme un momento. Quiero enfatizar que uno de los objetivos de la Unión Europea debe ser alcanzar un acuerdo que mantenga ese acceso recíproco entre aguas y a los recursos pesqueros. Este acuerdo tendría ventajas para los pescadores y también permitiría ...

(La presidenta retira la palabra al orador).

  James Wells (NI). – Madam President, the defence of any country and the means to conduct that defence are a central attribute of sovereignty and are the first responsibility of any government. I am therefore very concerned that the May government collaborated with the Commission – after the UK voted to leave – to lock Britain’s defence and intelligence capabilities into the various EU structures. That is intended to subordinate Britain’s intelligence and defence capabilities under the control of an unaccountable Commission. This is crystal clear in the political declaration, Clauses 104 to 106, which is an integral part of the binding law of the Withdrawal Agreement under Article 184.

I am extremely concerned that UK MPs have failed by a dereliction of their duty to understand this threat, and I would therefore urge our MPs in the UK in the strongest terms to reject any attempt to bring back this awful deal and deliver a clean Brexit.

  Jude Kirton-Darling (S&D). –Madam President, this week we saw the British Prime Minister hide from British citizens in Luxembourg, who will be acutely affected by his bombast and ego. He’s hiding from parliamentary debate in Westminster. So it’s reassuring that European democracy is alive and well in this House, with all views expressed, those that I agree with and those that I don’t agree with.

There are those who campaigned for a deal in 2016 – the best and quickest deal in history – who today are arguing for a so-called clean-break Brexit. There is no such thing. There will be nothing clean in the economic and social devastation this would bring, from the north-east of England to the Falkland Islands. Nothing clean for citizens’ rights, which should be ring-fenced now to protect people; and there will be nothing clean in the complete chaos in our health service and elsewhere.

Those people have no mandate and the British public should decide what happens next with Brexit.

(Applause)

(End of the catch-the-eye procedure)

PRESIDENZA DELL'ON. DAVID MARIA SASSOLI
Presidente

  Michel Barnier, négociateur en chef. – Monsieur le Président, je peux être bref, mais néanmoins prendre une minute pour vous remercier, Mesdames et Messieurs les députés, au nom du président Juncker et au nom de toute l'équipe de négociation que j'ai l'honneur d'animer depuis trois ans.

Ce débat est important. Il se situe, on le comprend bien chacun, avec nos opinions différentes, quelques fois, comme un moment de vérité. Trois ans après le référendum, nous sommes dans un moment de vérité dans cette négociation. C'est un moment grave, où il nous faut rester extrêmement calmes et respectueux les uns des autres. Je continuerai à travailler comme cela.

Je voudrais, cependant, vous remercier pour vos interventions. Nous avons écouté attentivement toutes celles et tous ceux qui se sont exprimés, en particulier les parlementaires issus d'Irlande et d'Irlande du Nord, sur la question la plus grave, celle où il y a le plus de risques, je l'ai dit tout à l'heure, provoqués par le Brexit et puis la question des citoyens et la question sur laquelle nous ne transigerons jamais, celle de l'intégrité du marché unique et des quatre libertés qui vont ensemble. Merci pour vos interventions.

J'ai écouté aussi toutes celles et tous ceux qui se sont exprimés dans l'autre sens. Il y a une accusation à laquelle je veux répondre pour que les choses, une fois de plus, soient claires. Je le dis à M. Zanni qui n' est pas là, M. Farage, M. Madison et d'autres: personne ne cherche à contourner le choix d'une majorité des citoyens britanniques de quitter l'Union. Personne. Personne ne cherche à voler le Brexit. Personne ne cherche à maintenir contre son gré le Royaume-Uni dans l'Union européenne, dans l'union douanière ou dans le marché unique. C'est votre responsabilité de quitter. Nous le regrettons, on l'a dit des dizaines de fois, nous sommes très nombreux à regretter ce choix - je n'en ai jamais vu la valeur ajoutée -, mais nous le respectons.

Il faut que les choses soient claires et le mandat qui m'a été fixé par le Conseil européen avec le Parlement, et que j'assume, au nom de la Commission, avec la confiance du président Juncker et bientôt celle d'Ursula von der Leyen, c'est de trouver un accord. Mais cela exige deux choses, Mesdames et Messieurs les députés. Premièrement, de dire la vérité - ici, au Parlement, et aux citoyens - sur les conséquences du Brexit. Vous devez dire la vérité.

Vous parliez du respect des citoyens britanniques: les citoyens britanniques comme les autres citoyens européens ont droit à la vérité sur les conséquences du Brexit. Toutes les conséquences, qui sont beaucoup plus graves, beaucoup plus nombreuses que vous voulez bien le dire. Vous devez cette vérité et vous devrez rendre des comptes.

Après le Brexit, vous devrez rendre des comptes aux citoyens, comme nous devrons en rendre compte. Alors nous nous préparons à dire cette vérité, nous l'avons toujours dite, sur les conséquences d'un Brexit avec un accord - auquel nous travaillons - et, évidemment avec des conséquences plus graves, d'un Brexit sans accord. Néanmoins, je réponds notamment à la question de M. Newton Dunn, comme à d'autres, nous avons préparé l'hypothèse d'un Brexit sans accord, y compris sur les questions de sécurité et de coopération avec Europol.

Évidemment le no deal n'est pas une destination, c'est un état temporaire et il faudra bien ensuite reprendre la discussion pour bâtir un partenariat.

J'ai donc travaillé depuis trois ans avec cette première exigence: dire, toujours et à tout le monde, la vérité. La seconde exigence est très simple: c'est de trouver des solutions juridiques. Car nous faisons un traité, on ne fait pas un discours, on ne fait pas une déclaration, nous faisons un traité. Il faut trouver des réponses juridiques sérieuses à toutes les questions provoquées par la séparation que vous avez choisie, qui est le Brexit, aussi bien en Irlande que dans tous les autres domaines, la pêche et bien d'autres, voilà et trouver des solutions concrètes et opérationnelles. Non pas des intentions, ni des vœux, mais des solutions concrètes et opérationnelles. C'est cela que nous attendons du premier ministre Boris Johnson et de son équipe: des propositions alternatives, comme l'a dit le président Juncker, pour que, si l'on conteste le backstop ou d'autres sujets, nous puissions répondre aux questions que provoque le Brexit. Telle est la seconde exigence avec laquelle je travaille.

Nous sommes prêts à continuer jour et nuit, personne ne doit douter de notre disponibilité. Et pour ce qui me concerne, aussi longtemps qu'on me fera confiance, je continuerai à travailler au nom de l'Union, avec cette responsabilité, cette sincérité et cette détermination.

  Tytti Tuppurainen, President-in-Office of the Council. – Mr President, in spite of all the current uncertainty on the UK side, we have to remain open to new ideas, should they lead to a breakthrough consistent with our principles. Achieving an orderly withdrawal of the UK has to remain our priority until the very last moment, given the negative consequences of a hard Brexit. Until then, we have to continue our preparation for all eventualities, including through targeted measures at EU level, in order to reduce the potential impact on citizens and businesses.

However, we must also be ready to consider the extension of the Article 50 period if we receive a duly motivated request from the UK Government.

May I remind you that patience is a virtue. We will count on your cooperation at all the stages of these processes. Thank you very much for your opinions and remarks and for your attention.

  Presidente. – Comunico di aver ricevuto due proposte di risoluzione conformemente all'articolo 132, paragrafo 2, del regolamento.

La discussione è chiusa.

La votazione si svolgerà mercoledì 18 settembre 2019.

Dichiarazioni scritte (articolo 171)

  Attila Ara-Kovács (S&D), írásban. – A brexit állásáról lezajlott mai vita megmutatta: az fog előnyösebben kikerülni a brexit okozta konfliktusból, akit nem az érzelmek, hanem a megfontolt és tudatos döntések irányítanak. Az unió vezetői ehhez tartják magukat, miközben a Brexit Párt legfeljebb csak hangoskodással nyilvánít véleményt. Az is egyértelművé vált: Nagy-Britannia távozása iszonyú módon meggyengíti az Európai Parlamenten belüli szélsőjobbot, s ennyiben nem csekély a hozadéka.

Mindez egyszerre két egyértelmű vereséget jelent most Orbán Viktornak. Egyrészt sok szövetségest veszít azzal, hogy a brexiterek távoznak. Oda a lehetőség, ami a Fideszt az év elején olyannyira eltökéltté tette: képtelen lesz Matteo Salvini és Marine Le Pen módjára „átalakítani” az uniót laza szélsőjobbos nemzetállami kormányok klubjává. Ugyanakkor sejthető, hogy az Európai Néppártban betöltött tagság megőrzéséért cserébe, Orbán kénytelen beállni az unió brexit-politikája mögé.

Ez nagyon sokáig nem volt ennyire egyértelmű. Mit jelent ez? Azt, hogy tavasszal Salvinit árulta el, ősszel pedig most elárulja a brexitereket. Nehéz helyzet ez, s egyben kilátástalan a Fidesz számára, mely hónapokkal korábban még arról álmodott, hogy vezetőjéből, Orbán Viktorból nemsokára az uniós politikát meghatározó kulcsfigura válik.

  Carmen Avram (S&D), in writing. – I supported and voted in favour of this resolution on Brexit. At the heart of my preoccupations and at the heart of all politicians’ responsibilities both in the UK and in Europe there should be the rights and lives of citizens that will be affected by Brexit: whether a no—deal Brexit or a Brexit with a deal. Politicians should be keep this as priority number one. This resolution recalls that safeguarding the rights and life choices, including the employment status and social entitlements, of EU citizens resident in the UK and British citizens resident in the EU27 remains its first priority and that all endeavours should be undertaken to try to ensure that those citizens are not affected by the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. It encourages the UK and the EU27 to adopt measures that provide legal certainty for EU citizens resident in the UK and British citizens resident in the EU27, and recalls its position that the EU27 should pursue a consistent and generous approach in protecting the rights of British citizens resident in the Member States.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), raštu. – Iš Jūsų pasisakymo, gerbiamas Komisijos Pirmininke, nepanašu, jog nuo naujojo Jungtinės Karalystės premjero paskyrimo būtu padaryta daugiau pažangos ir suteikta daugiau aiškumo dėl išstojimo detalių. Artėjant Jungtinės Karalystės pasitraukimo laikui iš Europos Sąjungos situacija išlieka itin įtempta ir neaiški. Visiškai sutinku su Jumis, jog daugiau nei dvejus metus tebesitęsianti situacija kelia daug įtampos verslui bei mūsų piliečiams. Europos Sąjunga iš tiesų demonstruoja didelį solidarumą ir deda labai daug pastangų siekiant užtikrinti, kad „Brexit’as“ turėtų kuo mažesnį neigiamą poveikį tiek Jungtinei Karalystei, tiek ir pačiai Europos Sąjungai, tačiau to paties požiūrio pasigendame iš Jungtinės Karalystės pusės. Komisija atliko didžiulį darbą pateikdama pasiūlymus dėl „Brexit’o“. Aš pati esu pranešėja dėl Europos Globalizacijos Fondo, kuris bus pasiruošęs teikti pagalbą dėl „Brexit’o“ darbo netekusiems ES piliečiams. Labai tikiuosi, jog likus net labai mažai laiko racionalus sprendimas yra įmanomas, ir kad išvengsime Jungtinės Karalystės išstojimo be sutarties.

  Josianne Cutajar (S&D), in writing. – Brexit is an unprecedented and regrettable event, which unfortunately, due to a sequence of wrong decisions by the UK Government, is turning into a negative epoch for the British political system. However, as a Socialist I must prioritise the needs of the millions of EU citizens working and studying in the UK, whose rights and well—being this Parliament is duty—bound to protect, with or without a deal. In this light and despite the fact that politically the ball is in the UK Government’s court, I firmly believe that our intentions and efforts should be directed to break the deadlock and not allow a no—deal Brexit. We ought to provide legal certainties to our people instead of leaving our businesses importing/exporting to UK with questions on customs and our expats with unresolved status, whilst inducing the risks of a hard Irish border. If this Parliament intends to follow reason in this case, especially following the UK Parliament’s Act on 9th September 2019, an extension of talks is the reasonable path we ought to take to safeguard the well—being of millions of persons along with the smooth continuation of European enterprises’ operations.

  Maria Grapini (S&D), în scris. – Sunt de acord cu declarația Consiliului, care este clară și fermă privind Brexitul. Clară a fost și poziția Comisiei și a Parlamentului. Instituțiile europene nu au dorit Brexitul și, cu atât mai mult, nu-și doresc o ieșire dezordonată. Cu toții suntem și cetățeni europeni, pe lângă cetățenia națională pe care o avem. Avem responsabilitatea să reprezentăm interesul cetățenilor. De aceea, cer Comisiei, negociatorului desemnat pentru Brexit și Consiliului să asigure protejarea cetățenilor europeni ce trăiesc în Marea Britanie, precum și a cetățenilor Marii Britanii ce trăiesc în țările UE. Trebuie asigurată integritatea pieței interne.

Marea Britanie trebuie să semneze un acord comercial cu UE prin care va trebui să respecte condițiile și standardele de produs din UE. Responsabilitatea efectelor negative asupra cetățenilor Marii Britanii, și trebuie să o spunem clar și explicit cetățenilor, este a acelor politicieni care au manipulat cu informații înșelătoare, spunând că Marea Britanie va avea acces liber la piață, că vor rămâne cu aceleași drepturi, dar vor câștiga pentru că nu vor mai cotiza la bugetul UE. Ca român, știu că România are schimburi comerciale considerabile și acestea vor avea de suferit. UE pierde un membru important al UE, dar este obligată să respecte tratatul.

  Robert Hajšel (S&D), písomne – Mnohí si myslíme, že pre všetkých by bolo lepšie, keby Spojené kráľovstvo ostalo v EÚ aj naďalej, ale ak britská vláda opierajúca sa o výsledky slobodného referenda chce doviesť brexit do konca, tak túto vôľu musíme demokraticky rešpektovať. Zároveň musíme urobiť všetko preto, aby naši občania pracujúci a študujúci na britských ostrovoch boli týmto brexitom čo najmenej postihnutí. Musíme zabezpečiť, aby nedošlo k narušeniu fungovania jednotného trhu a aby si Londýn splnil svoje finančné záväzky voči Únii. My môžeme sympatizovať s tými, ktorí chcú zvrátiť brexit, ale nemôžeme nútiť Spojené kráľovstvo, aby svoju žiadosť o vystúpenie z Únie stiahlo. Veľká Británia je a ostane dôležitým partnerom a spojencom Európskej únie aj po vystúpení z nej. Brexit nie je žiadna tragédia, aj keď ide o smutnú epochu v histórii našej Európskej únie. Prosím, nestrašme katastrofickými scenármi o nedostatku potravín alebo liekov. Zvládnutý brexit môže byť dobrým štartom k dobrým vzťahom. Tak, ako to bolo, hoci v inom kontexte, aj v prípade rozdelenia bývalého Česko-Slovenska, keď po rozdelení dosiahli tieto dva nové štáty najlepšie možné vzťahy. Dnes ale ani nevieme, či a za akých podmienok k brexitu príde, a preto musíme byť pripravení na všetky možné scenáre, aj na tvrdý brexit.

  Pierre Karleskind (Renew), par écrit. – Cela fait maintenant trois ans que les britanniques ont voté pour sortir de l’Union. Et des mois que le gouvernement demande de reculer cette date fatidique. Nous ne sommes d’ailleurs pas à l’abri d’un nouveau report. À un moment, «enough is enough». L’incertitude liée au Brexit plonge les Européens mais également les Britanniques dans l’obscurité la plus totale. Tous les secteurs d’activités mais aussi les citoyens souffrent de cette situation.

Le secteur de la pêche sera particulièrement touché par le Brexit. Et je ne parle pas seulement des pêcheurs. Je parle également de ces femmes et de ces hommes qui découpent du poisson le matin dans nos criées. Ces mareyeurs, ces transformateurs et tous ces métiers qui vivent de la pêche. C’est toute la filière qui sera touchée. Ce sont des territoires entiers qui seront impactés. L’accès aux eaux britanniques pour les pêcheurs du continent et l'accès aux eaux européennes pour les pêcheurs britanniques relèvent de droits et coutumes qui remontent à des temps que personne ici ne peut prétendre connaître et que le Brexit ne saurait détruire! Il est urgent d’engager la suite et de donner des perspectives à la pêche, comme à toute l’Europe d’ailleurs.

  Ilhan Kyuchyuk (Renew), in writing. – Eighty years since the start of WWII, which devastated our continent, we once again allowed the obscure forces of populism and extreme nationalism to return to our societies. How quickly we forgot the post-war state of Europe and what the totalitarian regimes and violence brought us. From Bulgaria to the Netherlands, from the North to the South of Europe extremist and xenophobic political forces want to demolish our shared home and we need to fight every day for democracy, freedom and tolerance in Europe. Therefore, I completely support the proposal to commemorate 23 August as the European Day of Remembrance for the victims of totalitarian regimes at both EU and governmental level. It is our duty to raise the younger generation’s awareness of these issues by including the history and analysis of the consequences of totalitarian regimes in the textbooks of all schools in the EU. The memories of Europe’s tragic past must be kept alive. Only then can we teach our children not to repeat the mistakes of the past

  Ivan Štefanec (PPE), písomne – Opustiť EÚ môže každý jej členský štát. Stačí, ak ústavným spôsobom aktivuje článok 50 Zmluvy o EÚ a nasleduje dvojročné obdobie na prípravu. Problémom však je, že členské štáty sú z podstaty fungovania EÚ medzi sebou tak silne hospodársky previazané, že odchod z EÚ by mal byť výsledkom zrelej úvahy zodpovedných politikov, ktorí najprv zvážia všetky klady a zápory tohto kroku. Napríklad Grónsko ako autonómna súčasť Dánska v roku 1985 opustilo po referende Európske spoločenstvá. Nevyhovovalo mu nastavenie rybárskej politiky. Nikto vtedy nerobil problémy a Grónsko má s EÚ uzatvorených množstvo dohôd a vzťahy fungujú bezproblémovo. Tvrdý brexit by oslabil ako Britániu, tak aj EÚ. Zdá sa však, že EÚ viac. Viaceré banky a poisťovacie domy už avizovali, že by v takom prípade presunuli svoje centrály z Londýna do Frankfurtu, či inde do EÚ. Británia by stratila prístup k európskym trhom a aj k pracovnej sile. Z bezpečnostného hľadiska by sa už nemohla podieľať na spoločných európskych obranných projektoch a stratila by aj prístup k projektom ako energetická únia, či jednotný digitálny trh. Hoci prezident Trump avizoval, že chce Británii poskytnúť výhodnú obchodnú dohodu, sotva bude založená na princípe rovnosti, respektíve s toľkými výhodami, aké poskytuje členstvo v EÚ.

  Carlos Zorrinho (S&D), por escrito. – A União Europeia (UE) tem mantido uma estratégia negocial de respeito pelo povo britânico e pelas suas decisões, salvaguardando, ao mesmo tempo, os interesses dos cidadãos europeus no Reino Unido e permanecendo unida na definição de um acordo de saída justo e que constitua um fator de estabilidade e de referência.

Na resolução subscrita pelos maiores grupos políticos, hoje em apreciação e aprovação neste Parlamento, são salientadas as virtualidades do acordo de saída assinado entre as partes, designadamente no que diz respeito aos passos a dar e às normas de transição, para garantir uma saída ordenada do Reino Unido da UE, que não inviabilize um futuro bom relacionamento político, económico e social entre as partes. Definem-se ainda as salvaguardas a adotar no caso de saída sem acordo e as circunstâncias que poderão justificar mais uma prorrogação do prazo previsto de aplicação do artigo 50.º.

Como eurodeputado e como cidadão gostaria que o Reino Unido permanecesse na UE, mas respeito a vontade soberana do seu povo. Neste contexto, tudo farei para garantir, com ou sem acordo, os direitos dos cidadãos e das empresas europeias e por isso me revejo na resolução em debate na sessão plenária de hoje.

(La seduta è sospesa per pochi istanti)