REPORT on the implementation report on the Agreement on the withdrawal of the UK from the EU

7.3.2023 - (2020/2202(INI))

Committee on Constitutional Affairs
Rapporteur: Pedro Silva Pereira
Rapporteurs for the opinions of associated committees pursuant to Rule 57 of the Rules of Procedure:
Andreas Schieder, Committee on Foreign Affairs
Seán Kelly, Committee on International Trade
Loránt Vincze, Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs
 
PR_INI_ImplReport

EXPLANATORY STATEMENT - SUMMARY OF FACTS AND FINDINGS

Brexit: an unprecedented event

Brexit was an unprecedented and regrettable event in the history of European construction, whose deep economic, social and political damages are still being evaluated today.

It was only after almost a year of internal discussions and preparations following the 23 June 2016 referendum that the then UK Prime Minister, Theresa May, notified the European Council of the UK’s intention to withdraw from the European Union, formally triggering Article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon, on 29 March 2017.

In advance of the notification, the EU set out its initial position at a December 2016 informal meeting of the Heads of State or Government of the 27 Member States, with the Presidents of the European Council and the European Commission, appointing Michel Barnier as the lead EU negotiator. The first step in the process was the adoption by the European Council of guidelines to define the framework for the negotiations, setting out principles, positions and goals to be achieved.

On 3 May 2017 the Commission issued a recommendation for a Council Decision authorising the Commission to open negotiations for an agreement with the UK setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal from the EU. The negotiations were to be conducted in the light of the Council guidelines, the negotiating directives, and with due regard to the resolution of the European Parliament of 5 April 2017[1].

Negotiations between the parties began on 19 June 2017 focusing on three key subjects: citizen’s rights, financial arrangements and the border between Ireland and Northern Ireland, in light of the Good Friday Agreement. Almost eighteen months later, following a number of negotiation rounds, a first Draft Withdrawal Agreement was agreed with the British Government on 14 November 2018 and endorsed by the EU leaders on 25 November 2018, together with a Political Declaration on the framework for the future relationship.

However, despite EU efforts to speed-up the negotiation process and to provide citizens and businesses with the necessary legal certainty, the United Kingdom’s internal debate led the UK’s Parliament to reject the Draft Withdrawal Agreement. Consequently, the UK had to request the extension of the Article 50 negotiating period for three times. In fact, negotiating period was initially extended until 12 April 2019, further extended until 31 October 2019 and thereafter until 30 January 2020. A final version of the Withdrawal Agreement, with a revised Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland, and a revised Political Declaration was agreed by both Parties on 17 October 2019. The UK ratified the Withdrawal Agreement following its own constitutional arrangements by means of the Westminster Parliament’s passing of the EU (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill on January 2020. On the European side, after a vote at the AFCO Committee on 23 January 2020, the European Parliament approved the Withdrawal Agreement in its extraordinary session of 29 January 2020.

The Withdrawal Agreement

The Agreement on the withdrawal of the UK from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community, including the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland, entered into force on 1 February 2020. Therefore, the UK formally left the European Union at midnight on 31 January 2020. However, part four of the Withdrawal Agreement provided for a transition period up to 31 December 2020. During this period the UK remained in the EU’s Customs Union and single market with all four freedoms and all EU law still applying as before. During this transition period the UK, as a third country, no longer took part in EU decision-making, losing the right to participate in EU institutions, agencies, offices or other bodies.

The Withdrawal Agreement was designed to ensure an orderly withdrawal of the UK, avoiding the threat of a no-deal situation, and ensuring legal certainty for citizens and businesses to the extent possible. A major objective of the Withdrawal Agreement was the protection of citizens’ rights, in particular of those citizens, both EU and UK, who had exercised free movement and made life choices on the basis of the rights deriving from UK membership of the EU. The Withdrawal Agreement also aimed to establish the necessary arrangements to ensure that the EU and UK respect the financial obligations resulting from the UK’s membership of the EU. In addition, the Withdrawal Agreement addressed the sensitive issue of the border between Ireland and Northern Ireland, in light of the Good Friday Agreement and the Northern Ireland peace conquests, while ensuring the integrity of the EU’s single market. For this purpose, the Withdrawal Agreement included a Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland avoiding a ‘hardening’ of the border and thereby supporting North-South cooperation and the principle of an all-Island economy. In turn, the Protocol also provided for customs checks in the Irish Sea to the extent necessary to safeguard EU’s internal market rules. For this to be possible, the UK authorities took the commitment to promote border checks as needed, namely on goods entering Northern Ireland and at risk of entering the EU’s single market. The British authorities also took the commitment of providing to the EU timely and sufficient access to customs data, and to cooperate with EU staff on the ground.

The Withdrawal Agreement established a Joint Committee, with representatives of both parties, to oversee the implementation, application and interpretation of the Withdrawal Agreement. Six specialised committees were also created, aiming to monitor at technical level specific topics covered by the Agreement: i) Citizens’ rights; ii) Separation Provisions; iii) Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland; iv) Protocol relating to the Sovereign Base Areas in Cyprus; v) Protocol on Gibraltar; vi) Financial Provisions.

Implementation

Since the beginning of this process, citizens’ rights have always been a top priority for the European Parliament. Both parties have made a serious effort to comply with its commitments and the Specialised Committee on citizens’ rights as proven to be a useful instrument for cooperation in this area. As regards the rights of EU citizens living in the UK, the European Parliament raised concerns on four major still unsolved problems: the insufficient support given to vulnerable people with difficulties to manage the digital procedures established by the UK authorities; the very high number of citizens that only got the so-called ‘pre-settled status’; the fact that those citizens need to make a second application to receive the ‘settled status’, risking automatic and illegal loss of their rights, and the lack of a physical document to provide greater certainty regarding the proof of their status and rights.

After some initial difficulties, financial arrangements seem now to be operating smoothly, with no major problems being reported. It should be recalled that the agreed financial settlement is not a one-off lump sum, but an arrangement to clear the outstanding commitments made during the UK’s membership of the EU.

The most problematic issue in terms of the implementation of the Withdrawal Agreement was the clear and persistent breach by the UK of its international law commitments under the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland, namely the lack of border checks in the Irish Sea and the insufficient access to customs data by the EU – which are deemed necessary to avoid a ‘hard border’ on the Island of Ireland. Since the beginning, the UK refused to honour its legal commitments and has instead announced successive unilateral ‘grace periods’ to avoid introducing border checks in the Irish Sea, besides threatening to adopt unilateral legislation to disapply the Protocol, as happened with the Internal Market Bill in 2019, and now is happening again with the so-called Northern Ireland Protocol Bill. To all this the European Commission has responded in a very firm but also patient and constructive manner, proposing an extensive package of measures designed to provide extra flexibility in the implementation of the Protocol to the extent possible, and only launching and pursuing infringement proceedings when absolutely necessary to ensure full implementation of the Protocol.

In fact, following consultation with Northern Ireland Authorities and stakeholders, the European Commission published on 13 October 2021 its proposed bespoke arrangements to benefit Northern Ireland, covering four areas and detailed in dedicated non-papers: Engagement with Northern Ireland stakeholders and leaders, Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) issues, Customs and Medicines. Despite the Commission’s flexibility and efforts, the UK authorities choose not to engage in discussing solutions for the flexible implementation of the Protocol.

High-level talks are ongoing at the moment to try to find a workable solution for the proper implementation of the Protocol and hopefully the UK will now engage in constructive discussions within the Joint Committee. In any case, those discussions are about the flexible implementation of the existing commitments, since the renegotiation of the Protocol is excluded by the European Union.

Parliament’s Role

Within the constitutional framework of the EU, the European Parliament directly represents the EU citizens at Union level (Art. 10(2)) TEU. Direct elections to the European Parliament are one of the two sources of the EU’s ‘dual legitimacy’. Being the only EU organ directly elected by the EU citizens (Art. 14(3) TEU), the Parliament has an important constitutional and political function and is a cornerstone of the European representative democracy (Art. 10(1) TEU).

As one of the legislative organs of the EU, the European Parliament is involved in the making of international agreements to which the EU is a party. The EP’s most prominent function in the making of treaties is to approve most of the agreements negotiated by the Commission (Art. 218(6) TEU), including the Withdrawal Agreement (Art. 50(2) TEU). Yet, pursuant to Art. 218 TFEU, and according to interinstitutional agreements and practices, the EP’s role and function reaches well beyond that as it also implies the involvement in the making of EU treaties, including a right to information and a right to give its views.

Since the very beginning of the negotiations with the UK, and given the extraordinary nature of Brexit, the European Parliament, under the Conference of Presidents mandate, decided to set up the ‘Brexit Steering Group’ on 6 April 2017. The Brexit Steering Group’s purpose was to coordinate and prepare Parliament’s deliberations, considerations and resolutions on the UK’s withdrawal from the EU and met regularly with the EU’s chief negotiator, Michel Barnier. The Brexit Steering Group coordinated 6 resolutions, 15 statements and published a number of comments, assessments and letters regarding Brexit and its implications. The Brexit Steering Group finished its work on 31 January 2020 with the entry into force of the Withdrawal Agreement.

Following the end of the Brexit Steering Group, the Conference of Presidents decided to set up, in February 2020, the UK Coordination Group that served as Parliament’s primary point of contact during negotiations for a future partnership with the UK, and held regular meetings with the lead negotiator for the EU side, Mr Michel Barnier, and with the members of his team, the Task Force for Relations with the United Kingdom. Its mandate came to an end with the entry into force of the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement, and it was succeeded by the UK Contact Group. The interaction with the European Commission, in particular with the new European chief negotiator, Maroš Šefčovič, on the implementation of the Withdrawal Agreement takes place, in a very productive and effective manner, in this UK Contact Group, but also at the level of the Conference of Presidents and all relevant committees.

The Committee on Constitutional Affairs (AFCO) decided to set-up a special Monitoring Group on the Withdrawal Agreement, which aims to get information on the implementation of the Agreement and engage with EU and UK representatives and stakeholders in discussing the challenges of the implementation.

As the lead Committee for the negotiation of the Withdrawal Agreement, AFCO was charged with the task of preparing a resolution on the implementation of the Withdrawal Agreement, also benefiting from the contributions and opinions of other relevant committees. MEP Pedro Silva Pereira, Member of AFCO and also Vice-President of the European Parliament, was nominated as Rapporteur for the implementation of the Withdrawal Agreement.

The implementation report

Three years after the entry into force of the Withdrawal Agreement, time has come for the European Parliament to produce its first report on the implementation of this unprecedented agreement, including on the Ireland/Northern Ireland Protocol.

This report is tabled without the First Annual Report of the Joint Committee on the Implementation of the Withdrawal Agreement being agreed or published, due to substantive divergences between the parties.

 The Implementation report is organised following the three key elements of the Withdrawal Agreement: Citizens’ Rights, the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland and Financial Settlement.

A final chapter on the Governance of the Agreement and the Role of the European Parliament has also been included, assessing the functioning of the governing structures created by the Withdrawal Agreement and the involvement of the European Parliament in the implementation process and its interaction with the European Commission.

With this report, the European Parliament reaffirms its commitment to closely monitor the full implementation of the Withdrawal Agreement, in particular as regards citizens’ rights and the Ireland/Northern Ireland Protocol.

 

MOTION FOR A EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT RESOLUTION

on the implementation report on the Agreement on the withdrawal of the UK from the EU

(2020/2202(INI))

The European Parliament,

– having regard to the Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community[2] (the ‘Withdrawal Agreement’), including the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland thereto (the ‘Protocol’),

– having regard to the political declaration setting out the framework for the future relationship between the European Union and the United Kingdom[3], which accompanies the Withdrawal Agreement,

– having regard to the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement of 10 April 1998, signed by the Government of the UK, the Government of Ireland and the other participants in the multi-party negotiations (the ‘Good Friday Agreement’),

– having regard to its resolutions of 5 April 2017 on negotiations with the United Kingdom following its notification that it intends to withdraw from the European Union[4], of 3 October 2017 on the state of play of negotiations with the United Kingdom[5], of 13 December 2017 on the state of play of negotiations with the United Kingdom[6], of 14 March 2018 on the framework of the future EU-UK relationship[7], of 18 September 2019 on the state of play of the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union[8], of 15 January 2020 on implementing and monitoring the provisions on citizens’ rights in the Withdrawal Agreement[9], of 12 February 2020 on the proposed mandate for negotiations for a new partnership with the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland[10], of 18 June 2020 on the negotiations for a new partnership with the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland[11], of 28 April 2021 on the outcome of EU-UK negotiations[12] and of 16 February 2022 on the assessment of the implementation of Article 50 TEU[13],

– having regard to its position of 29 January 2020 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion of the Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community[14],

– having regard to the Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community, of the one part, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, of the other part[15] (the ‘TCA’),–  having regard to Rule 54 of its Rules of Procedure, 

– having regard to the opinions of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, the Committee on International Trade, the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs and the Committee on Petitions,

– having regard to the letter from the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection,

– having regard to the report of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs (A9-0052/2023),

 

A. whereas the Withdrawal Agreement concluded between the EU and the UK entered into force on 1 February 2020;

B. whereas the Withdrawal Agreement allowed for the orderly withdrawal of the UK from the European Union; whereas the Withdrawal Agreement established a Joint Committee, which is responsible for monitoring and promoting the implementation and application of the agreement; whereas the Withdrawal Agreement established six specialised committees covering the following areas: citizens’ rights, other separation provisions, Ireland/Northern Ireland, Gibraltar, sovereign base areas in Cyprus, and financial provisions;

C. whereas the Withdrawal Agreement, notably the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland, and the TCA constitute a common framework for the UK’s relationship with the EU; whereas both agreements have been agreed on and ratified by the EU and the UK and are legally binding treaties under international public law; whereas the relationship between the EU and the UK must be based on full respect for those international commitments; whereas the TCA is predicated on the full implementation of the Withdrawal Agreement and the Protocol, meaning that implementation challenges under the Withdrawal Agreement and the Protocol are therefore inextricably linked to the TCA; whereas those implementation challenges could have far-reaching implications and serious consequences for the broader EU-UK relationship;

D. whereas Part Two of the Withdrawal Agreement protects the rights of EU citizens living in the UK and of UK citizens living in the EU; whereas the protection of these rights legally continues beyond the completion of the UK’s exit from the EU;

E. whereas the inconsistency between status granted under the EU Settlement Scheme (EUSS) and the rights provided for by the Withdrawal Agreement may pose a risk of legal uncertainty for EU citizens;

F. whereas the UK’s Independent Monitoring Authority for the Citizens’ Rights Agreements (IMA) was established on 31 December 2020;

G. whereas continued adherence to the European Convention on Human Rights was one of the essential requirements in the Withdrawal Agreement, in particular as regards law enforcement and judicial cooperation in criminal matters; whereas the Withdrawal Agreement states that there must be ‘no diminution of rights, safeguards or equality of opportunity’ for people in Northern Ireland;

H. whereas the Withdrawal Agreement provides for an orderly and fair financial settlement with the UK;

I. whereas on 10 April 1998, the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement was signed by the Government of the UK, the Government of Ireland and the other participants in the multi-party negotiations; whereas the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland avoids a ‘hard border’ on the island of Ireland, ensures the functioning of an all-island economy and safeguards all dimensions of the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement, while protecting the integrity of the EU’s single market; whereas after years of intense negotiations with the UK, the Protocol was the only solution found; whereas it therefore provides the only framework to address the specific consequences for Northern Ireland of the UK’s decision to leave the single market and customs union;

J. whereas on 13 October 2021, the Commission, in a demonstration of flexibility and pragmatism, proposed a number of far-reaching proposals to make the implementation of the Protocol more flexible;

K. whereas the UK has reneged on its international obligations by unilaterally adopting and extending grace periods; whereas as a result of this unilateral action, a number of central aspects of the Protocol have been breached;

L. whereas the UK recently put forward the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill, which aims to unilaterally cease applying various provisions of the Protocol; whereas such a proposal constitutes a clear and unacceptable breach of international commitments under the Withdrawal Agreement;

M. whereas elected officials and stakeholders in Northern Ireland have first-hand knowledge of and experience with the practical consequences of implementing the Protocol;

N. whereas it is necessary to preserve a level playing field and legal certainty for businesses and citizens;

General considerations

1. Recalls that the Withdrawal Agreement allowed for the orderly withdrawal of the UK from the EU, minimising social and economic disruption and avoiding a ‘cliff edge’ scenario; recalls that its negotiation was a historic yet cumbersome and lengthy political process to which both parties dedicated considerable political, administrative and financial resources; points out this was a period of deep uncertainty for the EU-27, the UK and their respective stakeholders; regrets the fact that the Withdrawal Agreement has still not yet been fully implemented; underlines that the full and timely implementation of the Withdrawal Agreement and the TCA, which are based on international law, is and will always remain a key priority for the EU;

2. Notes that, as expected, the UK’s withdrawal from the EU has resulted in trade and supply chain disruptions between the EU and the UK, increased uncertainties for citizens and businesses and rising costs for traders in various sectors, investors and industry stemming from transportation shortages, shipping delays, difficulties in complying with changing import rules and customs border turmoil that have resulted from the dual-regulatory systems and additional formalities; notes, therefore, that Brexit has proven to be damaging for all concerned, and even more so for the UK; notes that the regions involved in Interreg projects with the UK have been particularly affected; points out that the situation would have been much worse for citizens, businesses and public administrations in the EU and UK alike without the Withdrawal Agreement;

3. Highlights that the Withdrawal Agreement provided the legal framework for safeguarding citizens’ rights; avoiding a ‘hard border’ on the island of Ireland and respecting the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement, while protecting the integrity and functioning of the EU’s single market and customs union, ensuring a fair financial settlement and establishing an effective dispute settlement system and joint institutions to monitor and enforce its implementation;

4. Notes that some important improvements are still to be made to safeguard citizens’ rights and that the first three years of the implementation of the Withdrawal Agreement have been tarnished by the UK’s continuous breaches of its commitments, as well as further threatened breaches, under the Protocol;

5. Reiterates that the provisions of the Withdrawal Agreement must be respected and implemented; stresses that compliance with treaties constitutes a fundamental principle of international law and that a trusting relationship between the EU and the UK depends on all parties respecting their legally binding commitments;

6. Recalls that the Withdrawal Agreement has a direct effect on the EU’s and the UK’s respective legal orders; points out that its provisions can be invoked directly in national courts by the legal subjects concerned; underlines that any contradictory national implementing measure must be disregarded and cannot be enforced;

7. Highlights the need to preserve the role of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), which is necessary to interpret the applicable EU law; recalls that UK courts must pay due regard to CJEU case-law handed down after the transition period, and highlights that the rights guaranteed by the citizens’ rights section of the Withdrawal Agreement can be directly relied on by EU citizens in UK courts and by UK nationals in the courts of the Member States; recalls further that the Withdrawal Agreement provides a role for the CJEU, by permitting UK courts to ask it, under certain conditions, for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Part Two of the Withdrawal Agreement for eight years following the end of the transition period;

Citizens’ rights

8. Recalls that Part Two of the Withdrawal Agreement provides that all EU citizens who were legally residing in the UK and all UK nationals who were legally residing in the EU-27 at the end of the transition period on 31 December 2020 and who continue to do so enjoy the full set of rights as established under EU law and as interpreted by the CJEU; recalls that children are also protected by the Withdrawal Agreement, provided that the conditions of Article 10(1) of the Withdrawal Agreement are fulfilled; stresses that full implementation of the Withdrawal Agreement’s provisions on citizens’ rights is necessary to safeguard those rights and provide the legal certainty needed by EU and UK citizens and their families;

9. Recalls, as stressed in Article 5 of the Withdrawal Agreement, that the EU and the UK should, with full mutual respect and in good faith, assist each other with tasks resulting from the Withdrawal Agreement;

10. Welcomes the UK’s establishment of the EUSS to fulfil its obligations to EU citizens and their family members, but also echoes the Commission’s concerns regarding the lack of legal clarity, since eligibility conditions set by the UK for access to rights under the EUSS still differ from those provided for in the Withdrawal Agreement; recalls that the Withdrawal Agreement makes clear that the administrative procedures under a constitutive system must be ‘smooth, transparent and simple’;

11. Notes that by 30 September 2022, under the EUSS, the UK received 6 874 700 applications, of which 822 630 were received after the 30 June 2021 deadline; notes that of the concluded outcomes, 50 % (3 359 250) were granted settled status, 40 % (2 677 190) were only granted pre-settled status and 10 % had other outcomes (including 375 400 refused applications, 143 550 withdrawn or voided applications and 131 150 invalid applications);

12. Is deeply concerned about inconsistencies with the Withdrawal Agreement, namely that EU citizens with pre-settled status have to submit a second application to obtain settled status, which may lead to an automatic and illegal loss of their rights; recalls that the first wave of EU citizens with pre-settled status that must apply for settled status will have to start submitting their applications in the second half of 2023; expresses concern that, during their second application, eligible EU citizens will have to prove continued residence, making the settled status application procedure more onerous than the pre-settled one;

13. Recalls that those persons who have not yet acquired permanent residence rights, namely those who have not lived in the host state for at least five years, are still fully protected by the Withdrawal Agreement and will be able to continue residing in the host state and to acquire permanent residence rights in the host state after accumulating five years of residence;

14. Notes that the deadline for most EU citizens to apply for settled status passed on 30 June 2021; stresses that, according to the Withdrawal Agreement, EU citizens and their families who can show reasonable grounds for missing the deadlines can still apply to the EUSS; recognises that the UK Government chose to not reject any applications submitted past the official deadline; welcomes the flexibility shown by the UK Government in that regard; is, however, still concerned about the situation of late applicants, since many citizens remain in limbo about their immigration status;

15. Is concerned by the very long delays in decision-making by the UK Government related to citizens’ rights; notes that, as of June 2022, 225 000 applications were waiting for a decision; is particularly concerned about the delays for family reunification cases; draws attention to the fact that delays in decision-making for family reunification cases went from an average of 95 calendar days in July 2021 to 291 calendar days in June 2022; calls on the UK Government to do its utmost to speed up its decision-making process;

16. Commends the work of the IMA, whose role is to make sure that the UK authorities adequately and effectively implement the rights provided for by the citizens’ rights agreements; reiterates the importance of ensuring that the IMA can carry out its role in a genuinely independent manner;

17. Welcomes the report on the IMA’s second survey of July 2022; notes, with concern, that three out of four respondents had not heard about the IMA prior to the 2022 survey; calls on the IMA to improve its communication and awareness campaign efforts;

18. Welcomes and has been closely following the legal challenge brought by the IMA in December 2021 before the UK High Court of Justice on the UK Government’s position that EU citizens who fail to either apply for settled status or reapply for pre-settled status before the expiry of their pre-settled status will automatically lose their rights; notes that, in the judgment that was handed down on 21 December 2022, the UK High Court declared that the EUSS, as it is currently operating, is unlawful in these respects; supports the Commission’s participation in the court proceedings; stresses that, under Article 15(3) of the Withdrawal Agreement, once citizens acquire the right of permanent residence, it can only be lost through absence from the home state for a period exceeding five consecutive years;

19. Highlights the role of the Specialised Committee on Citizens’ Rights in facilitating the application of Part Two of the Withdrawal Agreement; highlights the importance of its work and of its reports on the implementation of residence rights; calls on the Member States and the UK to continue providing full and up-to-date statistical information to the Specialised Committee on Citizens’ Rights as regard the implementation of the Withdrawal Agreement; urges the Commission and the UK Government to reconvene the Specialised Committee on Citizens’ Rights as soon as possible and to continue holding meetings on a quarterly basis until all issues raised have been fully addressed;

20. Welcomes the sixth joint report on the implementation of residence rights under Part Two of the Withdrawal Agreement of 26 January 2022; takes note of the regular publication of joint reports by the Specialised Committee on Citizens’ Rights on the implementation of residence rights under the Withdrawal Agreement and of the annual reports from the committee’s secretariat to the Joint Committee; highlights their usefulness in monitoring the implementation of Part Two of the Withdrawal Agreement;

21. Reiterates its view that greater certainty would be provided to EU citizens in the UK if they were issued with a physical document, which should complement their existing digital status, as proof of their rights as residents; expresses its concern that the digital-only approach can have a negative and discriminatory effect on applicants from vulnerable groups and calls for help to be provided in such cases; recalls its position that a declaratory system would provide even more legal certainty for the citizens concerned, while alleviating the administrative burden on UK authorities;

22. Expresses its concern about the difficulties that EU citizens and their family members may experience when attempting to return to the UK because of airlines’ lack of knowledge about the digital process for verifying settled or pre-settled status and their inability to verify this at airport gates prior to boarding; calls on the UK Government to continue working with carriers to find solutions;

23. Regrets the increasing delays in issuing residence documents and entry visas for EU citizens in the UK and urges the UK authorities to develop plans to reduce the number of pending applications;

24. Deplores the UK’s decision to charge different fees to visa applicants depending on their EU country of origin;

25.  Calls on the UK Government to continue guaranteeing the residence rights of imprisoned EU citizens with pre-settled status, as provided for by the Withdrawal Agreement;

26. Is concerned about the difficulties faced by UK nationals in clarifying their status in some EU countries; calls on the Member States to show flexibility regarding the processing of late applications; calls on the Member States that opted for an Article 18(4) implementation, which does not require an application process to confirm rights under the Withdrawal Agreement, to address the UK’s concerns relating to evidencing status and to the ability of UK citizens living in the EU to access benefits and services; welcomes the Commission’s initiatives to provide guidance to the Member States in this respect; calls on the Member States with a constitutive system to consider adopting a declaratory system or parts of one;

27. Highlights the importance of grassroots organisations in advocating for citizens’ rights to be respected in the UK and the EU under the Withdrawal Agreement; notes with regret that some of the organisations advocating for UK citizens’ rights in Europe have had to cease their work due to lack of funding;

28. Reiterates that citizens’ rights are a top priority for Parliament and reaffirms its commitment to closely monitoring the implementation of the Withdrawal Agreement, so that those rights are fully protected;

29. Recalls that any EU citizen residing in the UK has the right to petition the European Parliament pursuant to Article 227 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union; recalls that UK citizens residing in the EU also maintain the right to petition Parliament;

The Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland

30. Recalls that the Protocol was agreed on as a compromise to safeguard all parts of the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement and prevent the establishment of a ‘hard  border’ on the island of Ireland, while protecting the integrity of the EU single market; recalls, furthermore, that the final version of the Protocol was in fact proposed by the UK Government, leading to the abandonment of previous versions of the ‘backstop’; notes that the Protocol’s application has so far demonstrated that it is, in several important aspects, successfully serving its purpose;

31. Highlights that the Protocol places Northern Ireland in a unique position by granting goods produced in Northern Ireland access to both the EU’s single market and the UK’s internal market; underlines that necessary checks and controls must take place at points of entry on goods entering Northern Ireland from the rest of the UK or any other third country;

32. Strongly regrets the UK’s lack of political will and failure to act in good faith and in compliance with its commitments under the Protocol; denounces the UK’s unwillingness to comply with the applicable customs requirements, supervision requirements and risk controls on the movement of goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland; regrets the UK’s unwillingness to transpose and implement applicable EU legislation on excise duties and VAT; regrets, in particular, the lack of support given to the EU staff in charge of monitoring customs checks in the Irish Sea, EU staff’s insufficient access to UK customs data and the successive unilateral grace periods that have undermined border checks, in clear breach of the Protocol; welcomes, at the same time, the recent agreement between the EU and the UK on the sharing of trade data and expects the arrangement to be finalised promptly;

33. Points out that ongoing uncertainty regarding the trade arrangements for Northern Ireland is harmful and detrimental to business; observes that investment flows into Northern Ireland are declining and that the advantages available under the dual-market access provided by the Protocol are being undermined; acknowledges that businesses in Northern Ireland will be under more pressure because they will have to deal with differences between UK and EU policies;

34. Stresses that any breach of the Protocol is a violation of international legal commitments and constitutes an unacceptable demonstration of disrespect for the rule of law;

35. Calls on the UK authorities to guarantee the social and employment rights of EU citizens and the freedom of movement of cross-border workers, based on non-discrimination and reciprocity;

36. Expresses strong concern about the recently proposed Northern Ireland Protocol Bill, which would give UK ministers far-ranging powers to unilaterally cease to apply provisions of the Protocol, which could undermine the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement, contribute to economic and political uncertainty in Northern Ireland and have negative impacts on consumer protection, business and workers;

37. Deplores the UK’s continued preference for using unilateral measures to break bilateral agreements, despite the availability of the two dispute settlement mechanisms established under the Withdrawal Agreement; recalls that the UK first intended to break bilateral agreements via its Internal Market Bill; underlines that a bilateral agreement cannot be changed unilaterally and that doing so undermines the relationship between the EU and the UK; considers that the attitude displayed by the UK authorities is contrary to the spirit of dialogue and to the principle of good faith; calls, therefore, on the UK Government to immediately withdraw this proposal, refrain from unilateral action and fully implement the agreements that it has signed; reiterates its call on the UK authorities to fully respect all parts of the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement, as agreed in the Withdrawal Agreement, and to ensure that there is no diminution of rights for citizens in Northern Ireland;

38. Welcomes the resumption of technical talks between the EU and the UK and encourages EU and UK negotiators to find a joint solution and ensure the Protocol is upheld;

39. Recalls the unilateral declaration made by the UK Government, in the context of the Protocol, concerning the functioning of the ‘Democratic consent in Northern Ireland’ provision in a manner consistent with the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement; underlines that, according to that unilateral declaration, ‘democratic consent’ to the Protocol must be provided in due time by a simple majority of the Northern Ireland Assembly; recalls that, in the most recent elections in Northern Ireland, a clear majority of voters voted for parties that had expressed their support for retaining the Protocol;

40. Underlines that the EU remains open to discussions with the UK Government to find common solutions to enable the sustainable, long-term functioning of the Protocol; reiterates its opposition to any renegotiation of the Protocol and highlights that the EU Member States, Parliament and the Commission remain united in this view; welcomes the far-reaching proposals made by the Commission in October 2021 to find pragmatic, reasonable and flexible solutions to address implementation challenges of the Protocol aimed at lessening the impact of Brexit in Northern Ireland; urges the UK Government to engage constructively in genuine negotiations with the EU through the EU-UK Joint Committee to find  sustainable solutions regarding possible areas of friction; calls on the UK Government to proactively involve the Northern Ireland Assembly and other elected officials and stakeholders in Northern Ireland in the discussions on the application of the Protocol;

41. Points out that Section 75 of the UK’s Nationality and Borders Act, which requires those without a UK immigration status (including EU citizens, with the exception of Irish citizens) to have an electronic travel authorisation (ETA) before entering Northern Ireland, will negatively impact EU citizens resident in Ireland; stresses, moreover, that the ETA system would not be fully in line with Article 2 of the Protocol, which protects the rights of individuals and requires the UK to ensure that there is no diminution of rights, safeguards or equality of opportunity, including by providing protection against discrimination; emphasises that any UK proposal that could ultimately require EU citizens resident in Ireland to register in order to obtain an exemption from the ETA system would be disproportionate and that its implementation would amount to a possible breach of the principle of non-discrimination as set out in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;

42. Expresses its complete support for the legal initiatives launched by the Commission to ensure the full implementation of the Withdrawal Agreement; welcomes the adoption of the interinstitutional agreement on the Commission’s proposal for a regulation on the enforcement mechanisms of the Withdrawal Agreement and the TCA[16], which would allow the EU to take swift action in the form of measures if there is a breach of the Withdrawal Agreement and/or the TCA; calls on the Commission to keep Parliament and the Council fully informed in a timely manner of all relevant developments that may lead to the adoption of measures or actions from the Commission’s side; underlines that the enforcement toolbox under the TCA could also be used to strengthen the enforcement of the Protocol;

Financial settlement

43. Recalls that the Withdrawal Agreement provides for a single financial settlement with the UK, which includes all legal liabilities arising from outstanding commitments and makes provision for off-balance sheet items, contingent liabilities and other financial costs arising as a direct result of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU; underlines that this financial settlement is not a one-off lump sum, but an arrangement to clear the outstanding commitments made during the UK’s membership of the EU;

44. Welcomes the fruitful cooperation in this area and the fact that the EU and the UK have reaffirmed their commitment to complying with their financial obligations under the Withdrawal Agreement;

Governance and role of the European Parliament

45. Welcomes the fact that the governance structures responsible for the implementation of the Withdrawal Agreement are fully operational, in particular its Specialised Committee on Citizens’ Rights, which meets very regularly; calls on the UK to make full use of these structures instead of pursuing unilateral action;

46. Reaffirms its commitment to closely monitoring the implementation of the Withdrawal Agreement, in particular in relation to citizens’ rights and the Protocol; welcomes the highly fruitful cooperation between Parliament and the Commission on these matters;

47. Welcomes the active involvement of the EU-UK Parliamentary Partnership Assembly; believes that this assembly provides a good framework for parliamentary cooperation on common challenges, including on the implementation of the Withdrawal Agreement and the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland; welcomes the fact that devolved territories were given an active role during the second EU-UK Parliamentary Partnership Assembly in November 2022 and expects this role to be enhanced in the future;

48. Welcomes the UK Contact Group established by the Committee of the Regions in February 2020, which provides a forum for continued dialogue and political partnership between EU and UK local and regional authorities; commits to adopting a similar interaction between the UK Contact Group and the European Parliament's Delegation to the UK to provide territory-based evidence about the implementation of the Withdrawal Agreement;

49. Recalls that Spain and the UK reached an understanding on a possible framework for an agreement on Gibraltar on 31 December 2020; recalls that, on 20 July 2021, the Commission presented a recommendation for a Council decision authorising the opening of negotiations with the UK on Gibraltar and for the related negotiating directives; notes that the Council adopted a decision authorising the opening of negotiations for an EU-UK agreement on Gibraltar, as well as the negotiating directives, on 5 October 2021; notes that as of October 2022, nine negotiating rounds had been completed;

°

° °

50. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission.

OPINION OF THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS (25.10.2022)

for the Committee on Constitutional Affairs

on the implementation report on the Agreement on the withdrawal of the UK from the EU

(2020/2202(INI))

Rapporteur for opinion: Andreas Schieder

 

SUGGESTIONS

The Committee on Foreign Affairs calls on the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following suggestions into its motion for a resolution:

A. whereas the Withdrawal Agreement included ‘specific arrangements relating to the Union’s external action’ whereby, during the transition period, the United Kingdom was bound by the obligations stemming from the international agreements concluded by the EU to implement the Union’s restrictive measures, whether decided upon during the transition period or already in place, and to support EU statements and positions vis-à-vis third countries and international organisations; whereas the agreement envisaged the UK’s participation on a case-by-case basis in EU military operations and civilian missions established under the common security and defence policy through a framework participation agreement, while respecting the EU’s decision-making autonomy and the relevant EU decisions and legislation and excluding the UK from leading such operations or missions;

B. whereas, on 10 April 1998, the Belfast Agreement was signed by the Government of the UK, the Government of Ireland and the other participants in the multi-party negotiations (the ‘Good Friday Agreement’); whereas the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland to the Withdrawal Agreement provides for a legal framework that preserves the Good Friday Agreement in all its parts and the rights of the people of Northern Ireland, and safeguards peace, the integrity of the single market and the all-island economy and therefore avoids a hard border; whereas it is the UK’s obligation to ensure that the Good Friday Agreement is applied in all its parts and under all circumstances;

C. whereas the UK and the EU share common values and security interests, both in the immediate European neighbourhood and globally; whereas the UK is and will remain a key partner of the EU, as well as a central actor within NATO;

1. Recalls that pursuant to Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, withdrawal agreements are to take account of the framework for the withdrawing state’s future relationship with the Union;

2. Recalls that the EU’s signature of the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) and its ratification by the European Parliament were conditioned on the full implementation of the Withdrawal Agreement; regrets the fact that, as yet, the Withdrawal Agreement has still not been fully implemented, especially as regards the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland;

3. Recalls that whereas the political declaration accompanying the Withdrawal Agreement included clear provisions established by both parties on cooperation in the areas of foreign policy, security and defence, these provisions were not pursued further in the negotiations on the TCA owing to the UK Government’s lack of interest in discussing these issues;

4. Regrets that despite the mutual interest in cooperation in the areas of foreign policy and security, which would be based on shared values and would contribute to promoting peace and strengthening the rules-based global order, no agreement was reached on an institutionalised format for cooperation, as the UK declined to take advantage of this possibility; underlines, however, that the UK’s contributions to Euro-Atlantic security have increased, and recognises the substantial contributions that the UK has made to supporting Ukraine’s self-defence, territorial integrity and intelligence capabilities;

5. Underlines that the need for a tighter and more closely coordinated relationship between the EU and the UK on security issues has been heightened since Russia launched its war of aggression against Ukraine; calls for meaningful coordination and cooperation between the EU and the UK, to enable both to play an active role in the resolution of major conflicts; recalls its proposal that such coordination should be governed by a joint UK-EU foreign policy framework, offering both sides a systematic platform for high-level consultation and coordination on foreign policy issues;

6. Stresses that although the political declaration has not been honoured and there is no agreement on foreign policy and defence, both sides should step up cooperation in these fields, with a foreign policy approach based on democracy and the rule of law, gender equality, disarmament and non-proliferation, and international cooperation for development and climate action;

7. Is alarmed by the actions of the UK Government, which have the potential to undermine the Good Friday Agreement and destabilise peace in Northern Ireland; recalls that these actions do not comply with the Withdrawal Agreement, whereby it is a UK obligation to ensure that the Good Friday Agreement is applied and enforced in full and under all circumstances; recalls that these unilateral actions are in violation of international law, undermine the relationship between the EU and the UK, damage the UK’s reputation as a reliable partner and come at a time when the ongoing geopolitical crises call for more unity and solidarity between allies than ever; urges the new UK Government to engage constructively and in good faith with the EU and all communities in Northern Ireland.

INFORMATION ON ADOPTION IN COMMITTEE ASKED FOR OPINION

Date adopted	25.10.2022
Result of final vote	+: –: 0:	41 1 1
Members present for the final vote	Alviina Alametsä, Alexander Alexandrov Yordanov, Maria Arena, Petras Auštrevičius, Traian Băsescu, Susanna Ceccardi, Włodzimierz Cimoszewicz, Kinga Gál, Sunčana Glavak, Klemen Grošelj, Bernard Guetta, Dietmar Köster, David Lega, Miriam Lexmann, Leopoldo López Gil, Antonio López-Istúriz White, Pedro Marques, Vangelis Meimarakis, Sven Mikser, Francisco José Millán Mon, Urmas Paet, Kostas Papadakis, Thijs Reuten, Nacho Sánchez Amor, Isabel Santos, Mounir Satouri, Andreas Schieder, Jordi Solé, Tineke Strik, Hermann Tertsch, Dragoş Tudorache, Thomas Waitz, Charlie Weimers, Salima Yenbou
Substitutes present for the final vote	Anna-Michelle Asimakopoulou, Corina Crețu, Markéta Gregorová, Andrey Kovatchev, Georgios Kyrtsos, Gabriel Mato, Ramona Strugariu
Substitutes under Rule 209(7) present for the final vote	Janusz Lewandowski, Alessandro Panza

 

 

FINAL VOTE BY ROLL CALL IN COMMITTEE ASKED FOR OPINION

41	+
ECR	Hermann Tertsch
ID	Susanna Ceccardi, Alessandro Panza
NI	Kinga Gál
PPE	Alexander Alexandrov Yordanov, Anna-Michelle Asimakopoulou, Traian Băsescu, Sunčana Glavak, Andrey Kovatchev, David Lega, Miriam Lexmann, Janusz Lewandowski, Leopoldo López Gil, Antonio López-Istúriz White, Gabriel Mato, Vangelis Meimarakis, Francisco José Millán Mon
RENEW	Petras Auštrevičius, Klemen Grošelj, Bernard Guetta, Georgios Kyrtsos, Ramona Strugariu, Urmas Paet, Dragoş Tudorache, Salima Yenbou
S&D	Maria Arena, Włodzimierz Cimoszewicz, Corina Crețu, Dietmar Köster, Pedro Marques, Sven Mikser, Thijs Reuten, Nacho Sánchez Amor, Isabel Santos, Andreas Schieder
Verts/ALE	Alviina Alametsä, Markéta Gregorová, Mounir Satouri, Jordi Solé, Tineke Strik, Thomas Waitz

 

1	-
NI	Kostas Papadakis

 

1	0
ECR	Charlie Weimers

 

Key to symbols:

+ : in favour

- : against

0 : abstention

 

OPINION OF THE COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL TRADE (5.12.2022)

for the Committee on Constitutional Affairs

on the implementation report on the Agreement on the withdrawal of the UK from the EU

(2020/2202(INI))

Rapporteur for opinion: Seán Kelly

(*) Associated committee – Rule 57 of the Rules of Procedure

 

SUGGESTIONS

The Committee on International Trade calls on the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following suggestions into its motion for a resolution:

A. whereas the decision of the UK Government to pursue a hard Brexit upon its withdrawal from the EU was inevitably going to entail the disruptive disintegration of economic and trade ties and the divergence of regulatory regimes for operators, citizens and third-country trading partners;

B. whereas Brexit has never had cross-community support in Northern Ireland; whereas the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland (the Protocol) is the only solution found with the UK, after four years of intense negotiations, to address the specific consequences for Ireland and Northern Ireland of the UK’s decision to leave the EU’s single market and the customs union, and to ensure the protection of the Good Friday Agreement in all its dimensions, the functioning of the all-island economy without a hard border and the integrity of the EU’s single market for goods, consumer protection and other areas;

C. whereas the EU-UK’s Withdrawal Agreement, notably the Protocol, and the EU-UK’s Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA), constitute a common framework for the UK’s trading relationship with the EU; whereas both Agreements have been ratified by the EU and the UK and are thus legally binding treaties under international public law; whereas the TCA is predicated on the full implementation of the Withdrawal Agreement and the Protocol, meaning that implementation challenges under the Withdrawal Agreement and the Protocol are therefore inextricably linked to the TCA, and they could have far-reaching implications and serious consequences for the broader EU-UK’s trading relationship as well as for the entire EU-UK’s relationship; whereas it is paramount to uphold international law and strengthen cooperation with like-minded countries and democratic allies on the basis of mutual trust, in particular given the current geopolitical and security context;

D. whereas the Joint Committee proposed, under the Withdrawal Agreement, a number of aspects related to the Protocol, in order to address the practical problems associated with its implementation within the so-called grace periods; whereas the United Kingdom has reneged on its international obligations and its obligations of transparency by unilaterally extending these grace periods;

E. whereas, as a result of this unilateral extension, a number of central aspects of the Protocol are not being implemented;

F. whereas elected officials and stakeholders in Northern Ireland have first-hand knowledge of, and experience with, the practical consequences of the implementation of the Protocol;

G. whereas it is necessary to preserve a level playing field and legal certainty for businesses and citizens;

1. Notes that the UK’s withdrawal from the EU has resulted in trade and supply chain disruptions between the EU and the UK, increased uncertainties for citizens and businesses, and rising costs for traders in various sectors, investors and industry due to transportation shortages, shipping delays, difficulties in complying with changing import rules and customs border turmoil as a consequence of dual regulatory systems and additional formalities; notes that this has resulted in an overall decline in the UK’s trade in goods and services with the EU;

2. Recalls that the 18 months of its operation have demonstrated that the Protocol is, in several important respects, successfully serving its purpose on the island of Ireland, including ensuring that complex supply chains and trade between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland can continue to operate;

3. Highlights that the Protocol places Northern Ireland in a unique position by granting access to goods produced in Northern Ireland to both the EU’s single market and the UK’s internal market; notes that the majority of Members of the Legislative Assembly in Northern Ireland elected on 5 May 2022 have expressed their support for retaining the Protocol, in some form, as the framework for governing trading arrangements in Northern Ireland; regrets that a Northern Ireland Executive has yet to be formed owing to minority opposition to the Protocol;

4. Points out that ongoing uncertainty regarding the trading arrangements for Northern Ireland is harmful and detrimental to business; observes that investment flows into Northern Ireland are declining and consequently the advantages available from the dual market access provided for under the Protocol are being undermined;

5. Acknowledges that businesses in Northern Ireland will be under more pressure because they will have to deal with differences between UK and EU policies; notes that they will be operating under both EU and UK policies in a range of areas; recognises that this will create many problems for businesses and will possibly affect competition;

6. Highlights that non-implementation of the provisions of the Protocol covering the movement of goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland jeopardises the integrity and functioning of the single market and customs union; notes that this situation might also undermine the EU’s position vis-à-vis other trading partners by casting doubt on the legitimacy of the origin of EU products and the extent to which the EU can offer flexible market access to third countries;

7. Underlines that the full and timely implementation of the Withdrawal Agreement and of the TCA, which are based on international law, is and will always remain a key priority for the EU; reiterates the consistent EU position that the Protocol will not be renegotiated and highlights that EU Member States, Parliament and the Commission remain united in this view; points out that solutions to the implementation challenges associated with the Protocol can be achieved within the framework of the Withdrawal Agreement, and that renegotiation would only further increase legal uncertainty and unpredictability for businesses and citizens in Northern Ireland;

8. Recalls that the EU has always sought pragmatic and flexible solutions to address implementation challenges experienced by stakeholders in Northern Ireland, and notably through far-reaching proposals put to the UK in October 2021 aimed at lessening the impact of Brexit in Northern Ireland; deplores the way that the Protocol has been instrumentalised by the UK Government and reiterates that technical solutions to ease trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, while avoiding a hard-border on the island of Ireland, are achievable;

9. Underlines that the EU remains open to discussions with the UK Government with a view to finding common solutions within the framework of the Protocol that can enable its sustainable long-term operation; regrets that the UK has not yet been willing to accept a satisfactory negotiated solution, despite the EU’s flexibility to engage with it on the Protocol; welcomes the resumption of technical discussions between the EU and the UK following a pause in the talks since February 2022 and the lack of earnest engagement by the UK Government with the EU on its proposals, and expresses the hope that technical discussions will lead to common solutions and to a lasting agreement;

10. Strongly deplores the publication on 13 June 2022 of the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill by the UK; recalls that this unilateral action by the UK, which is an attempt to unilaterally override much of the Protocol, is, in its current form, in violation of international law, contributes to economic and political uncertainty in Northern Ireland, and undermines the relationship between the EU and the UK; highlights the need to preserve the role of the Court of Justice of the European Union, which is necessary to interpret the applicable EU law; strongly rejects the proposed removal of the obligation for businesses in Northern Ireland to align with provisions in EU law; reaffirms the need for a level playing field for State aid and therefore urges the UK Parliament not to adopt the bill and the UK Government to engage constructively with the Commission to reach a negotiated outcome; emphasises that the views of Northern Irish citizens and businesses should be taken into account in this process;

11. Calls on the UK Government to proactively involve the Northern Ireland Assembly and other elected officials and stakeholders in Northern Ireland in finding practical solutions for the implementation of the UK Withdrawal Agreement and the Protocol; points out that parliaments, including the European Parliament, should play an enhanced role in the implementation and enforcement of these Agreements;

12. Calls on the Commission to keep Parliament fully informed in a timely manner of all difficulties that may arise, in particular possible breaches of the Agreements that might jeopardise the level playing field and fair competition for the EU’s workers and businesses;

13. Welcomes the Commission’s proposal for a regulation[17] to lay down rules and procedures governing the exercise of the EU’s rights under the Withdrawal Agreement and the TCA, which will allow the EU to take swift action in the form of measures if there is a breach of the Withdrawal Agreement and/or the TCA; emphasises the importance of this readiness, given the recent threats by the UK Government to unilaterally override parts of the Protocol; believes, however, that a satisfactory negotiated solution should be found in good faith and on the basis of mutual trust.

 

INFORMATION ON ADOPTION IN COMMITTEE ASKED FOR OPINION

Date adopted	30.11.2022
Result of final vote	+: –: 0:	36 0 2
Members present for the final vote	Barry Andrews, Anna-Michelle Asimakopoulou, Geert Bourgeois, Saskia Bricmont, Jordi Cañas, Daniel Caspary, Paolo De Castro, Raphaël Glucksmann, Markéta Gregorová, Roman Haider, Christophe Hansen, Heidi Hautala, Danuta Maria Hübner, Karin Karlsbro, Danilo Oscar Lancini, Bernd Lange, Margarida Marques, Gabriel Mato, Sara Matthieu, Emmanuel Maurel, Alessandra Mussolini, Carles Puigdemont i Casamajó, Samira Rafaela, Inma Rodríguez-Piñero, Helmut Scholz, Sven Simon, Mihai Tudose, Marie-Pierre Vedrenne, Jörgen Warborn, Iuliu Winkler, Jan Zahradil, Juan Ignacio Zoido Álvarez
Substitutes present for the final vote	Enikő Győri, Svenja Hahn, Liudas Mažylis, Javier Moreno Sánchez
Substitutes under Rule 209(7) present for the final vote	Marc Angel, Dietmar Köster

 

FINAL VOTE BY ROLL CALL IN COMMITTEE ASKED FOR OPINION

36	+
ECR	Geert Bourgeois, Jan Zahradil
NI	Enikő Győri, Carles Puigdemont i Casamajó
PPE	Anna-Michelle Asimakopoulou, Daniel Caspary, Christophe Hansen, Danuta Maria Hübner, Gabriel Mato, Liudas Mažylis, Alessandra Mussolini, Sven Simon, Jörgen Warborn, Iuliu Winkler, Juan Ignacio Zoido Álvarez
RENEW	Barry Andrews, Jordi Cañas, Svenja Hahn, Karin Karlsbro, Samira Rafaela, Marie-Pierre Vedrenne
S&D	Marc Angel, Paolo De Castro, Raphaël Glucksmann, Dietmar Köster, Bernd Lange, Margarida Marques, Javier Moreno Sánchez, Inma Rodríguez-Piñero, Mihai Tudose
THE LEFT	Emmanuel Maurel, Helmut Scholz
VERTS/ALE	Saskia Bricmont, Markéta Gregorová, Heidi Hautala, Sara Matthieu

 

0	-

 

2	0
ID	Roman Haider, Danilo Oscar Lancini

 

Key to symbols:

+ : in favour

- : against

0 : abstention

 

OPINION OF THE COMMITTEE ON CIVIL LIBERTIES, JUSTICE AND HOME AFFAIRS (5.12.2022)

for the Committee on Constitutional Affairs

on the implementation report on the Agreement on the withdrawal of the UK from the EU

(2020/2202(INI))

Rapporteur for opinion (*): Loránt Vincze 

(*) Associated committee – Rule 57 of the Rules of Procedure

 

SUGGESTIONS

The Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs calls on the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following suggestions into its motion for a resolution:

General Considerations on Part Two of the Withdrawal Agreement

1. Recalls that Part Two of the Withdrawal Agreement (WA) allows both EU citizens residing in the UK and UK nationals residing in the EU-27 at the end of the transition period to continue to live in their host State, exercising their rights based on EU law, provided that EU citizens and UK nationals are workers or self-employed, or have sufficient resources and health insurance, or are family members of a person who fulfils these conditions, or have already acquired the right of permanent residence and therefore are no longer subject to these conditions;

2. Recalls that the WA allows the EU Member States and the UK to require mandatory application as a condition for confirmation of the enjoyment of the rights provided by the Agreement and that, like 13 Member States, the UK under Article 18(1) of the WA opted for a ‘constitutive system’ confirming the rights of eligible EU citizens resident in the UK and their family members at the end of the transitional period; recalls that the UK has implemented this process through the EU Settlement Scheme (EUSS), which grants either settled status or pre-settled status at the end of the transition period, allowing EU citizens to reside legally in the UK and enjoy the full suite of rights provided for under the WA; recalls that the WA makes clear that the administrative procedures under a constitutive system must be ‘smooth, transparent and simple’; recalls, that in line with Article 18(1)(g) of the WA, the document evidencing the status should be issued free of charge or for a charge not exceeding that imposed on citizens or nationals of the host State for the issuing of similar documents; reiterates that these schemes should be non-discriminatory;

3. Stresses that full implementation of the WA’s provisions on citizens’ rights is necessary to provide the legal certainty needed by EU and UK citizens and their families;

4. Recalls, as stressed in Article 5 of the WA, that the EU and the UK should, in full mutual respect and good faith, assist each other in respect of tasks flowing from the Agreement; considers that this should extend to protecting each other’s citizens in dealing with the transition of their status;

Implementation of Part Two of the WA in the UK

5. Echoes the Commission’s concerns that the eligibility conditions applied by the UK for access to rights under the EUSS still differ from those provided in the Withdrawal Agreement; stresses that the misalignment of the EUSS with the WA creates a risk of legal uncertainty for EU citizens in the UK as to whether their rights are guaranteed under UK immigration law or by the WA, and whether they can use their EUSS status to prove their rights under the WA; stresses that this misalignment also excludes a cohort (including dual nationals to whom Lounes case-law[18] applies) from having their rights under the WA confirmed; calls on the UK Government to come forward with possible solutions in this regard;

6. Expresses its concern about the difficulties that EU citizens may encounter when applying for settled or pre-settled status and thereby accessing their rights under the WA due to the UK Home Office’s insistence on a digital-only approach; expresses its concern over the difficulties that EU citizens and their family members may experience when attempting to return to the UK owing to airlines’ lack of familiarity with the digital process for verifying settled or pre-settled status and their inability to verify this status at airport gates prior to boarding; similarly expresses its concern that the digital-only approach can have a negative and discriminatory effect on applicants from vulnerable groups (older people, persons with disabilities, groups without economic resources to access digital options) and calls for help to be provided in such cases; reiterates its call on the UK authorities to issue a physical document as proof of EU citizens’ right to reside in the UK in order to provide greater certainty;

7. Stresses that, under the WA, EU citizens and their families who can show reasonable grounds for missing the deadlines can still apply to the EUSS;

8. Regrets the increasing delays in issuing residence documents and entry visas for EU citizens in the UK and urges the UK authorities to draw up plans to reduce the number of pending applications; similarly urges the UK authorities to ensure, in compliance with Article 18(3) of the WA, the effective and transparent implementation of temporary protection measures for EU citizens who have pending applications, including those who missed the deadline for applications, including the right to remain, work, study and access services during the interim period while their applications are being considered;

9. Is concerned that the conditions and rights of pre-settled status holders are less secure than those with settled status, in particular that, pre-settled status holders without comprehensive sickness insurance (CSI) have not been considered to have WA rights and thus cannot access benefits; recalls that in its judgment of 10 March 2022, the Court of Justice of the European Union[19] (CJEU) ruled that eligibility for NHS treatment does count as CSI and that the UK should not have imposed the CSI requirement as a condition for maintaining the right to reside; urges therefore the United Kingdom to comply, pursuant to Article 89 of the WA, with such judgments;

10. Calls on the UK authorities to take particular care in the case of families, registered partners, and persons in an existing durable relationship who are entering the UK to join their family members;

11. Is deeply concerned about the inconsistency with the WA arising from the situation that pre-settled status holders who do not reapply successfully for settled status risk losing their rights to live, work and access services, such as social security support and housing and could be liable to removal from the UK, leaving them in an administrative vacuum; points out that pre-settled status holders can only lose their residence rights in limited conditions (e.g. criminality, fraudulent applications, and extended absences), and that these conditions do not include failing to apply for settled status; stresses the need for legal clarity for the over 2.6 million citizens granted pre-settled status and that urgent solutions should be found to ensure compliance with the WA and to prevent the rights of individuals being undermined; commends the work of the Independent Monitoring Authority for the Citizens’ Rights Agreements (IMA) and welcomes the fact that the UK High Court has granted permission to the UK Independent Monitoring Authority for the Citizens’ Rights Agreements to proceed with its judicial review claim against the Home Office in this respect; recalls that the hearing will take place at the Royal Courts of Justice on 1 and 2 November 2022; recalls the hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice on 1 and 2 November 2022 where IMA argued that the Home Office’s interpretation and implementation of the WA is wrong in law;

12. Reiterates its call on the UK authorities to fully respect the Good Friday Agreement in all its parts as stated in the WA and to ensure that there is no diminution of rights for citizens in Northern Ireland;

13. Calls on the UK authorities to guarantee the social and employment rights acquired by the EU citizens and the freedom of movement of cross-border workers based on non-discrimination and reciprocity;

Implementation of Part Two of the WA in the Member States

14. Shares the concerns about difficulties some UK nationals are facing evidencing status in some EU countries; urges Member States that opted for an Article 18(4) implementation, which does not require an application process to confirm rights under the WA, to address the UK’s concerns relating to evidencing status and to UK citizens living in the EU accessing benefits and services; calls on the Commission to improve the monitoring of the implementation of the WA in the Member States in order to reduce cases of misapplication and to provide further guidance to EU Member States in this regard;

Visa

15. Condemns incidents where EU citizens trying to enter the UK without a visa have been unfairly detained and held in immigration removal centres, often for disproportionately long periods; regrets the UK’s decision to charge different fees to visa applicants from a number of different EU countries depending on their country of origin; stresses that any mobility arrangements, including visa-free travel for short-term stays, should be based on non-discrimination between the Member States and full reciprocity;

16. Points out, however, that Section 75 of the UK’s Nationality and Borders Act requiring those without a UK immigration status (including EU citizens, with the exception of Irish citizens) to have an electronic travel authorisation (ETA) before entering Northern Ireland will impact negatively on European Union citizens resident in Ireland; stresses, moreover, that the ETA system would not be fully in line with Article 2 of the Protocol on Northern Ireland, which protects the rights of individuals and requires the UK to ensure that there is no diminution of the rights, safeguards or equality of opportunity, including protection against discrimination; emphasises that any UK proposal which could ultimately require EU citizens resident in Ireland to register in order to obtain an exemption from the ETA system is disproportionate and its implementation would amount to a possible breach of the principle of non-discrimination as set out in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;

Miscellaneous

17. Emphasises that the CJEU has competence over the interpretation of questions related to EU law under the WA;

18. Recalls that EU’s signing of the TCA and its ratification by the European Parliament was conditional upon the full implementation of the WA; regrets that at this time the WA has still not been fully implemented, especially as regards the Protocol on Northern Ireland; deeply regrets the publication of the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill by the UK Government; recalls that this unilateral action is in violation of international law; calls on the UK Government to honour its commitments and to engage with the Commission within the legal framework of the WA;

19. Welcomes the Commission’s proposal for a regulation (COM(2022)0089) that will allow the EU to take swift action in the form of measures if there is a breach of the WA and/or the TCA;

20. Welcomes the joint statement following the tenth meeting of the Specialised Committee on Citizens’ Rights of 15 June 2022[20] in which the EU and UK reaffirmed their commitment to protect citizens’ rights in accordance with the obligations laid down in the WA; calls on the Member States and the UK to continue to provide full and up-to-date statistical information to the Specialised Committee on Citizens’ Rights on implementation of the WA; urges the Commission and the UK to reconvene the Specialised Committee as soon as possible and continue holding meetings on a quarterly basis until all the issues raised have been fully addressed;

21. Recalls and regrets that cooperation in the area of asylum and migration was not included in the WA;

22. Recalls that under the WA, the Dublin III Regulation[21] continued to apply to the UK until the end of the transition period on 31 December 2020; calls on the UK to deal with on-going asylum requests under the Dublin procedure effectively and without delay; regrets that the political declaration accompanying the WA and the subsequent TCA have not led to a common EU-UK approach on asylum, migration and border management in line with relevant international law;

23. Recalls that continued adherence and giving effect to the ECHR was one of the essential prerequisites in the WA, in particular concerning law enforcement and judicial cooperation in criminal matters; reiterates its position that meaningful respect of the fundamental rights of individuals, including continued adherence and giving effect to the ECHR, and adequate protection of personal data, and effective legal safeguards, are essential prerequisites for allowing such cooperation under the TCA in the future, too.

 

INFORMATION ON ADOPTION IN COMMITTEE ASKED FOR OPINION

Date adopted	1.12.2022
Result of final vote	+: –: 0:	56 1 2
Members present for the final vote	Abir Al-Sahlani, Konstantinos Arvanitis, Katarina Barley, Pietro Bartolo, Vladimír Bilčík, Karolin Braunsberger-Reinhold, Patrick Breyer, Saskia Bricmont, Joachim Stanisław Brudziński, Caterina Chinnici, Clare Daly, Lucia Ďuriš Nicholsonová, Cornelia Ernst, Laura Ferrara, Nicolaus Fest, Sylvie Guillaume, Andrzej Halicki, Evin Incir, Sophia in ‘t Veld, Patryk Jaki, Marina Kaljurand, Moritz Körner, Alice Kuhnke, Jeroen Lenaers, Juan Fernando López Aguilar, Erik Marquardt, Nadine Morano, Javier Moreno Sánchez, Theresa Muigg, Maite Pagazaurtundúa, Paulo Rangel, Isabel Santos, Birgit Sippel, Vincenzo Sofo, Ramona Strugariu, Yana Toom, Milan Uhrík, Tom Vandendriessche, Jadwiga Wiśniewska, Javier Zarzalejos
Substitutes present for the final vote	Daniel Freund, Alessandra Mussolini, Róża Thun und Hohenstein, Romana Tomc, Dragoş Tudorache, Tom Vandenkendelaere, Loránt Vincze
Substitutes under Rule 209(7) present for the final vote	Pablo Arias Echeverría, Jarosław Duda, Emmanouil Fragkos, Krzysztof Hetman, Eva Kaili, Ska Keller, Alessandra Moretti, Ljudmila Novak, Andrey Novakov, Christine Schneider, Annie Schreijer-Pierik, Marc Tarabella

 

 

 

FINAL VOTE BY ROLL CALL IN COMMITTEE ASKED FOR OPINION

56	+
PPE	Pablo Arias Echeverría, Vladimír Bilčík, Karolin Braunsberger-Reinhold, Jarosław Duda, Andrzej Halicki, Krzysztof Hetman, Jeroen Lenaers, Nadine Morano, Alessandra Mussolini, Ljudmila Novak, Andrey Novakov, Paulo Rangel, Christine Schneider, Annie Schreijer-Pierik, Romana Tomc, Tom Vandenkendelaere, Loránt Vincze, Javier Zarzalejos
S&D	Katarina Barley, Pietro Bartolo, Caterina Chinnici, Sylvie Guillaume, Evin Incir, Eva Kaili, Marina Kaljurand, Juan Fernando López Aguilar, Javier Moreno Sánchez, Alessandra Moretti, Theresa Muigg, Isabel Santos, Birgit Sippel, Marc Tarabella
RENEW	Abir Al-Sahlani, Lucia Ďuriš Nicholsonová, Sophia in ‘t Veld, Moritz Körner, Maite Pagazaurtundúa, Ramona Strugariu, Róża Thun und Hohenstein, Yana Toom, Dragoş Tudorache
VERTS/ALE	Patrick Breyer, Saskia Bricmont, Daniel Freund, Ska Keller, Alice Kuhnke, Erik Marquardt
ECR	Joachim Stanisław Brudziński, Emmanouil Fragkos, Patryk Jaki, Vincenzo Sofo, Jadwiga Wiśniewska
THE LEFT	Konstantinos Arvanitis, Clare Daly, Cornelia Ernst
NI	Laura Ferrara

 

1	-
ID	Nicolaus Fest

 

2	0
ID	Tom Vandendriessche
NI	Milan Uhrík

 

Key to symbols:

+ : in favour

- : against

0 : abstention

 

 

OPINION OF THE COMMITTEE ON PETITIONS (1.12.2022)

for the Committee on Constitutional Affairs

on the implementation report on the Agreement on the withdrawal of the UK from the EU

(2020/2202(INI))

Rapporteur for opinion: Dolors Montserrat

 

 

SUGGESTIONS

The Committee on Petitions calls on the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following suggestions into its motion for a resolution:

1. Recalls the fundamental principle of protecting citizens’ rights, as described in the Treaties, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU and the European Convention on Human Rights;

2. Recalls that the EU-UK Withdrawal Agreement (‘the Agreement’) provides that there must be ‘no diminution of rights, safeguards or equality of opportunity’ for people in Northern Ireland[22];

3. Notes that the Good Friday Agreement is based on human rights, in particular the European Convention on Human Rights;

4. Considers that any attempt by the UK Government to remove Northern Ireland from the European Convention on Human Rights, or to cease to apply any provision of that convention in Northern Ireland, would be a breach of the Agreement;

5. Regrets that the Bill of Rights provided for in the Good Friday Agreement has never been enacted;

6. Stresses that the Agreement, with which full compliance was a precondition for the ratification of the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement, allows both EU citizens and affected families residing in the UK and UK nationals residing in the EU-27 to continue to live in the host state and exercise their rights, as guaranteed by EU law; regrets that, in this regard, the United Kingdom has so far not fully implemented the Agreement, in particular with regard to the Northern Ireland Protocol;

7. Recalls that children are protected by the Agreement, no matter where they were born, whether the birth was before or after the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU, or whether they were born in or outside the host state in which the EU citizen or the UK national parent resides;

8. Recalls that the Agreement protects the rights of those EU citizens and their family members who exercised their right of free movement in the UK in accordance with EU law before the end of the transition period and who have continued to reside there following its end, as well as those UK citizens who are exercising the same right in a Member State of the EU-27; reiterates the need for the public authorities in both the United Kingdom and the EU to ensure this principle; considers it therefore necessary to remain vigilant regarding any decisions or attempts by UK authorities to weaken these rights or the enforcement of them or to exclude parts of the UK from the scope of the Agreement, in particular Northern Ireland; calls on the UK authorities to fully respect the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland as stated in the Agreement and to ensure that there is no weakening of the rights of citizens in Northern Ireland;

9. Recalls that those persons who have not yet acquired permanent residence rights, namely those who have not lived in the host state for at least five years, are still fully protected by the Agreement, and will be able to continue residing in the host state and acquire permanent residence rights in the host state after accumulating five years of residence;

10. Recalls the role of the Commission in monitoring the implementation of the Agreement and welcomes the Commission’s proposal for a regulation[23] to allow the Union to act promptly in the event of violations of the Agreement, including any violations of the citizens’ rights guaranteed by it;

11. Recalls that EU citizens and UK nationals who arrived in the host state before 1 January 2021 enjoy the same rights and obligations under the Agreement as those who arrived in the host state before 1 February 2020;

12. Recalls that EU citizens and UK nationals who are cross-border workers and cross-border self-employed persons are also protected in the countries in which they work;

13. Recalls that the citizens covered by the Agreement maintain their right to healthcare, pensions and other social security benefits, and that if they are entitled to a cash benefit from one country, they are, in principle, entitled to receive it even if they decide to live in another country; recalls that workers and self-employed persons covered by the Agreement have the right to take up employment or carry out economic activity under self-employed status respectively;

14. Recalls that UK courts must pay due regard to case-law by the Court of Justice of the EU handed down after the transition period, and that the rights guaranteed by the citizens’ rights section of the Agreement can be relied on directly by EU citizens in UK courts and by UK nationals in the courts of the Member States;

15. Recalls that the Agreement provides a role for the Court of Justice of the EU, by permitting UK courts to ask it, under certain conditions, for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Part Two of the Agreement for eight years following the end of the transition period;

16. Recalls that continued adherence to the European Convention on Human Rights was one of Parliament’s prerequisites for the Agreement; regrets the proposals from the UK Government, such as the Bill of Rights, that would have allowed UK courts to disregard judgments of and interim rulings by the European Court of Human Rights;

17. Highlights the role of the Specialised Committee on Citizens Rights in facilitating the application of Part Two of the Withdrawal Agreement; highlight the importance of its work and of its reports on the implementation of residence rights;

18. Highlights the role of the Independent Monitoring Authority in receiving complaints from EU citizens, their family members and citizens of countries in the European Economic Area or the European Free Trade Association, as well as in conducting inquiries regarding alleged breaches by UK administrative authorities of Part Two of the Withdrawal Agreement; recalls its right to bring legal action before a competent court or tribunal in the United Kingdom;

19. Notes that the Independent Monitoring Authority focuses on systemic failings in the implementation or application of Part Two of the Agreement and that it cannot resolve any individual complaints reported; highlights, therefore, that individuals filing complaints must seek a resolution by other means that exist under UK law, without suffering unjustified discrimination; underlines the importance of reported complaints in terms of gathering information concerning common and systemic issues; welcomes, in this respect, the legal case launched in December 2021 against the Home Office in order to protect the rights of EU citizens residing within the United Kingdom, as it shows the effectiveness of this system;

20. Recalls that any EU citizen residing in the UK has the right to petition the European Parliament pursuant to Article 227 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union; recalls that UK citizens residing in the EU also maintain the right to petition Parliament;

21. Highlights that Parliament’s Committee on Petitions has received 262 petitions related to Brexit and 25 petitions related to alleged breaches of the Agreement;

22. Considers that the EU Settlement Scheme’s requirement that EU citizens with pre-settled status have to make a second application to the scheme in order to be provided with the indefinite right to remain in the UK is against the principles of the Agreement and can put citizens at a higher risk of missing deadlines, which could result in the automatic loss of their UK residence, employment and education; is alarmed by the very high numbers of applicants who have been accorded only pre-settled status; highlights the difficulties that EU citizens may encounter in attempting to apply for settled or pre-settled status owing to the UK Home Office’s insistence on a digital-only approach to the application process; is concerned about the ongoing and worsening delays in the issuing of residence documents and entry visas, while the United Kingdom simultaneously keeps asking for visas from more European countries;

23. Considers that the absence of a physical document creates the risk that many EU citizens and, in particular, the elderly, people with disabilities and vulnerable and digitally challenged people, will struggle to prove their rights, especially given the UK’s policy requiring immigrants to prove their immigration status in order to obtain housing, employment and access to healthcare, welfare benefits and education; reaffirms, to this end, its call for a physical document to be issued as proof of EU citizens’ right to reside in the UK; calls on the United Kingdom to streamline non-digital procedures to facilitate the application of the Agreement; points out that the complexity of digitally proving settled status way may lead to the risk of discrimination against EU citizens; stresses that it is fundamental to create smooth, simple and transparent administrative procedures that are accessible to all, and that administrative costs, if any, must not exceed those imposed on UK nationals for the issuing of similar documents;

24.. Points out that bilateral or multilateral agreements need to be introduced to meet the pressing need for EU citizens to have access to both digital and paper-based options for all processes related to identity, health, education, training, work, social protection and banking services;

25. Considers that the creation of an additional option to request physical documents for holders of settled or pre-settled status, which would complement their existing digital status, would be of particular benefit to those currently disadvantaged by the digital-only documentation;

26. Remains concerned by the level of assistance being provided to older and vulnerable citizens, including those who may have difficulty using digital applications;

27. Calls for reconsideration to be given to improve and facilitate the conditions of entry to and residence in the UK for purposes such as business, research, study, training and youth exchanges;

28. Regrets the UK’s decision to charge different fees to visa applicants from the EU Member States depending on their country of origin;

29. Condemns incidents in which EU citizens trying to enter the UK without a visa have been detained and held in immigration removal centres, often for disproportionately long periods;

30. Regrets that the United Kingdom has pulled out of mobility programmes, such as Erasmus+, and opted not to take part as an associated third country in the new 2021-2027 Erasmus+ programme, as there are several other non-EU countries participating;

31. Calls on the Commission to continue to allow the United Kingdom to participate in EU programmes for the benefit of EU and British young people, so long as the UK fulfils the necessary financial commitments in return.

INFORMATION ON ADOPTION IN COMMITTEE ASKED FOR OPINION

Date adopted	30.11.2022
Result of final vote	+: –: 0:	33 0 0
Members present for the final vote	Alex Agius Saliba, Andris Ameriks, Marc Angel, Margrete Auken, Markus Buchheit, Tamás Deutsch, Francesca Donato, Alexis Georgoulis, Vlad Gheorghe, Peter Jahr, Stelios Kympouropoulos, Cristina Maestre Martín De Almagro, Ana Miranda, Dolors Montserrat, Ulrike Müller, Emil Radev, Yana Toom, Loránt Vincze, Michal Wiezik, Tatjana Ždanoka
Substitutes present for the final vote	Jarosław Duda, Rosa Estaràs Ferragut, Demetris Papadakis, Anne-Sophie Pelletier, Andrey Slabakov, Marie-Pierre Vedrenne
Substitutes under Rule 209(7) present for the final vote	Pablo Arias Echeverría, Jorge Buxadé Villalba, Eider Gardiazabal Rubial, Alicia Homs Ginel, Hermann Tertsch, Marie Toussaint, Juan Ignacio Zoido Álvarez

 

 

FINAL VOTE BY ROLL CALL IN COMMITTEE ASKED FOR OPINION

33	+
ECR	Jorge Buxadé Villalba, Andrey Slabakov, Hermann Tertsch
ID	Markus Buchheit
NI	Tamás Deutsch, Francesca Donato, Tatjana Ždanoka
PPE	Pablo Arias Echeverría, Jarosław Duda, Rosa Estaràs Ferragut, Peter Jahr, Stelios Kympouropoulos, Dolors Montserrat, Emil Radev, Loránt Vincze, Juan Ignacio Zoido Álvarez
Renew	Vlad Gheorghe, Ulrike Müller, Yana Toom, Marie‑Pierre Vedrenne, Michal Wiezik
S&D	Alex Agius Saliba, Andris Ameriks, Marc Angel, Eider Gardiazabal Rubial, Alicia Homs Ginel, Cristina Maestre Martín De Almagro, Demetris Papadakis
The Left	Alexis Georgoulis, Anne‑Sophie Pelletier
Verts/ALE	Margrete Auken, Ana Miranda, Marie Toussaint

 

0	-

 

0	0

 

Key to symbols:

+ : in favour

- : against

0 : abstention

 

 

LETTER OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE INTERNAL MARKET AND CONSUMER PROTECTION (29.11.2022)

Mr Salvatore De Meo

Chair

Committee on Constitutional Affairs

BRUSSELS

Subject: Opinion on Implementation report on the Agreement on the withdrawal of the UK from the EU (2020/2202(INI))

Dear Mr Chair,

Under the procedure referred to above, the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection has been asked to submit an opinion to your committee. At its meeting of 25 October 2022, the Coordinators decided to send the opinion in the form of a letter in order to be able to submit the opinion timely.

The Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection considered the matter at its meeting of 29 November 2022. At that meeting[24], it decided to call on the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following suggestions into its motion for a resolution.

Yours sincerely,

 

 

Anna Cavazzini

Chairwoman

SUGGESTIONS

The Committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection calls on the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, as the Committee responsible, to incorporate the following suggestions into its motion for a resolution:

A. Whereas the Withdrawal Agreement concluded between the European Union (EU) and the United Kingdom (UK) entered into force on 1 February 2020, and consists amongst others of a Protocol on Ireland and Northern Ireland;

B. Whereas the Protocol is an integral part of the Withdrawal Agreement which the two parties negotiated, agreed and ratified; whereas it is a legally binding solution that avoids a hard border on the island of Ireland, protects the all-island economy and safeguards the Good Friday Agreement in all its dimensions, and ensures the integrity of the EU Single Market; whereas the Protocol has been agreed upon after years of negotiations and provides the only framework to address the specific consequences for Northern Ireland of UK decision to leave the Single Market and Customs Union;

C. Whereas the Protocol contains a number of rules on customs duties and lays down a presumption that all goods entering Northern Ireland from the rest of the UK or a third country are at risk of moving on to the Union; whereas such presumption can be lifted if specific conditions provided for in the Protocol are met;

1. Recalls that due to the Protocol, Northern Ireland is subject to a limited set of EU rules related to the Single Market for goods and the Customs Union; underlines that necessary checks and controls must take place at Points of Entry on goods entering Northern Ireland from the rest of the UK or any other third country. This also means that the UK must ensure that the relevant sanitary and phyto-sanitary (SPS) controls are carried out on goods entering Northern Ireland;

2. Urges the UK to fully comply with the Withdrawal Agreement and the Protocol, in particular by a) providing EU customs officers with real-time access to customs databases on imports into Northern Ireland, b) eliminating the detected shortcomings in its Trusted Trader scheme, c) establishing the necessary controls on goods exported from Great Britain or any other third country to Northern Ireland that would be at risk of entering  the EU’s Single Market, and d) erecting the necessary border control posts; points out that full implementation of the Protocol is also necessary to guarantee continuous access of Northern Ireland businesses to the EU Single Market;

3. Stresses that breaches of the Withdrawal Agreement and unilateral actions, such as the UK Command Paper and the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill, can lead to adverse effects on the all-island economy and implementation of the Good Friday Agreement, put at risk the integrity of the EU Single Market, and have negative impacts on consumer protection, businesses and workers; urges the UK to refrain from introducing provisions in the Retained EU Law Bill or any other unilateral initiative that would be in conflict with the Withdrawal Agreement and the Protocol;

4. Points out that the facilitation of strong and mutually beneficial trade in goods between the EU and the UK is dependent on the full implementation of the Withdrawal Agreement and the Protocol and failure to find a common solution on performing appropriate customs controls would lead to introducing unilateral measures, creating the red tape and administrative costs to the detriment of businesses and subsequently consumers;

5. Welcomes the Commission´s proposal on bespoke arrangements of 13 October 2021 concerning flexible customs formalities to facilitate the movement of goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland via separate lanes for customs controls for goods at risk and goods not at risk of entering the EU Single Market, and the reduction in paperwork; recalls that the prerequisites for such a flexible approach are effective and real-time access to UK customs databases for EU customs officers and an active role for the Union representatives in the monitoring of the application of the UK Trader Scheme and the application of review and termination clauses in case of non-compliance; reminds that such solutions should only be progressed through genuine negotiations to avoid unilateral initiatives; stresses that robust market surveillance will be necessary to monitor the compliance with internal market legislation of goods entering the EU Single Market via Northern Ireland; urges the new UK government to engage constructively in genuine negotiations with the Union to find suitable ways to adjust possible areas of friction in the application of the customs arrangements in the framework of the Protocol;

6. Recalls that the EU has always sought pragmatic and flexible solutions to address implementation challenges experienced by stakeholders in Northern Ireland; encourages the Commission to have structured exchanges with public bodies, authorities as well as stakeholders, including civil society and businesses, from Northern Ireland to allow the EU authorities to understand better the practical effects of the implementation of the Protocol; urges the UK government to proactively involve the Legislative Assembly in Northern Ireland, Northern Ireland’s officials and stakeholders in the discussions on the application of the Protocol;

7. Calls on the Commission to act in a decisive, timely and effective manner to protect the EU´s interests in implementing and enforcing the Withdrawal Agreement in order to create legal certainty for businesses, ensure the integrity of the EU Single Market and guarantee a high level of consumer protection; urges the Commission to address UK´s lack of full implementation of the Withdrawal Agreement, and in particular the Protocol, and to continue to discuss and find practical, flexible and durable solutions with the UK within the legal framework set by the Protocol to the benefit of the EU Single Market and the Customs Union;

8. Recalls the importance of the Regulation laying down rules for the exercise of the Union’s rights to ensure the implementation and enforcement of the Withdrawal Agreement and the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement; calls on the Commission to keep the European Parliament and the Council fully informed about relevant developments that may give rise to adoption of measures or actions from the Commission’s side.

 

INFORMATION ON ADOPTION IN COMMITTEE RESPONSIBLE

Date adopted	28.2.2023
Result of final vote	+: –: 0:	22 2 1
Members present for the final vote	Gerolf Annemans, Gabriele Bischoff, Damian Boeselager, Leila Chaibi, Włodzimierz Cimoszewicz, Gwendoline Delbos-Corfield, Salvatore De Meo, Esteban González Pons, Max Orville, Giuliano Pisapia, Antonio Maria Rinaldi, Domènec Ruiz Devesa, Pedro Silva Pereira, Sven Simon, Loránt Vincze, Rainer Wieland
Substitutes present for the final vote	Pascal Durand, Jaak Madison, Niklas Nienaß, Maite Pagazaurtundúa
Substitutes under Rule 209(7) present for the final vote	Álvaro Amaro, Giuseppe Ferrandino, Vlad Gheorghe, Chris MacManus, Nadine Morano

 

FINAL VOTE BY ROLL CALL IN COMMITTEE RESPONSIBLE

22	+
PPE	Álvaro Amaro, Salvatore De Meo, Esteban González Pons, Nadine Morano, Sven Simon, Loránt Vincze, Rainer Wieland
Renew	Giuseppe Ferrandino, Vlad Gheorghe, Max Orville, Maite Pagazaurtundúa
S&D	Gabriele Bischoff, Włodzimierz Cimoszewicz, Pascal Durand, Giuliano Pisapia, Domènec Ruiz Devesa, Pedro Silva Pereira
The Left	Leila Chaibi, Chris MacManus
Verts/ALE	Damian Boeselager, Gwendoline Delbos-Corfield, Niklas Nienaß

 

2	-
ID	Gerolf Annemans, Jaak Madison

 

1	0
ID	Antonio Maria Rinaldi

 

Key to symbols:

+ : in favour

- : against

0 : abstention

 

 

• [1] P8_TA(2017)0102.
• [2] OJ L 29, 31.1.2020, p. 7.
• [3] OJ C 34, 31.1.2020, p. 1.
• [4] OJ C 298, 23.8.2018, p. 24.
• [5] OJ C 346, 27.9.2018, p. 2.
• [6] OJ C 369, 11.10.2018, p. 32.
• [7] OJ C 162, 10.5.2019, p. 40.
• [8] OJ C 171, 6.5.2021, p. 2.
• [9] OJ C 270, 7.7.2021, p. 21.
• [10] OJ C 294, 23.7.2021, p. 18.
• [11] OJ C 362, 8.9.2021, p. 90.
• [12] OJ C 506, 15.12.2021, p. 26.
• [13] OJ C 342, 6.9.2022, p. 78.
• [14] OJ C 331, 17.8.2021, p. 38.
• [15] OJ L 149, 30.4.2021, p. 10.
• [16] Commission proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down rules for the exercise of the Union's rights in the implementation and enforcement of the Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community and of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community, of the one part, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, of the other part (COM(2022)0089).
• [17] Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down rules for the exercise of the Union’s rights in the implementation and enforcement of the Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community and of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community, of the one part, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, of the other part (COM(2022)0089).
• [18] Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 November 2017, Toufik Lounes v Secretary of State for the Home Department, C-165/16, ECLI:EU:C:2017:862.
• [19] Judgment of the Court of 10 March 2022, VI v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, C‑247/20, ECLI:EU:C:2022:177.
• [20] Joint statement following the tenth meeting of the Specialised Committee on Citizens’ Rights, 15 June 2022.
• [21] OJ L 180, 29.6.2013, p. 31.
• [22] Article 2 of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland.
• [23] Commission proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down rules for the exercise of the Union’s rights in the implementation and enforcement of the Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community and of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community, of the one part, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, of the other part (COM(2022)0089).
• [24] The following were present for the final vote: Anna Cavazzini (Chair), Andrus Ansip (Vice-Chair), Maria Grapini (Vice-Chair), Krzysztof Hetman (Vice-Chair), Maria‑Manuel Leitão‑Marques (Vice-Chair), Alex Agius Saliba, Marc Angel, Pablo Arias Echeverría, Alessandra Basso, Brando Benifei, Biljana Borzan, Vlad‑Marius Botoş, Maria da Graça Carvalho, Deirdre Clune, David Cormand, Carlo Fidanza, Alexandra Geese, Sandro Gozi, Francisco Guerreiro, Svenja Hahn, Virginie Joron, Arba Kokalari, Marcel Kolaja, Kateřina Konečná, Adriana Maldonado López, Antonius Manders, Beata Mazurek, Andrey Novakov, Anne‑Sophie Pelletier, Antonio Maria Rinaldi, Christel Schaldemose, Andreas Schwab, Tomislav Sokol, Ivan Štefanec, Marc Tarabella, Marco Zullo.