Acta literal de los debates

Miércoles 5 de abril de 2017 - Estrasburgo

10.1. Negociaciones con el Reino Unido a raíz de la notificación por la que declara su intención de retirarse de la Unión Europea (RC-B8-0237/2017, B8-0237/2017, B8-0241/2017, B8-0242/2017, B8-0243/2017)

Mündliche Erklärungen zur Abstimmung

  Der Präsident. – Liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Die Zeit, die wir jetzt durch zügiges Abstimmen eingespart haben, bitte ich, dadurch zu honorieren, dass Sie den Raum zügig verlassen, wenn Sie die Stimmerklärungen nicht hören möchten, und sich vor allem nicht auf den Gängen stehend zu unterhalten. Ich werde mir die Freiheit nehmen, einzelne Kollegen auch namentlich zu bitten, solche Gespräche einzustellen.

  Rosa D'Amato, a nome del gruppo EFDD. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, sono mesi che in queste aule si parla dei probabili effetti dannosi dell'uscita del Regno Unito dall'Unione europea. Sono mesi che parliamo del problema Brexit, come se ci fosse davvero bisogno di discutere del risultato democratico di un referendum democratico. Il popolo inglese ha votato e ha deciso. Il voto va rispettato. Questo non deve essere in discussione.

Ora si aprono i negoziati: da una parte c'è il governo del Regno Unito, che farà gli interessi dei cittadini inglesi, dall'altra c'è l'Unione europea, che non sono sicura farà gli interessi dei cittadini europei – penso a quei cittadini europei che da anni vivono e lavorano nel Regno Unito: i loro diritti vanno tutelati e non devono essere messi in discussione attraverso un confronto responsabile. Il Regno Unito dovrà onorare gli impegni presi fino alla conclusione del percorso di uscita effettiva dall'Unione, perché gli impegni presi vanno rispettati.

Siamo giunti a questo punto, però, perché sono stati commessi gravi errori. Chi li ha commessi deve chiedere scusa e presentare un libro nero del passato, non quello bianco e vuoto di un futuro incerto. Ognuno faccia la sua parte. Noi chiediamo un negoziato equo e giusto, e soprattutto non punitivo nei confronti del popolo britannico. Il Movimento 5 Stelle non sarà complice di scelte politiche mirate a punire uno per educarne cento.

E se si parla di mafia dentro le aule del Parlamento europeo, non ci dobbiamo scandalizzare come dei borghesi a un party esclusivo. La mafia esiste, non solo in Italia. La mafia non è l'Europa, la mafia non è l'Italia, la mafia è silenzio e censura, oltre che criminalità. La mafia è un atteggiamento di minaccia e omertà.

  Paloma López Bermejo (GUE/NGL). – Señor presidente, lo que se pedía hoy al Parlamento Europeo era altura de miras frente a la decisión del Reino Unido de abandonar la Unión Europea y una posición clara sobre el reconocimiento de los derechos sociales adquiridos, de residencia, de movilidad, de seguridad social para los británicos que residen en la Unión Europea y los europeos que viven en el Reino Unido.

Pero hemos caído en una confrontación que fortalecerá el nacionalismo británico. Un carro al que se ha apuntado el Gobierno de España, para quien la soberanía de Gibraltar es un asunto más importante que los derechos de los 12 000 trabajadores que cruzan la valla cada día.

No nos perdamos en discursos abstractos que esconden, bajo el manto del nacionalismo o de un europeísmo hueco, el neoliberalismo que comparten la Unión Europea y el Reino Unido.

Para nosotros, las relaciones futuras con el Reino Unido deberán basarse en la solidaridad y el reconocimiento mutuo de los derechos fundamentales, porque hay otra Europa, la de la Carta Social Europea, la del Convenio Europeo de Derechos Humanos, de la que todos seguiremos formando parte.

  Petras Auštrevičius (ALDE). – Šiandien mes padarėme svarbų, bet nebūtinai džiugų sprendimą. Aš neprisijungiau prie tų, kurie aplodismentais palydėjo šį sprendimą. Man daugiau tai liūdesį keliantis sprendimas, bet nors mes ir apsisprendėme, o tiksliau – mūsų britų kolegos balsavo referendume, mes turime priimti atitinkamus sprendimus. Taip, derybos dėl Didžiosios Britanijos išstojimo turi būti pragmatiškos, ir aš tikiuosi, kad Europos Sąjunga derėsis kaip pragmatiškas partneris, tačiau dėl susitarimo dėl ateities bendradarbiavimo, kai mes turime tapti ateities partneriais, aš tikiuosi, kad Europos Sąjungos derybininkai bus vizionieriški, kad jie pasiūlys tokius sprendimus, kurie sukurs galimybes Europos Sąjungai ir Didžiajai Britanijai išlikti partneriais, glaudžiais partneriais, ir iš tiesų nestatyti naujų sienų Europoje. Berlyno siena buvo sugriauta europiečių, ir, aš manau, mes turime pasimokyti iš šitos ir istorijos tam, kad nesukurtume naujų sienų Europoje.

  Момчил Неков (S&D). – Преди седмица беше тъжен ден за Европа. Тъжен, защото една държава членка обяви официално, че напуска най-голямата организация – гарант на стабилността и просперитета в Европа.

Това решение ще има последствие за милиони европейци, както за няколкото милиона британски граждани, пребиваващи в Европейския съюз, така и за всички граждани на Съюза, които живеят в Обединеното кралство. Рубикон е пресечен!

От 2019 година Съюзът ще бъде с 27 държави членки, но това не означава, че правата на европейските и британски граждани трябва да изчезнат от днес за утре. Много хора и някои политици се опитват да използват картата на миграция като елемент на несигурност и разменна монета. Това е безотговорно и несериозно.

В продължение на десетилетия всички тези европейски граждани, сред които и българите, са допринасяли за развитието и просперитета на британската икономика и общество. Призовавам британското правителство да не създава несигурност за милионите европейски граждани, сред които са и моите съграждани, с използване или дори толериране на риторика, увеличаваща страха на хората, свързан със социалните им права.

  Jiří Pospíšil (PPE). – Pane předsedající, já chci konstatovat, že jsem podpořil usnesení týkající se brexitu, nicméně proti některým částem tohoto textu mám určité výhrady. V některých aspektech mně připadá ten text příliš tvrdý.

Je-li naším cílem se dohodnout na dobré spolupráci do budoucna a na obchodních dohodách, tak mám pocit, že třeba bod šest, který jasně říká, že Velká Británie nemůže vyjednávat se třetími zeměmi obchodní smlouvy do doby ukončení svého členství v Evropské unii, že takováto ustanovení za prvé Velká Británie nebude muset dodržet a za druhé že jsou příliš tvrdá. Zakázat někomu něco vyjednávat, když ještě dohoda nebude platit, mně připadá, že je opravdu trochu nad limit.

Nicméně vítám to, že usnesení dneska bylo přijato, že dává jasný postoj Evropského parlamentu k budoucímu procesu brexitu, a proto jsem nakonec pro celé usnesení hlasoval.

  Monica Macovei (ECR). – Domnule președinte, negocierile Uniunii cu Marea Britanie pentru Brexit trebuie să fie făcute fără ură, fără răzbunare și cu gândul în primul rând la oameni, cei din Uniune și cei din Marea Britanie. Pentru ei trebuie să negociem pentru comerțul liber, pentru libertatea de mișcare, pentru drepturile lor și să nu uităm că vrem să fim împreună, parteneri, ca țări și ca oameni.

Peste două sute de mii de români se află acum în Marea Britanie. Ei muncesc în toate domeniile, în funcții foarte calificate, sunt bancheri, profesori, doctori, cercetători și așa mai departe. De asemenea, există români și acolo unde există deficit de forță de muncă, în spitale, în cămine de bătrâni, în construcții, în agricultură. Sunt și mulți tineri români care studiază la universități din Marea Britanie. Ministrul britanic însărcinat cu negocierea Brexit, domnul David Jones, ne-a spus chiar ieri că dorește să îi păstreze pe români în Marea Britanie. Desigur, și Marea Britanie vrea să își păstreze cetățenii europeni în Uniunea Europeană.

  Michela Giuffrida (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, 25 giugno e 29 marzo sono due date tristemente storiche che hanno segnato un passo indietro nella storia britannica e una battuta d'arresto per l'Unione europea. Ora, dopo il referendum e la notifica dell'attivazione dell'articolo 50, dunque, che Brexit sia. Senza indugi, io direi. Perché dopo la decisione del popolo del Regno Unito, legittima quanto assurda, è l'Unione europea che non può permettersi insicurezza ed incertezza.

Credo che adesso la priorità sia pensare alla stabilità e alla salvaguardia degli interessi dell'Unione. Credo che il negoziato per l'uscita del Regno Unito debba dimostrare chiaramente che l'Unione è più forte, e che da solo il Regno Unito potrà ottenere poco. Sono convinta che non si debbano mettere in discussione i diritti dei cittadini europei, e sono convinta che questa sia l'occasione per dimostrare ai populisti, ai sovranisti e ai nazionalisti di tutta Europa che la loro è propaganda vuota e sterile, senza un progetto politico.

Sono tra quelli che sognano che, seppur difficilmente, il Regno Unito un giorno possa tornare indietro per il suo futuro e per quello dell'Europa.

  Matt Carthy (GUE/NGL). – Mr President, we welcome the position of the European Parliament ahead of the Brexit negotiations, that it is unambiguous in relation to Ireland. It recognises that the people in the North voted to remain and it commits that the Good Friday Agreement must be preserved in all its parts. Crucially, the Parliament position calls on negotiators to do everything to avoid any hardening of the border. Written as it was by Groups with whom we have fundamental disagreements regarding the current and future direction of the EU, we in Sinn Féin consider this report to be a successful vindication of the dialogue with which we and other Irish MEPs have been engaged in since last summer.

Parliament’s position is even more positive when compared to the draft of the Council. Despite assurances from the Fine Gael Government, the Council draft is weak, non-specific, and simply not up to the standards that the Irish people, North and South, require. My appeal to this House, and to the other European institutions, today is: please do not allow the people of Ireland to suffer the consequence of our own government’s incompetence.

  Norica Nicolai (ALDE). – Domnule președinte, nu mi-aș fi dorit niciodată să putem da votul astăzi pentru o propunere de negociere a ieșirii Marii Britanii din Uniunea Europeană. Pe de altă parte însă, voința popoarelor trebuie respectată în această sală.

Domnule președinte, chiar dacă va părăsi în doi ani Uniunea Europeană, Marea Britanie rămâne o țară europeană și, în aceste condiții, drepturile sociale ale cetățenilor europeni, membri ai Uniunii, și ale cetățenilor britanici, membri ai Europei, trebuie respectate. Marea Britanie și Uniunea Europeană trebuie să rămână parte a unui model social european, să respecte drepturile sociale. Românii sunt foarte mulți în Marea Britanie, după cum și britanicii sunt foarte mulți Uniunea Europeană. Carta socială europeană, Convenția europeană a drepturilor omului ne obligă.

În altă ordine de idei, domnule președinte, cred că negocierea cu țările terțe trebuie interzisă. Avem nevoie de coeziune în Uniunea Europeană și Uniunea nu trebuie să facă din această ieșire a Marii Britanii un precedent.

  Doru-Claudian Frunzulică (S&D). – Mr President, a divorce is always a defeat, a difficult situation for both sides. Contrary to the false promises of the Brexiteers’ propaganda, leaving the EU will involve difficult decisions and entail possibly unexpected, and often harmful, consequences. It is clear that the four freedoms of the single market are indivisible. This is a red line for us. We will not allow a future relationship that damages the integrity of the single market or lowers European legal, social, environmental and health standards. We want, at the same time, to ensure an orderly Brexit. We want the negotiations to be fair and in the interests of European and UK citizens, the future relationship with the UK to be balanced and comprehensive, and for the United Kingdom to remain a close political, economic and strategic partner of the European Union.

  Richard Corbett (S&D). – Mr President, although we had reservations on one or two points in this resolution, Labour MEPs voted in favour of this resolution, which provides more clarity and realism on the issues facing us than does the position of the British Government. The British Government still has not said what it wants on many of the key issues that will be coming up in this mother of all divorce cases, but it has said that it wants exactly the same benefits as Britain currently has as a member of the single market. Well, we will hold them to account on that, but it does seem, generally, that the British Government is intent on testing to destruction the theory that you can have your cake and eat it. When it becomes clear that that is not possible, then there will be a question as to what happens next. What should Britain do if the outcome of this Brexit process is damaging, costly and dangerous to Britain? That is why I am glad that this resolution confirms that it is possible for Article 50 notifications to be withdrawn and revoked. We may need it.

  Nicola Caputo (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, le parole già estreme pronunciate dal ministro della Difesa inglese Michael Fallon fanno comprendere il ruolo di grande responsabilità che dovrà giocare durante i negoziati l'Unione europea, che dovrà trattare preoccupandosi anche della sorte del Regno Unito.

Con la sua scelta il Regno Unito fa un salto verso l'ignoto, fuori da ogni progetto politico di lungo respiro, ma geograficamente resta lì, vicino alla Francia e al Benelux, e la storia ci insegna che generare frustrazioni nei paesi vicini porta sempre a conseguenze nefaste. Dobbiamo lasciare una porta aperta per quando il Regno Unito comprenderà l'errore e dovrà tornare indietro, ma dobbiamo prestare attenzione ai messaggi che verranno lanciati, perché non si abbia a confondere un atto di responsabilità con una prova di debolezza. I temi sul tavolo sono molteplici, e incideranno tanto sugli obblighi finanziari, quanto sui diritti individuali.

Ai negoziatori europei, i miei migliori auguri di buon lavoro. Sono sicuro che la Brexit costituirà un'occasione per poter rilanciare con maggior forza il sogno europeo.

  Michaela Šojdrová (PPE). – Pane předsedající, považuji za velmi cenné, že 516 poslanců a poslankyň hlasovalo pro společné usnesení, protože je to signál. Evropská unie musí být jednotná, jedině tak dosáhneme dobrého výsledku pro budoucí vztah se Spojeným královstvím.

Pro obě strany je toto rozhodnutí rozvodu ztrátou a mně budou chybět britští poslanci. Je naší povinností, abychom minimalizovali tyto ztráty. Theresa Mayová odmítla účast na společném trhu a celní unii. Odmítla tedy čtyři základní svobody pro své občany. My její návrh musíme respektovat, ale znamená to nalézt nový rámec, který umožní férové podmínky pro naše občany i pro vzájemně výhodnou spolupráci. Já věřím v dobrou spolupráci s Velkou Británií a věřím ve společný postup Evropské unie a také v sebereflexi, kterou musíme učinit.

  Clare Moody (S&D). – Mr President, today is the day when even Theresa May has started to acknowledge the reality of where we are. The empty nationalistic rhetoric and flag—waving that characterised the debate last year, and again in the last week, has always resulted in damaging our interests. It angers me that people wrap themselves in the British and Gibraltarian flags when they had actively worked against the interests of citizens of both places. We are about to enter detailed negotiations with our friends about the future of our country. It is time to settle down to serious politics, recognising through the process that we have lost some of our sovereignty, and focus on ensuring that eventually we will reach a deal that works for the citizens of the UK and Gibraltar, as well as our European colleagues.

  Jonathan Arnott (EFDD). – Señor presidente, el Peñón no pertenece al Reino Unido ni a España, sino a los gibraltareños, y la gente de Gibraltar ha determinado que su futuro debe continuar con el Reino Unido: en un referéndum, en el año 2002, votaron por seguir siendo británicos. El resultado fue del 99 %.

No hay que discutir nada más.

El Peñón se queda con el Reino Unido, igual que Ceuta y Melilla se quedan con España. La inclusión de Gibraltar en las orientaciones para la negociación sobre el brexit es una amenaza sin razón. La Unión Europea habla mucho sobre la democracia, pero estas palabras no valen nada.

  Peter Jahr (PPE). – Herr Präsident! Ich bedaure das Ausscheiden von Großbritannien aus der Europäischen Union sehr, und ich denke, das ist auch keine gute Geschichte für die Europäische Union, und es ist auch keine gute Geschichte für Großbritannien.

Zweitens: Selbstverständlich sichern wir uns gegenseitig ein faires rechtsdemokratisches Verfahren zu. Man könnte mal sagen: Beide sind ja nun auch erwachsene Institutionen geworden.

Drittens möchte ich aber betonen: Die Europäische Union ist eine ernsthafte Angelegenheit und kein intellektueller Literaturzirkus. Dort hat man Rechte, und dort hat man auch Pflichten. Das heißt zunächst einmal: So lange, wie Großbritannien Mitglied der Europäischen Union bleibt – auch in der Scheidungszeit –, werden sie selbstverständlich alle Rechte haben, aber auch alle Pflichten der Europäischen Union erfüllen müssen. Das heißt aber auch: Wenn Großbritannien ausscheidet, dann haben sie zwar keine Pflichten mehr, aber auch keine Rechte.

Und viertens: Ich freue mich über die heute mit breiter Mehrheit angenommenen Entschließungen, denn das gibt uns die Kraft, dieses Verfahren wirklich im beiderseitigen Interesse zu führen.

  Zoltán Balczó (NI). – Elnök Úr! Az Európai Parlament Brexitre vonatkozó határozatától azt vártam el, hogy egy súrlódásmentes, békés elválást készít elő, és egyben körvonalazza a további szoros együttműködés lehetőségét – nem ez történt. Olyan feltételeket állít az Egyesült Királyságnak 2020 után is, ami miatt a lakosság többsége épp a kilépés mellett döntött. Amellett kétségbe vonja a szuverenitását, megtagadja tőle, hogy egyáltalán tárgyalásokat kezdeményezzen a kilépést megelőző időszakban. A hangadók úgy gondolják, hogy az EU 27-ek érdekeit szolgálják. Nem, mert a tagországok érdeke is a további legszorosabb együttműködés lenne.

Bízom benne, hogy a Tanács és a Bizottság nem követi ezt az utat, mert ez nem más, mint bosszú a britekkel szemben, és elrettentése azoknak a tagországoknak, akik később esetleg a kilépésre gondolnak.

  Krisztina Morvai (NI). – Elnök Úr! Úgy tűnik, hogy az Európai Unió nem sokat tanult a Brexitből. Nem nézték meg a mögöttes okokat, nem vizsgálták meg, hogy vajon az Önök által szélsőségesnek, nacionalistának, primitívnek, én nem tudom, milyennek bélyegzett angol többség miért akarta elhagyni az Uniót.

Nem néztek a mélyére annak, hogy az egyik fő ok a migráció elutasítása volt, és ezen belül is az Unión belüli migráció is – amit szintén okaiban, gyökereiben orvosolni kellene. Meg kellene vizsgálni, hogy mi az oka annak, és hogyan lehetne változtatni azon, hogy a közép- és kelet-európai volt szocialista országokban töredékét keresik az emberek, mint a nyugati országokban, és ezért fogják magukat, és elmennek, például Magyarországról Angliába. Most Magyarországról elindult végre egy kezdeményezés több közép- és kelet-európai ország részvételével ezeknek a brutális jövedelmi és bérkülönbségeknek a felszámolására. Kérem, figyeljék és támogassák!

  Adam Szejnfeld (PPE). – Panie Przewodniczący! Brexit to zły moment w historii Unii Europejskiej, ale rozstanie to powinno się odbyć z poszanowaniem obu stron, a szczególnie interesu obywateli państw członkowskich i Unii Europejskiej. Wszyscy bowiem jesteśmy Europejczykami bez względu na to, czy mieszkamy na kontynencie czy na Wyspach. Dzisiaj powinniśmy więc określić najważniejsze priorytety tego procesu. Według mnie najważniejszym priorytetem jest bezpieczeństwo, także walka z nacjonalizmami. Wszyscy bowiem lepiej albo gorzej poradzimy sobie ze złymi skutkami Brexitu – jestem przekonany bowiem, że będą to złe skutki – poszczególni ludzie sobie poradzą, przedsiębiorcy sobie poradzą, rynki finansowe sobieo poradzą, wszyscy sobie jakoś poradzą. Natomiast nie poradzimy sobie z konfliktami, nie poradzimy sobie ze sporami, nie poradzimy sobie z rasizmem, nie poradzimy sobie z ksenofobią, nie poradzimy sobie z nacjonalizmem, w końcu nie poradzimy sobie z wojną.

  Vicky Ford (ECR). – Mr President, the two—year negotiations for leaving the EU have now started, and I was appalled by the name—calling and jeering in this Chamber earlier from UKIP colleagues. It does not represent the views of the vast majority of the British people or the views of colleagues across this Chamber.

Real people’s lives, jobs and future are at stake, and we need amicable solutions. There is a huge amount of work to be done on our future relationship. I do think this resolution could have done a lot more on that future relationship and set the tone on some of the detailed discussions that we need to go ahead. It is time to roll up our sleeves, colleagues, and help to find those solutions. I am ready to work with anyone across Europe who wants to achieve amicable negotiations and that long-term partnership.

  Franc Bogovič (PPE). – Velika Britanija se je 29. junija lani odločila za odhod iz Evropske unije. Gospa Theresa May je 29. marca poslala pismo, v katerem je naznanila trd odhod iz Evropske unije, trd brexit.

Stvari lahko obžalujemo, vsekakor pa jih moramo spoštovati kot dejstva, ki bodo zaposlovala Evropski parlament in tudi parlamentarce v prihodnjih mesecih, letih.

Evropska unija mora biti enotna. V ospredje moramo dati interese državljanov tako Evropske unije kakor tudi interese državljanov Velike Britanije in ustvariti ločitev, ki bo zagotavljala spodobno sobivanje tudi v prihodnosti.

Čas je tudi za razmislek o prihodnosti Evropske unije. Zagotovo je treba marsikaj tudi v Evropski uniji storiti in izboljšati delovanje same Evropske unije.

Mogoče pa je pravi odgovor tudi ob brexitu to, da intenziviramo pogovore tudi o širitvi Evropske unije na države Zahodnega Balkana. Te države se želijo priključiti Evropski uniji, ker želijo živeti v miru, svobodi in želijo dobro svojim ljudem.

Mogoče je to pravi odgovor.

  Daniel Hannan (ECR). – Mr President, the British problem – or obviously from a UK perspective, the European problem – is very simply stated. Britain wanted to be part of a common market, not a common government. Guy Verhofstadt expressed some of the reasons very well in his speech this morning: the fundamental difference between a bottom-up common law system and the Napoleonic system on the continent. It is not an argument that applies everywhere, but our economic cycle has always been Atlantic rather than European; our outlook has always been maritime rather than continental. In the talks at the beginning of last year, David Cameron tried to get a looser a deal from the inside. The other Member States decided that that was not a concession they were prepared to make, which is absolutely fine. We are therefore going to seek it from the outside. What should be the framework of that deal? I think a good model is Canada’s relations with the United States. Canada has, on its doorstep, a political union; it is not part of that union, but it enjoys the closest military security, economic and commercial links with that union compatible with being a sovereign state. You will lose a bad tenant, and you will gain a good neighbour.

  Danuta Jazłowiecka (PPE). – Panie Przewodniczący! Brexit będzie z pewnością trudnym doświadczeniem zarówno dla Unii, jak i dla Zjednoczonego Królestwa. Obie strony będą w toku negocjacji wypracowywać jak najkorzystniejsze dla stron rozwiązania. Najważniejsze jednak jest, abyśmy w tym procesie pamiętali przede wszystkim o obywatelach zarówno europejskich w Wielkiej Brytanii, jak i brytyjskich żyjących w krajach Unii Europejskiej, dla których Brexit będzie miał bezpośredni wpływ na ich życie rodzinne oraz zawodowe. Miliony obywateli żyją dziś w ogromnej niepewności. Nie wiedzą, czy nadal będą mogli korzystać z nabytych przez lata praw pracy, czy nadal będą mogli pracować i żyć w Wielkiej Brytanii bądź – jak w przypadku brytyjskich obywateli – w 27 krajach Unii Europejskiej. Obowiązkiem i priorytetem podczas negocjacji powinno być zminimalizowanie negatywnych skutków Brexitu dla obywateli. Obie strony muszą zapewnić zachowanie nabytych praw oraz umożliwić na zasadzie wzajemności swobodę przemieszczania się, podejmowania pracy i świadczenia usług. W rezolucji jasno podkreślono, że nie ma zgody na dostęp do jednolitego rynku bez poszanowania traktatowych swobód, z których dzisiaj korzystają obywatele Unii. Dlatego dzisiaj z pełnym przekonaniem zagłosowałam za rezolucją dotyczącą negocjacji w sprawie Brexitu.

  Marek Jurek (ECR). – Panie Przewodniczący! W Wielkiej Brytanii społeczeństwo rządowi może wysyłać sygnały przez wybory uzupełniające, w Niemczech przez wybory krajowe, a w Unii Europejskiej mamy tylko referenda. Referenda, które są tak naprawdę probierzem nastrojów nie tylko w danym kraju, ale w całej Europie.

Czas przyjąć do wiadomości, że Brexit był reprezentatywną reakcją dla niezadowolenia milionów Europejczyków z polityki, którą prowadzi dzisiaj kierownictwo Unii Europejskiej. My jeszcze dzisiaj na tej sali przyjęliśmy rezolucję zapowiadającą legalizację nielegalnej imigracji. Można rzeczywistość czarować, można nad nią odprawiać zaklęcia, mówić o nacjonalizmach, populizmach, ale nie zaczaruje się faktu podstawowego: Europę tworzą narody. Jeżeli nie będziemy szanowali narodów, Europy nie będzie.

  Luke Ming Flanagan (GUE/NGL). – Mr President, it is happening. The United Kingdom are packing their bags and they are leaving the European Union. When David Cameron attempted to get what he called a better deal for Britain, he was told that the four freedoms were sacrosanct: they could not be changed. And predictably, when he went back to the people of the United Kingdom he ended up losing, and he ended up losing because he went back with nothing because he was told that the four freedoms were sacrosanct.

Yet, at the moment, we are now embarking on another process. A white paper where we look at the future of Europe, where two options could potentially have satisfied the United Kingdom’s grievances. Option two is nothing but the single market, so we could potentially have a situation next December where we have decided to restrict freedom of movement whilst still negotiating with Great Britain on the basis that market access cannot happen without freedom of movement of people. Someone please explain this contradiction.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – A Uachtaráin, bhí díospóireacht againn i rith na maidine ar an mBreatimeacht agus den chuid is mó bhí sé cothrom, féaráilte agus ciallmhar. Bhí áthas orm agus cuirim mo bhuíochas in iúl do na feisirí a rinne tagairt d’Éirinn – Comhaontú Aoine an Chéasta agus cás na teorann.

Anois, tar éis na díospóireachta, tá cinneadh déanta ag an bParlaimint, agus le móramh mór glacadh leis an rún a bhí os ár gcomhair: 516 i bhfabhar agus 133 i gcoinne. Ba é an móramh céanna é don chuid is mó do na leasuithe. Dá bhrí sin tá an Pharlaimint aontaithe, agus is féidir linn dul ar aghaidh anois agus idirbheartaíocht a thosú idir an Ríocht Aontaithe agus an tAontas agus teacht ar chomhréiteach a oibreoidh don Ríocht Aontaithe agus don Aontas amach anseo.

  Diane Dodds (NI). – Mr President, I voted against Parliament’s draft resolution on Brexit this afternoon. From the outset, I do welcome the fact that the text recognises Northern Ireland’s unique position in respect of our land border with the Republic of Ireland. This builds on existing commitments by both the UK and Irish governments, and indeed the European Council, to give these challenges priority and adopt a flexible and imaginative approach.

However, I cannot neglect the fact that this resolution would severely limit what can be achieved in the talks ahead. It would prevent the UK from opening trade talks with non—EU countries before 2019. It would take future trade relations with the EU off the table for the next two years, and it would tie the UK into paying an endless and excessive divorce bill well after it leaves.

These are restrictions that would affect taxpayers in Northern Ireland very directly. They would also prevent local firms from accessing new markets and from exporting goods and services in the short to medium term. So while the text is cognisant of the needs of Northern Ireland, the resolution is not conducive.

  Csaba Sógor (PPE). – Mr President, almost a year since the UK referendum, a period in which the EU was only a bystander to the phony war on Brexit, the start of the exit negotiations themselves comes as a sort of relief. The start of open, honest and transparent discussions between the two partners was long overdue. Euphemisms used for a radical departure, be it a ‘clean exit’ or ‘a new partnership with Europe’ might have made possible until now to mask for many the hard choices and trade-offs of the negotiations to come. But now the time is slowly coming for the cake proverb to be put to the test, the lies written on buses to be exposed, and promises of libertarian utopias to have their first contact with reality. But the need to come to terms with what an idealistic notion of undiluted ‘control’ in a vastly interconnected world really means, as opposed to true influence and significance, is not limited to Britain, but applies to the EU too.

  Nathan Gill (EFDD). – Mr President, I represent Wales, which is a nation in the United Kingdom which voted to leave the EU. A week ago today, the Prime Minister triggered Article 50, formally beginning the UK-EU Brexit negotiation process. It was an historic day. After legal challenges, lengthy delays and threats, we will be leaving the EU, and become an independent, self-governing and democratic country once again. This Parliament is calling for unreasonable demands, some of which are going to be impossible to meet. The Commission is meeting a GBP 52 million divorce bill.

Can I just ask this: do you actually want a Brexit deal? The people of Wales and Britain voted to leave the EU, not Europe. We still want to be your friends and trading partners, but if you are not going to make us any sensible offers, we will take our business elsewhere. The EU only represents 15% of the global economy. A new, global Britain is going to see us become more forward-facing.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE). – Mr President, this morning was important with a really strong resolution and a good debate. For me and for the people I represent, which is a border constituency in Ireland with Northern Ireland, paragraph 20 is important. It talks about the unique position and special circumstances on the island of Ireland and says it must be addressed in a withdrawal agreement. It very specifically says that we must do everything possible to avoid a hardening of the border. I drive through Northern Ireland to visit my constituents in Donegal. I see no difference in our territories except that there are kilometres where I am from and there are miles in Northern Ireland. I want that difference to be the only one that exists after Brexit, but – let us be frank and honest – there is a lot of work to do to live up to the words that we have voted through and there is a political responsibility on the British Prime Minister and her Government to deliver more on this commitment. We did not vote for Brexit, but we have to live with the consequences of it.

  Seb Dance (S&D). – Mr President, I want to pick that point up actually because of course the economies of Northern Ireland and the Republic are inextricably linked, as of course is the peace process that was painstakingly negotiated over many, many years.

There was a UKIP amendment that tried to remove the competency of the European Union in relation to the border issue. It said that the Common Travel Area is not dependent on EU membership, and I was surprised to see that the Tories supported it as well. Yes, the Common Travel Area predates the European Union, but it was drawn up at a time when the immigration policies of the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom were the same, and indeed the customs policies were broadly similar.

It is the policy of the British Government now, apparently, to tear those two regimes asunder. That does make the Common Travel Area an issue to do with Brexit as has been explained. It was not voted for by the people of Northern Ireland and it is an issue that the British Government has to face up to its responsibilities on. It is not enough to simply wish this issue away. We need real political leadership and we need this to be addressed.