All text 
Förfarande : 2018/2573(RSP)
Dokumentgång i plenum
Dokumentgång :

Ingivna texter :


Debatter :

PV 13/03/2018 - 3
CRE 13/03/2018 - 3

Omröstningar :

PV 14/03/2018 - 8.1
CRE 14/03/2018 - 8.1

Antagna texter :

Fullständigt förhandlingsreferat
Tisdagen den 13 mars 2018 - Strasbourg Reviderad upplaga

3. Riktlinjer för de framtida förbindelserna mellan EU och Förenade kungariket (debatt)
Anföranden på video

  Presidente. – L'ordine del giorno reca la discussione sulle dichiarazioni del Consiglio e della Commissione sugli orientamenti sulle future relazioni tra l'Unione europea e il Regno Unito (2018/2573(RSP)).


  Monika Panayotova, President-in-Office of the Council. – Mr President, honourable Members, we are at a critical juncture in negotiations with the United Kingdom. We need to secure an orderly withdrawal and put in place all the conditions for a transition period based on the status quo. We also need to outline the framework for the future relationship between the European Union and the United Kingdom. It is particularly important for us that there is no backsliding on the commitments from the Joint Report, especially with regard to the three key withdrawal issues, namely citizens’ rights, financial settlement and Ireland.

The UK set itself the goal of getting the transition agreed in March, with the shared understanding that this is a part of the overall package that is to be finalised in October. During last week’s negotiations, some openings on the transition were made and there was also some movement on the area of withdrawal, but we need to treat these cautiously. We need real and sustained progress in order to meet our deadlines.

Looking beyond the transition period, we are determined to build with the United Kingdom a broad and close partnership. Our commitment to seek such a partnership is shared by the Parliament, as reflected in your resolutions. In fact, even the very first guidelines adopted by the European Council already indicated the desired scope and nature of this partnership.

It is also clear, at least from a negotiation perspective, that the understanding of the framework for the future relationship, which will be reflected in a political declaration accompanying the withdrawal agreement, cannot be more detailed than what we know of the UK position. In that respect, we have, in fairness, acknowledged that even though over the last fourteen months there has been a succession of speeches outlining the UK’s view on the future of our relations, we still need more concrete and more operational proposals.

At the same time, there are no indications that the United Kingdom’s red lines have changed since last year. All this explains why the draft guidelines due to be adopted by the European Council on 23 March are not more detailed. This will hopefully provide the political space for broader dynamics of the negotiations with the UK.

In a nutshell, and again in reflection of the constraints set out by the UK’s position and by our principles and legal order, the forthcoming guidelines foresee that at the core of the partnership will be the elements of a free trade agreement (FTA) focused on goods, but also including services. Trade facilitation elements, such as customs cooperation, addressing barriers to trade, etc., are also envisaged.

Two important sectors are also pointed out in the guidelines: fisheries and aviation, along with the basic principles that should govern cooperation on them. Then, taking into account the importance and the proximity of the UK, the guidelines foresee robust provisions on a level playing field. Securing fair competition between businesses on both sides of the channel is an important task, if we want a properly functioning and ambitious FTA. The same logic applies to governance: the closer our relationship, the stronger its governance should be.

As mentioned before, the future partnership with the UK is meant to be broad. Beyond the economic dimension, it should also reflect the commonality of interests and threats we share with the UK. This is why in the proposed guidelines you see provisions on police and judicial cooperation, as well as on security, defence and foreign policy. The guidelines make it clear that a key point in this context is also preserving the autonomy of decision-making of the European Union. In that sense, the partnership we have in mind largely covers the same four pillars of possible cooperation suggested by your resolution.

Let me conclude by recalling that, more than ever, our unity matters. This holds true for the unity of the 27 Member States, but also for unity among our institutions. In this respect, I am very much reassured by the broad convergence of the priorities set out in your resolution, and those flagged in the guidelines due to be adopted by the European Council.

Thank you very much for your attention.


  Jean-Claude Juncker, Président de la Commission. – Monsieur le Président, Mesdames et Messieurs les députés, il y a 349 jours, le Royaume—Uni a notifié au Conseil européen son intention de quitter l’Union européenne. Dans 381 jours, le 29 mars 2019 à minuit, le Royaume-Uni aura quitté l’Union européenne.

(Applaudissements sur certains bancs)

(reacting to off-microphone comments by David Coburn and other Members of the EFDD Group)

The time will come when you will regret your decision.

Depuis les tout premiers jours de ces négociations uniques et difficiles, notre objectif a toujours été et restera de parvenir à un retrait ordonné du Royaume-Uni dans son intérêt propre et dans celui de l’Union européenne. Mais chaque jour qui passe, l’urgence de réunir toutes les conditions nécessaires d’un tel retrait se fait plus grande. Cette urgence doit nous inciter tous, l’Union européenne et le Royaume-Uni, à agir avec méthode, pragmatisme et transparence. Ce sont cette méthode, ce pragmatisme et cette transparence qui sont au cœur de la proposition de texte sur l’accord de retrait que la Commission a approuvée le 28 février dernier et qui ne fait que traduire juridiquement les engagements que nous avons pris ensemble, Commission et Royaume-Uni, en décembre dernier dans le rapport conjoint.

Michel Barnier discute maintenant en détail de notre proposition de texte avec ce Parlement et avec le Conseil des ministres car le projet final sur l’accord de retrait, qui sera transmis à nos partenaires britanniques comme base de négociation, reflétera l’unité des 27 États membres de l’Union européenne et de ses institutions.

Je voudrais remercier Michel Barnier et son équipe pour l’extraordinaire travail qu’ils fournissent depuis des mois, jour et nuit, pour mener à bien ces négociations.


Mein Freund Michel Barnier, sein Team, wir alle stehen dafür, dass von unserer Seite aus strukturiert und besonnen vorgegangen wird. In diesem Sinne haben wir die Vereinbarungen, die wir gemeinsam mit dem Vereinten Königreich getroffen haben, in einen soliden Vertragstext gegossen, der vor allem die Rechte der Bürger präzisiert. Somit ist dieser Text weitaus mehr als eine Ansammlung von Paragrafen. Es geht hier um Zehntausende – if not more – Biografien. Wir stellen sicher, dass die Lebensentscheidungen dieser Menschen, der Bürger Europas, nicht dem Brexit zum Opfer fallen. Deshalb haben wir durchgesetzt, dass EU-Bürger im Vereinigten Königreich auch nach dem Brexit ihre Rechte behalten. Der Entwurf des Austrittsabkommens ist so konkret, dass sich Bürger auch vor britischen Gerichten darauf beziehen können, um ihre Rechte einzufordern.

Für die Zeit nach dem Austritt des Vereinigten Königreichs ist uns ebenfalls an einer engen Partnerschaft gelegen. Dabei muss allerdings die Einheit des Binnenmarktes gewahrt bleiben, denn Bürger wie Unternehmen müssen sich auf dessen Errungenschaft, auf gleiche Regeln und Institutionen, verlassen können. Ein Rosinenpicken, cherry picking, wird nicht möglich sein. Ebenso wenig werden wir zulassen können, dass Standards im Sozialen, Umweltstandards oder Steuerstandards unterboten werden. Mir wäre es lieber gewesen, die Briten hätten sich nicht dafür entschieden, auszutreten. Wer aber die Europäische Union verlassen will, muss ehrlich sagen, was das eigentlich heißt. Wer vier Jahrzehnte gemeinsamer Vereinbarungen und Lösungen hinter sich lassen will, muss die Verantwortung dafür übernehmen, dass nicht alles so bleiben kann, wie es ist.

Ten days ago, Prime Minister May give us some more clarity on how the UK sees its future relationship with the European Union. As my good friend John Bruton wrote in a recent article ‘the most valuable test that Ms May wishes to apply to a Brexit agreement is that it should be one that would endure and not require constant renegotiation’. I could not agree more, which means that everything that we say and that we do on both sides will require the utmost clarity to help us pass the test. It is obvious that we need further clarity from the UK if we are to reach an understanding on our future relationship.

We are preparing for this on the European Union side. Last week, President Tusk circulated draft guidelines that will be discussed by the leaders of the EU 27 next week. As the clock counts down – we have one year to go – it is now time to translate speeches into treaties, to turn commitments into agreements, and broad suggestions and wishes on the future relationship to specific workable solutions.

This is especially important when it comes to Ireland. Both the United Kingdom and European Union have agreed that there should be no hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland. The Good Friday Agreement must be preserved in all its dimensions, and life for citizens on both sides of the border should be the same as it is today. Both sides agreed in December that there are three options to do this. The first is through the future partnership agreement if possible. The second is through specific solutions that the United Kingdom has said it will put forward. We are ready to work on these two options, but we need to receive concrete proposals from the United Kingdom first.

The third option is the backstop solution. It would apply only if the first two options do not materialise. This scenario would see full alignment on those tools that protect the Good Friday Agreement, North-South cooperation and the all-island economy. The draft protocol on Ireland should not come as a surprise or a shock. It translates faithfully last December’s agreement into a legal text.

The European Union, this House and the 27 Member States stand firm and united when it comes to Ireland. For us, this is not an Irish issue, it is a European issue.

(Reacting to off-microphone comment ‘it is a British issue’ by Mr Coburn)

It is a European issue.

It is all for one and one for all. That is what it means to be part of this Union. We pool our resources and our sovereignty to strengthen one another and to give ourselves more sovereignty when dealing with the rest of the world. We see this with Brexit. We see this with threats. We see this across the board.

As we build our future together, we must continue to make each other stronger by working together and building a more united, stronger and more democratic Union. This must be our joint focus. We need to focus on our European future, not the past, not on Brexit.



  Elmar Brok, im Namen der PPE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, Frau Ratspräsidentin, Herr Kommissionspräsident, Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Der Brexit ist schlecht für uns alle. Worum es jetzt bei den Verhandlungen geht, ist, Schaden zu begrenzen. Ich hoffe, dass wir da die notwendigen Fortschritte machen, und ich danke, dass wir die Einheit der Europäischen Union, der Institutionen und der Mitgliedsländer haben. Dies ist sicherlich auch ein Verdienst von Michel Barnier, der mit uns die Dinge in dieser transparenten Weise bespricht.

Meine Fraktion stimmt dem Austrittsvertragsentwurf zu, wobei dann die im Dezember besprochenen Bedingungen bezüglich der offenen Grenzen für Irland, der Frage der Finanzen und der Bürgerrechte erfüllt sein müssen. Wir meinen auch, dass es richtig ist, eine Übergangsregelung zu finden, wie es im Vertrag vorgesehen ist, wenn Großbritannien denn bereit ist, für weitere 21 Monate – oder welcher Zeitraum das auch immer sein wird –, die Bedingungen der Europäischen Union mit den vier Freiheiten, mit dem Geldzahlen und mit dem Europäischen Gerichtshof anerkennt. Dies ist die Voraussetzung dafür, dass wir genügend Zeit haben, dann einen Handelsvertrag auszuhandeln.

Dabei wird immer wieder gesagt – gestern auch vom Bund der deutschen Industrie –, dass man doch eine Zollunion machen soll. Ja, ich bin für eine Zollunion, aber Großbritannien muss dann die Bedingungen erfüllen. Großbritannien hat eine Zollunion abgelehnt, Großbritannien hat auch eine Mitgliedschaft im Binnenmarkt abgelehnt, nach einer Norwegen-Lösung, weil es nicht bereit ist, dafür die Bedingungen zu erfüllen. Und deswegen bleibt nur übrig, einen Handelsvertrag zu verhandeln. Ich meine, dass das ein Handelsvertrag mit einem Drittland ist. Ich finde es richtig, dass Theresa May erstmalig zugestanden hat: Wenn man die europäischen Standards nicht mehr erfüllt, dann hat man weniger Zugang zum europäischen Binnenmarkt – mit all den Konsequenzen des kleineren Partners Großbritannien, was dort gesehen werden muss.

Wir müssen auch feststellen, dass dieser Versuch, einzelne Sektoren herauszunehmen und hier vollen Zugang zu haben, Rosinenpickerei ist. Wenn Großbritannien das nur für die Bereiche will, wo es besonderes Interesse hat, dann geht das nicht. Wer aus einem Golfclub austritt und weiterspielen will, muss auch eine green fee bezahlen. Das ist keine Strafe, sondern eine normale Belastung, die gemacht werden muss. Denn die Mitgliedsländer zahlen ja Beiträge und erfüllen die Verpflichtungen. Das ist ein wichtiger Punkt, wie wir hier gemeinsam vorankommen müssen.

Präsident Trump hat Maßnahmen gegen Bombardier in Großbritannien ergriffen, verkündet jetzt Sanktionen gegen Europa bei Stahl und Aluminium. Nur wenn wir alle zusammenstehen – auch die Briten –, haben wir eine Chance, gegen eine solche Politik vorzugehen. Deswegen ist eine Einheit Europas in solchen Fragen eine Überlebensfrage Europas. Das muss auch Herr Farage begreifen, der sein eigenes Land ins Unglück stürzt.



  Roberto Gualtieri, a nome del gruppo S&D. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, la risoluzione che ci apprestiamo a votare dimostra che esiste una larga unità nel Parlamento e tra le istituzioni sui punti fondamentali di questo difficile negoziato e a sostegno dell'azione di Michel Barnier e del suo team, a cui vorrei rendere omaggio per il lavoro straordinario e l'alta sensibilità istituzionale.

Siamo ora a un passaggio decisivo di questo sforzo titanico volto a garantire un ritiro ordinato del Regno Unito e a ridurne al massimo l'impatto negativo. E come è sempre stato, noi saremo costruttivi ed esigenti.

In primo luogo, l'accordo di dicembre va tradotto giuridicamente affinché i diritti dei cittadini siano pienamente salvaguardati e ciò deve valere anche per le categorie più vulnerabili: non spetta a loro, ma alle autorità del Regno Unito, garantire che non un solo cittadino sia privato ingiustamente dei propri diritti. Sotto questo aspetto la bozza di trattato, che noi apprezziamo, andrebbe ulteriormente rafforzata. Altrettanto importante è evitare ogni irrigidimento della frontiera in Irlanda. Non si può criticare la soluzione responsabilmente delineata dalla Commissione: spetta al governo britannico presentare proposte convincenti, e ciò non è ancora avvenuto.

In secondo luogo, la transizione deve prolungare tutto l'acquis comunitario, e quindi nessuna discriminazione verso i cittadini è accettabile. Noi non consentiremo di trattare le merci meglio delle persone.

In terzo luogo, per il futuro, noi vogliamo tra Unione europea e Regno Unito una partnership la più stretta e la più ampia possibile, e proponiamo che essa sia definita dalla cornice di un accordo di associazione. Ma questa relazione dovrà vedere un adeguato equilibrio tra diritti e doveri, e dovrà garantire l'integrità del mercato unico, la piena autonomia dell'ordine giuridico dell'Unione, la tutela della stabilità finanziaria.

Prendiamo atto con rammarico che Theresa May abbia escluso il mercato unico e anche l'Unione doganale. E se il Governo britannico rivedrà questa posizione, saremo pronti a discutere una relazione economica più stretta. Se così non sarà, lavoreremo per un accordo commerciale che riduca al minimo le barriere, in particolare alla circolazione delle merci, ma che non potrà eliminarle completamente. È bene chiarire che l'Unione non può delegare ad altri il controllo delle proprie frontiere doganali, e che fuori dal mercato unico non esiste il mutuo riconoscimento delle regole. Altra cosa è la cooperazione regolamentare, e per quel che riguarda i servizi finanziari, un utilizzo intelligente del sistema attuale di equivalenza.

In ogni caso noi non accetteremo forme di dumping sociale, ambientale e fiscale: l'Unione europea deve essere una forza che contrasta il protezionismo, ma che protegge i cittadini, i lavoratori, l'ambiente. È questa la sfida a cui ci chiama la globalizzazione, e noi saremo coerenti con tale visione anche nel negoziato con il Regno Unito.


  Peter van Dalen, namens de ECR-Fractie. – Voorzitter, de brexit kent alleen maar verliezers aan beide zijden van het kanaal. Afgelopen week kwam er een Brits rapport uit waaruit bleek dat alle regio's in het Verenigd Koninkrijk klappen gaan oplopen door de brexit. Maar ook andere economieën gaan geraakt worden. Aan de Nederlandse economie gaat het waarschijnlijk miljarden kosten. En de Duitse BDI heeft afgelopen week duidelijk gemaakt dat een harde brexit misschien wel 9 miljard extra gaat kosten.

Gelukkig zie ik in het document dat de heer Tusk onlangs publiceerde, dat de Europese Unie toch graag de status quo wil handhaven op een aantal terreinen. Ik denk bijvoorbeeld aan de visserij, de luchtvaart, Erasmus, de veiligheid en de handel in goederen. Dat is de juiste richting. Laat ook onze onderhandelaars gaan voor redelijkheid en billijkheid. Niet elkaar het mes op de keel zetten, want ook ná 2019 moeten onze vissers kunnen blijven vissen, onze bedrijven kunnen blijven exporteren en importeren, en moeten onze studenten ook over de grens kunnen blijven studeren. Daarom, als het dan helaas zo is dat die brexit er toch moet komen, dan geen harde brexit, maar een brexit waarbij een redelijke scheiding wordt gemaakt op grond van gezond verstand.


  Presidente. – (a seguito di alcune reazioni senza microfono da parte dell'emiciclo) Onorevoli colleghi, è inutile fare commenti, tutti i gruppi hanno la possibilità di parlare, quindi esprimeranno le loro idee nel corso del dibattito.


  Guy Verhofstadt, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, before coming to Brexit and to thank Michel Barnier, I take this opportunity, Jean—Claude, to tell you that your former Head of Cabinet did something yesterday which nobody has ever done before here in this House, namely to unite the whole Parliament, the left and the right. But it is not only a joke. Maybe you have to sort it out. As you know, I have no problem with Martin Selmayr. I think he is a very dedicated European and a very competent civil servant. No, the problem that we have is with the way the Commission handled this, and so you have to do something about this in some way, because it is bad for Europe and bad for the European Commission.


But, having said that, we are not the only ones who have to sort things out. The UK also has to do so because, as you have indicated Jean—Claude, the problem today is that we don’t have a proposal from the UK side on the future relationship with the Union. It is still lacking, and what you said is true. There was this Mansion House speech by Mrs May, but it was mainly repeating the red lines that we have already known about for two years, and I think that in the Mansion House speech what the Prime Minister did was to say, ‘Look, we cannot accept the rights of Canada and then the obligations of Norway’. Well I have to tell you that I don’t think that we have ever presented that proposal to the UK side. I think that the UK side has to understand that the opposite is also not possible. You cannot have the rights of Norway and then the obligations of Canada. That is also not possible.

So I think that, after all the speeches we have heard now, it is time that we go beyond what I would call the slogans and the soundbites, which is exactly what we try to do in our resolution. It is a long resolution, with more than 65 paragraphs, in which we present what I would call a concept, a vision and an architecture for the future because that is what is lacking for the moment, and an architectural vision that matches both sides: the red lines of the UK on the one hand with the vision and the principles of the European Union on the other side. What we do in the resolution – and can I say to the Council that this is a little different – is that we use the Treaty for that, namely Article 8 and Article 217, which say that in the neighbourhood of the European Union you have to create a special partnership with your neighbours and to do that we create an association with that country.

So our proposal is to start negotiations on an association agreement between the UK and the EU, based on four pillars, one on trade and economics, one on internal security, one on thematic cooperation – for example, research, Erasmus, things like that – and, finally, one on external security and defence matters, because I think that is also a very important field of cooperation between both. For every one of these four pillars, what we do in this resolution is give the principles: what are the fields where we can cooperate, what are the different principles we have to apply, and anyway, what is the advantage of our proposal – and I hope that the Council will also recognise this in the coming days – is that we create one overall governance structure. It is not an inflation of bilateral arrangements, as we have with Switzerland, which will be a good basis for that special partnership, but one overall governance based on association. Last week I had the chance to discuss this with David Davis and also with the Prime Minister and I am quite confident that ultimately Britain will also see the advantages of such an approach, to have a decent, deep association partnership from both sides.

That brings me, finally, to the last paragraphs of our resolution on the rights of all citizens. Personally, it is my feeling that we are very near to an agreement with the UK side on citizens’ rights. In fact respecting the rights of the citizens who live there, our EU citizens, and on the opposite side also respecting the rights of UK nationals living on our continent, because this is, in any way, something that we have to achieve. Both sides, UK nationals and EU citizens, cannot be the victims of this whole Brexit, in- and outcome.



  Philippe Lamberts, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, dear Prime Minister May, this is neither the first nor the last time, I am afraid, that I will address you in this Hemicycle, where you remain welcome at any time. Ever since you became Prime Minister, I have carefully listened to you on Brexit. I do acknowledge your wish to make the best out of the inconvenient situation the referendum has put your country in, but I am still perplexed by the inner contradictions of your government’s positions. Indeed, arguing (a) that the United Kingdom will leave the single market and customs union; (b) that the United Kingdom Government will stand by its commitment to the Good Friday Agreement; and (c) that there will be no new regulatory barriers within the United Kingdom, is a trilemma that cannot be solved.

This has nothing to do with the alleged stubbornness of the EU-27; it has everything to do with the stubbornness of facts. If regulatory divergence is real, it creates a border, and no magical thinking can ever erase it. Therefore, one of the three elements has to give, and I cannot imagine the British Government giving up on, or taking any risk with, peace in Northern Ireland. Therefore, it has to be (a) or (c).

In our view, the only practical solution would be for the UK, or at least Northern Ireland, to remain fully within the single market and customs union. Taking into account your long relationship with us, and the fact that, of course, the UK would then have to apply EU law without being a part of the decision process, it would be fair to establish a privileged channel for your country to express concerns and suggestions. And I agree with you that we have to tailor the transition period to the practical imperatives, rather than align it with any pre-set dates.

The end of that transition should also be the cut-off date of any change in the status of citizens, and we do welcome, as Guy just did, the very significant progress made over the last few months in that respect. A few issues remain to be tackled, however: the non-reversibility of rights, the rights of European residents with disabilities, the status of future spouses, the rights of third-country nationals, as well as voting rights. Our key concern is that no one ends up losing rights. If we want to be creative, we should consider basing citizens’ rights on residence rather than on nationality, which may provide at the same time certainty and simplicity.

Prime Minister, one recognises a stateswoman by her ability not so much by being strong facing the other camp, but by confronting her adversaries in a round camp. Now is the time to be bold.


  Gabriele Zimmer, im Namen der GUE/NGL-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, sehr geehrter Herr Juncker, sehr geehrter Herr Barnier! Sie werden sicher im Laufe der letzten Monate registriert haben, dass meine Fraktion sehr intensiv versucht hat, sich in die Diskussion der Erarbeitung von Parlamentspositionen zur Begleitung der Brexit-Verhandlungen einzubringen. Wir haben das vor allem deshalb getan, weil uns am allerwichtigsten ist, dass die Rechte von Menschen sowohl in Großbritannien, aber eben auch innerhalb der EU und natürlich vor allem auch in Nordirland bei den Verhandlungen nicht unter die Räder kommen und eben auch nicht als Verhandlungsmasse von irgendeiner Seite missbraucht werden können. Was diese Fragen betrifft, sind wir schon ein ganzes Stück weitergekommen. Wir können es nicht mehr mit den ersten Ausgangspunkten vergleichen.

Wir werden aber auch weiter darauf achten, dass insbesondere die Aufenthaltsrechte und das Recht auf Freizügigkeit für die Bürger des Vereinigten Königreichs innerhalb der EU beachtet werden müssen. Wir sollten auch darüber nachdenken, weil zum Beispiel in dem Vorschlag, der für den Entwurf eines Scheidungsabkommens unterbreitet worden ist, Einschränkungen enthalten sind, insbesondere was das Recht von UK-Bürgern in Mitgliedstaaten betrifft, Leistungen für Unternehmen anderer Mitgliedstaaten anbieten zu können. Offensichtlich ist das ja etwas, was relativ kurzfristig auch mit hineingekommen ist. Wir werden auch weiter darauf bestehen, dass die Rechte der Bürger in Nordirland gewahrt werden. Hier geht es nicht einfach nur um Rechte, die einfach mal so dahingesagt werden, sondern hier geht es wirklich um alle existierenden internationalen Abkommen, denen wir uns verpflichtet hatten und in denen demokratische Rechte, soziale Rechte und Menschenrechte definiert worden sind.

Eins ist klar: Diese Rechte werden nur im Austrittsabkommen geschützt, nirgendwo anders. Dafür brauchen wir dieses Austrittsabkommen, und deshalb werden wir auch immer wieder auf dieses Austrittsabkommen hinarbeiten und uns hier auch mit einbringen. Wenn es darum geht, ein Mandat für die zukünftigen Beziehungen auszuhandeln, tangiert das natürlich auch die Vorstellungen der politischen Parteien, der politischen Kräfte von der Zukunft Europas, von der Zukunft der EU. Deshalb haben wir selbstverständlich als Fraktion eine ganze Reihe von Problemsichten und lehnen auch bestimmte Zugänge ab, wie sie auch hier in unserer Resolution vorgeschlagen worden sind. Sie beziehen sich insbesondere auf die Vorschläge zu Ziffer 21, 22, 23, 24, die Gestaltung der außenpolitischen Beziehungen und die Gestaltung der Sicherheitsbeziehungen dieser Zusammenarbeit. Wir werden dazu auch entsprechende Änderungsanträge stellen. Trotzdem haben wir entschieden, dass wir die Resolution mit unterzeichnen, weil sie –wie ich vorhin gesagt habe – wichtig ist für die Fortsetzung des Kampfes um die Rechte von Menschen, von Bürgern und Bürgerinnen in den Bereichen in der gesamten bisherigen EU, aber auch in den Bereichen beziehungsweise Regionen und Ländern, die durch den Brexit selber mit entstehen.

Wir möchten auch noch darauf aufmerksam machen, dass die Arbeitnehmerinnenrechte noch stärker geschützt werden müssen, und zwar die Rechte von eingewanderten Arbeitnehmerinnen. Es geht uns auch um die Frage von Grenzgängern. Auch hier müssen wir nochmal nachlegen, hier gibt es noch einen Bedarf, hier haben wir noch einiges zu tun. In diesem Zusammenhang möchte ich signalisieren, dass wir die Arbeit unserer Fraktion kritisch, aber eben solidarisch bezüglich der Rechte von Bürgerinnen und Bürgern fortsetzen werden.


  Nigel Farage, on behalf of the EFDD Group. – Mr President, two thirds of the British people think the European Commission is trying to bully us in these negotiations and they are right. The EU is bullying us, it bullies Member States, it bullies its next—door neighbours, and it even bullies the third world with its neo-colonial policies.

Of course it does, because the Europe of the Junckers, the Barniers and the Selmayrs is power without accountability. Well, at long last, you have met your match in Donald Trump. Now, you may well scream and shout about his aluminium and steel tariffs, but the EU puts tariffs on 13 000 goods coming into it, meaning that shoes and bras and food are more expensive for simple, ordinary folk who do not understand this because it has never been properly explained to them.

The sheer hypocrisy of criticising Trump when you already have put tariffs on steel and aluminium amazes me, but it does show the folly of us going for a transition period. It shows the utter stupidity of the Labour Party, wanting to sign us up to this permanently, because in this USA dispute we now find ourselves trapped, impotent and unable to act.

We need to be free. We voted Brexit, we voted to make our own trade policy and our own trade decisions. We could do a deal with America in 48 hours. We need to act. Just yesterday, the Trump administration were describing us as their best ally in the world.

Ms May, we did not vote for a transition period, we voted to leave this organisation, we voted to leave the customs union, we voted to leave the single market. So, please, Ms May, at this summit next week, do what Trump has done: stand strong against the European Commission, against the unelected bullies. Bearing in mind the Italian elections – and weren’t they wonderful, folks? – it is pretty obvious that the game is up anyway. So she will be doing not just the British people a favour, but the whole of Europe too.


  Janice Atkinson, on behalf of the ENF Group. – Mr President, I agree with Nigel. This debate is rather pointless. Just like Mr Gualtieri said, it is like the Titanic – it is sinking very fast. The resolution is a federalist’s delight and it is business as usual here, yet all around you, Rome burns. Literally!

The populists are winning elections, kicking out the old guard, the very people who wrote this resolution. Across the southern EU states there is horrifically high youth unemployment. In Italy nearly 70% of the youth voted for populist parties. Yet you come up with this framework that actually just reflects the old order, not the new.

However, I do detect a realisation that trying to punish the UK would damage your economies too. When I was in America, in Washington, in December, Wilbur Ross, the Secretary of State for Commerce, said to me, don’t take that poison pill that the EU offers us if you want a trade deal with us.

My friend, Nigel Farage, is absolutely right, we can get a deal together in 48 hours, because we’re two proud trading nations. You lot haven’t got a clue. You’re a protectionist racket. That’s what Trump told you and that’s what Wilbur Ross told you, and that’s what you are.


  Presidente. – (in seguito ad alcune reazioni da parte dell'emiciclo) Abbiamo capito che ci sono opinioni diverse.


  Diane James (NI). – Mr President, you have heard from two United Kingdom speakers. You’re now going to hear from a third, a fervent Brexiteer, and one who is very, very pleased at the position the United Kingdom is taking and the fact that it is prepared to say ‘no’ to the European Union, that we do not wish to continue being a vassal state.

Could the bullies in this Chamber – there are two of them at least, I am not going to bother to name them, they have already been named – take some very clear messages back please?

The United Kingdom does not wish to be a vassal state. We really take exception to being told that we should continue having the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice and that we should continue to be under the onerous single market and customs union regulations. Because, quite frankly, Brexit means Brexit.

If you want to make Brexit hard, be aware. Actions have consequences and for you, European Union, the consequences will be very, very tough and very negative for you.




  Esteban González Pons (PPE).(inicio de la intervención fuera de micrófono) ... para el brexit y todavía no sabemos qué relación quiere mantener el Reino Unido con nosotros en el futuro. Todavía no sabemos qué consecuencias tendrá el brexit para la economía real británica. Ni siquiera sabemos si habrá un segundo referéndum. La población rural de Gran Bretaña cree que el brexit ya ha sido. En cambio, la City de Londres cree que el brexit no será nunca. La única certeza que nos transmite el Gobierno británico es que se quieren quedar fuera: fuera del mercado único, fuera de la unión aduanera, fuera del pasaporte financiero, fuera de las ayudas comunitarias, fuera del mundo político, social y económico al que pertenecen; por ejemplo, dejar fuera al medio millón de británicos que residen en España y que después del brexit el año que viene no van a poder votar y elegir a los alcaldes de sus municipios.

Nos queda un año. Nos queda un año para conseguir un acuerdo equilibrado. Ningún acuerdo sobre brexit puede ser bueno. Nos queda un año para conseguir un acuerdo que no nos perjudique a las dos partes. Nos queda un año para que el Gobierno británico entienda que el peor de los acuerdos siempre es mejor que el caos.

Es verdad que la Unión Europea se quedará incompleta sin el Reino Unido, pero el Reino Unido completamente fuera de la Unión Europea se va a quedar perdido. El caos y el pensamiento mágico no son una política y eso hasta yo lo he aprendido de la gloriosa historia de Gran Bretaña.


  Richard Corbett (S&D). – Madam President, the emerging position of the EU27 and the resolution that we have before us in Parliament today cannot be a surprise to the UK Government. They respond, in fact, to the ambiguities and the contradictions in that Government’s position. The biggest ambiguity of all is the idea that you can have frictionless trade with the rest of Europe while leaving the Customs Union and the single market. Colleagues, the single market and the Customs Union are precisely the tools with which our countries have organised frictionless trade across Europe. You cannot walk out from them, abandon them and still have frictionless trade. The Customs Union also is a vital question when it comes to the Northern Ireland border. All of us are waiting with bated breath to hear how you can turn that border into a customs border but not have any customs controls. How do you do it? How can it be done?

(Interjection: ‘Electronically’)

Electronically? So, all these nice wizardry things? I think they want to send Harry Potter to find some solution to this border.


The leaked government figures, by the way, show that this solution would reduce UK GDP by 4.5% over the next decade. No wonder they wanted to keep those figures quiet and how embarrassed they were when they leaked out. No, there will be deadlock, I fear, in these negotiations, which will continue for so long as we have a government in Britain that is divided internally, that has no majority in its own parliament and which continues to lose public support on this issue. It is time for a change within Britain if these issues are going to be properly addressed.


  Hans-Olaf Henkel (ECR). – Madam President, last week, the CEO of the Port of Dover went to Brussels and presented his view of Brexit. He made it very clear that if the 10 000 trucks going in and out of Dover everyday are only held up by 2 minutes because of Brexit there would be a 17 mile queue outside Dover – and equivalent chaos in Dunkirk and Calais. Yesterday, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung reported that Brexit alone costs Britain EUR 32 billion a year because of bureaucracy and customs. By the way, EUR 37 billion will be the cost to the remaining European countries. In other words, it is very clear Brexit remains a lose-lose situation.

What surprises me is that almost everybody, except the Brexiteers to my left here, hate Brexit but there is nobody in this House trying to stop it. I think it is time, Mr President, that you make Britain a new offer, an offer which Britain cannot refuse, an offer which gives Britain what they always wanted. Give some more autonomy over their immigration and let’s keep them in the European Union.


  Dita Charanzová (ALDE). – Madam President, we have now reached the crucial point in negotiations. We all need to know, and especially businesses, under which terms we will be able to cooperate in the future. What is the best scenario? To keep the UK within the internal market to preserve most of the benefits that we have created with the UK together. The fact that the UK refuses that is a fatal mistake. Any other option is simply worse and will build new barriers for EU companies, but also for British companies, and for some businesses, especially SMEs, this new situation will be very hard to cope with.

The worst possible outcome is having absolutely no deal. It would not allow for any transitional period and it would just worsen our mutual relations. It would degrade the EU-UK partnership to a level inferior to what we currently have with Turkey, or even with China, and I do not think either side wishes that.


  Molly Scott Cato (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, as a British MEP I am experiencing both sides of the Brexit negotiations and what makes me really sad is that it is the European side that is active in protecting citizens’ rights and environmental standards, while the Tories are using Brexit to ride roughshod over them.

I noticed this especially in the area of tax, the main area of my work here in Parliament, and where our resolution makes clear that the UK will not achieve a trade deal with the EU unless we match European standards in the fight against tax avoidance and money laundering. So I am glad that my work here on tax won’t be wasted, but I am sad that I must use my role as an MEP to protect these high standards in the UK after Brexit.

The situation is similar with citizens’ rights where my own government did little to defend our interests, as though the one million British people who work in the EU or have European partners or children just don’t matter to them. Brexit is a clear example of ideology triumphing over reason and, as such, it is the epitome of bad government.


  Barbara Spinelli (GUE/NGL). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, nei giorni scorsi Donald Tusk ha detto una cosa giusta ma incompleta: i negoziati sulle relazioni future non possono procedere se il Regno Unito non offre sull'Irlanda del Nord soluzioni che tutelino il "Good Friday Agreement" e i diritti dei nordirlandesi a essere protetti dalla legge dell'Unione.

Di contro, è necessario che il negoziato continui sul tema cruciale della cittadinanza europea, un tema che non può abbandonare le nostre menti. Il "Withdrawal Agreement" deve essere perfezionato entro l'autunno. Né i nordirlandesi, né i cittadini europei in Gran Bretagna, né gli inglesi residenti nell'Unione – in tutto più di 6 milioni – possono tollerare oltre l'ansia in cui vivono. I loro diritti di cittadinanza europea devono essere salvaguardati e recintati ("ring-fenced") in tempo utile e bene. Mai devono essere subordinati ad altri capitoli negoziali.


  Gerard Batten (EFDD). – Madam President, we have had the Commission’s draft withdrawal agreement and we have had Mrs May’s response. The Commission wants unconditional surrender and Mrs May will settle for conditional surrender. The EU referendum was brought about and won by the UK Independence Party, and UKIP’s position is no surrender. When the British people voted to leave, they voted to take back control: no more money to the EU, no more EU laws imposed upon us, no more open borders. Brexit must mean exit.

Our future relationship with the EU will be one of trade, friendship and cooperation, something that UKIP has argued for for the last 25 years. We will not accept subservience to the EU. We want full independence and the return to our former status as an independent, democratic nation state.



  Marcus Pretzell (ENF). – Frau Präsidentin, meine sehr geehrten Damen und Herren! Sie haben in diesem Hause mehrfach vorhergesagt, dass der Brexit für Großbritannien katastrophale Auswirkungen haben würde. Nun, zuallererst ist festzustellen, dass dieser Brexit überhaupt erst stattfinden wird aufgrund des Verhaltens der Europäischen Union und aufgrund des Versuchs, diese Union immer weiter zu vertiefen.

Aber kommen wir zurück zu Ihren Vorhersagen. Dieses neunzehnseitige Papier beschäftigt sich zur Hälfte damit, wie man verhindern kann, dass Großbritannien dieselben Vorteile haben kann wie andere Staaten innerhalb der Europäischen Union. Wenn Großbritannien durch den Austritt auf jeden Fall schlechter gestellt sein wird, warum haben Sie so große Angst davor, dass Großbritannien am Ende besser dastehen wird, wenn Sie es nicht verhindern? Darum geht es Ihnen in dieser Debatte, und es ist unehrlich, diese Debatte auf dieser Grundlage zu führen.

Wir haben gemeinsame Interessen. Wir sollten dafür sorgen, dass wir weiter gemeinsam Handel treiben können. Und das ist mit etwas gutem Willen auch möglich.


  Diane Dodds (NI). – Madam President, this morning we have heard of the European Union’s desire for a close partnership with the UK post—Brexit. Yet there is no spirit of conciliation and compromise, and nowhere is this more evident than in the draft legal text on Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland which this resolution supports. This is aggressive interference in the internal affairs of the United Kingdom. It would be disastrous for Northern Ireland economically. It violates the principle of consent – a core principle of the Belfast Agreement – and it goes well beyond the Belfast Agreement in its north-south proposals. In fact it is a text that no British Prime Minister could agree to. It has achieved the seemingly impossible of uniting the British Parliament against it. Last week my party told Mr Barnier that we wanted practical solutions on the border. These proposals are a very far step away from it.


  Danuta Maria Hübner (PPE). – Madam President, now that we are moving toward the future relationship it becomes even clearer that withdrawal of the UK from the Union is not a one—off event and it didn’t happen as some people believe. It is a lengthy, law—based, law—driven process based on both legal and political grounds with far-reaching consequences for the lives of people. We are all involved – institutions, states, citizens and businesses. Yes, unity remains crucial but also listening to each other. The European Parliament will be providing consent at the end of this process. The Committee on Constitutional Affairs (AFCO) responsible for the institutional consequences of withdrawal and consent procedure will continue to be an open platform for hearings, debates, meetings with experts, citizens, all stakeholders concerned.

We have to remember that we have also Article 8 of the Treaty on European Union according to which the Union shall develop a special relationship with neighbouring countries as close as possible in the interest of all our citizens and businesses and founded on the values of the Union, and characterised by close and peaceful relations based on cooperation.

This week will bring the Withdrawal Agreement, including transition agreed among the EU27, endorsed by the European Parliament. The European Council will decide next week on additional guidelines on the future relationship and we will vote on our expectations regarding the future in tomorrow’s resolution. Hopefully all that will allow us to enter into formal negotiations as soon as possible.

It is true that the clock has not stopped ticking but there is also still time for the UK to rethink the red lines.


  Bernd Lange (S&D). – Frau Präsidentin, Herr Kommissionspräsident, Ratspräsidentschaft! Wenn es so ist, dass Britain ein Drittstaat sein möchte, dann müssen wir auch mit einem Drittstaat vernünftig verhandeln und damit anfangen. Das heißt: Bei der Übergangsregelung müssen wir sicherstellen, dass Großbritannien während der Übergangsregelung keine eigenen Handelsabkommen schließt, dass das level playing field erhalten bleibt – zum Beispiel bei der Frage von regulatorischer Zusammenarbeit oder bei Beihilfen. Außerdem müssen wir anfangen, über einen Handelsvertrag nach der Übergangszeit zu verhandeln, mit den drei Elementen der Frage der Zölle, der Abwicklung von Zöllen und der regulatorischen Kooperation – damit wir uns nicht immer weiter auseinander entwickeln werden – und auch hinsichtlich der Regeln – also Fragen des geistigen Eigentums, der Arbeitnehmerrechte und so weiter. Das alles muss möglichst schnell angepackt werden.

Ich kann die britische Regierung eigentlich nur auffordern, endlich aus dem Reich der Träumerei auf das Reich der Wirklichkeit zu schauen und in substanzielle Verhandlungen einzutreten!


  Zdzisław Krasnodębski (ECR). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Chciałbym przypomnieć, że potrzebujemy Wielkiej Brytanii w tym samym stopniu, w jakim ona potrzebuje nas. Dlatego nasze przyszłe relacje muszą być głębokie i dlatego konieczne są ambitniejsze rozwiązania niż dotychczasowe modele współpracy z państwami trzecimi, zwłaszcza w sferze polityki zagranicznej, bezpieczeństwa i obrony. Powinniśmy skończyć z dążeniem do ukarania Wielkiej Brytanii i wykazać większy realizm w prowadzonych negocjacjach.

Chciałbym powiedzieć jeszcze jedno, o czym koledzy nie mówili. Otóż brexit był i jest także szansą dla Unii, szansą na autorefleksję i reformę, która zmierzałaby do decentralizacji, większej przejrzystości i przywrócenia znaczenia państwom narodowym, a także oparcia Unii na prawdziwych wartościach europejskich. Niestety nic takiego się nie stało i nadal obserwujemy rozrost praktyk, które składały się na rzeczywisty powód i wynik brytyjskiego referendum. Brak przejrzystości w funkcjonowaniu najwyższych władz instytucji, brak ponoszenia odpowiedzialności za popełniane błędy i wykroczenia oraz arogancja w uzasadnianiu tych praktyk.


  Alyn Smith (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, amidst all our talk – quite rightly – about the Single Market and the Customs Union, I think a point worth making is that Scotland voted to remain within our European Union. That is our starting point and that is our domestic issue, but we will be in touch. Don’t forget about Scotland.

But in this debate I’d address my remarks to people outside of this Chamber. To the people in England, the people in the United Kingdom, I say as a friend of both, who voted leave: I get it, your anger is justified, your anger is real; but I assure you, your fight is not with the European Union. You were told, you believed the promises; you were told by serious people like David Davis that there was no downside and a considerable upside to voting leave. Well I tell you, dear friends, this is what the future looks like, and it’s pretty bloody bleak: a diminished UK, a diminished Europe, a poorer citizenry, a poorer society, a poorer economy. Nobody voted to make themselves poorer. There are no unicorns; there are no windmills for every voter; there is no GBP 350 million for the NHS. They lied to you. You were right, you were genuine, to take those promises at face value. But as we get to the end point of this process, we see what the reality is. There is no shame in changing your mind. There is still time to change course.


  Matt Carthy (GUE/NGL). – Madam President, the strength of this resolution on Ireland is to be welcomed. Every month since the Brexit referendum there has been growing support for the Sinn Féin proposal that the north of Ireland acquire special status to prevent a hardening of the border, to protect the Good Friday Agreement and to defend citizens’ rights. Membership of the single market and the customs union for all of Ireland is essential.

The British Government has not presented a single realistic proposal on the Irish border. Their position, dictated by the DUP, is political lunacy that would harm Unionist workers, students, businesses and farmers as much as their Republican counterparts. The back-stop, while not perfect, provides some much-needed certainty. The British Government actually signed up for this in December and, for once, it is time for them to honour their word.

Finally, the Irish people have confirmed, time and time again, that they want to be part of the EU but, like citizens across Europe, they want a social, progressive and democratic EU. The ongoing drive for the further militarisation of Europe, including PESCO, is regressive and undermines the message of solidarity and peace that should be central to this Parliament’s response to Brexit.


  Marcel de Graaff (ENF). – Madam President, the EU should stop its warmongering between Ireland and the UK when it comes to the border with Northern Ireland. The Irish and the British will work it out together as they did before and you very well know that anything the EU touches becomes a filthy mess. Therefore, Mr Juncker, back off and start working on a decent trade deal. A deal without trade with the UK and your already failed project will certainly go bankrupt. So make a deal without protectionism, a deal without tariff barriers, without EU jurisdiction, without full EU rights for EU citizens in the UK, a deal without free movement of people, a deal that fully respects the absolute sovereignty of the United Kingdom. Get on with it or be gone.


  Steven Woolfe (NI). – Madam President, fear, dread, alarm, panic, terror, pain. That is all that you hear, from those on that side of the House, will occur to Britain once we leave the European Union, not the positive message that we have campaigned for: one where Britain will be independent, looking outwardly to the rest of the world and still being friends with the European Union. This paper that you present today is one more attempt at fear, but this fear is to try to shackle Britain and undermine us. The reality is that it is the European Union’s fear of Britain: fear of Britain succeeding, fear of Britain leaving this club and doing well.

But I will tell you that Britain has never feared looking forward to the future. We weren’t in fear when we came to your aid from the times of Nazism to communism. We weren’t fearful when we had to tackle our own economic problems, and we will not live in fear living outside of the European Union. We will embrace it and look forward to a bright future. You ought to learn that lesson now.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 162(8)).


  Doru-Claudian Frunzulică (S&D), blue-card question. – Dear colleague, there are so many ties between the European Union and the UK; the UK and the European Union are so intertwined. Who is going to pay all these costs of Brexit if the UK decides one day to come back to the European Union? Are you, the Brexiteers, going to pay them?


  Steven Woolfe (NI), blue-card answer. – What I will say to you is that Britain will not return to the European Union. What you will find is that more countries will want to leave the European Union. Because when our economy is growing faster than yours, when our regulations are not imposing costs on the small businesses that you have, and when you finally realise that it is politicians and democracy and the people that make the decisions over their lives, not unelected Commissioners, then you will see that more of Europe will want to leave and join Brexit as well.


  György Schöpflin (PPE). – Madam President, a key aspect of Brexit is the future relationship between the European Union and the United Kingdom after the latter has become a third state. The auguries are not encouraging. The Brexit vote has brought to the surface the very deep divisions in the UK. These are not new, but they have acquired saliency following the Brexit vote.

The first such division is deeply ideological – that between the intransigent Brexiteers and the committed remainers. There is no common ground here. Then there are the cracks in what holds the country together. How United really are England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland? How much are they desirous of remaining in the same state and, if so, on what terms? There is a crisis in the British constitution.

Finally, there’s the centre-periphery problem. You probably all know this. London and the south-east, well that’s a powerhouse, but the further north one goes, the weaker things are economically, in terms of status, aspirations and power. That’s the way that peripheries work.

Without a redistribution of power, of goods and status – status above all – the crisis of the United Kingdom will persist. And that signifies that the United Kingdom will be an uneasy partner for the European Union.


  Pervenche Berès (S&D). – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Président, l’union douanière et le marché intérieur sont aujourd’hui derrière nous dans la relation avec le Royaume-Uni, puisque ce pays ne nous laisse manifestement que l’accord d’association comme voie possible de la future relation. Il faut être clair. Cela signifie que le régime du passeport n’existe plus et que nous rentrons dans celui de l’équivalence, dans lequel la question de la proportionnalité, bien sûr, devra être intégrée, mais l’équivalence – rappelons-le – est une décision unilatérale de l’Union européenne.

D’une certaine manière, il faut que nous ayons tous conscience que, à travers ce nouvel accord d’association à négocier avec le Royaume-Uni, nous serons un peu en situation de cobayes, car nous voyons bien que les nouvelles données d’un accord d’association ont changé. Les accords commerciaux – nous le savons – ont évolué, pas uniquement parce que c’est le Royaume-Uni. La question du règlement des différends et de la prise en compte des questions fiscales sont des éléments nouveaux que nous testerons, d’une certaine manière, malheureusement, dans cet accord avec le Royaume-Uni.

Un dernier mot pour dire que nous devons intégrer pleinement, dans cette négociation, l’effet sur les pays tiers, car ceux-ci voudraient parfois continuer à entretenir une relation avec l’Union européenne comme si le Brexit n’avait pas lieu. Or, il aura un impact dont nous devons tenir compte.


  John Flack (ECR). – Madam President, let us negotiate as equals. Do not try and bully us. We are not Norway or Canada: we have almost double the population of Canada and ten times that of Norway. We are a true world power. We offer Europe friendship and cooperation, but be of no doubt: there will be an independent, free, prosperous British lion off your shores.

You will not chain us. Do not be fooled by political has-beens coming from the UK, like Blair and Clegg, desperate for publicity, acting as some sort of third column trying to stop Brexit or, worse still, agree a deal that will leave the UK so weak we come back, cap-in-hand, in decades to come. Be of no doubt: that will not happen. We are offering you tens of billions of pounds in aid, to plug the holes in your budget, just as my father and grandfather endured rationing in order that food could be sent to a starving mainland. We are your friends – your powerful friends – but do not push us too far.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 162(8))


  Alyn Smith (Verts/ALE), blue-card question. – Thank you, Mr Flack, for giving way and taking the blue card. May I congratulate you for being the very first United Kingdom Conservative to actually contribute to this debate today. Does it not strike you as strange that, of all your colleagues, who are acting as the midwife to the Brexit vote – we have heard plenty from the Brexiteers, the charlatans, the shysters, the useful idiots today – you are the first United Kingdom Conservative – the Government of the United Kingdom – to actually speak today? Do you not think you could have said something more than warm words, flannel and nonsense?



  John Flack (ECR), blue-card answer. – You consider the offer of friendship and cooperation bad words – that’s what the British Conservatives and the British people are offering. The British Conservatives sit here as part of a very large and powerful ECR Group. We are a diverse group with diverse views.


  President. – Excuse me, I can see you. There is no need to wave your arms like you’re swimming. I can see you.


I think we need to reflect on this moment. It is an internal UK issue so I will allow you a point of order if it is a point of order, but I will be strict if it is not. You have been warned. Thank you.


  William (The Earl of) Dartmouth (EFDD). – Madam President, most people in the chair are not as observant as you, so may I congratulate you on that. Can I ask Mr Smith to please withdraw his remarks on Brexiteers? They are unparliamentary and demean this Parliament.


  President. – Mr Woolfe, are you also looking to speak?


  Steven Woolfe (NI). – Madam President, as a point of order on parliamentary language, I would ask Mr Smith to withdraw the use of the word ‘shyster’. As someone of Jewish heritage, he should be fully aware and understand the power of that term and how demeaning it actually is.


  David Campbell Bannerman (ECR). – Madam President, when Mr Smith was speaking, I raised my green card and you ignored it. Are you being fair in this debate? You have been very vocal about the Irish border in the media. Can I please green card Mr Smith about that? It was relevant to the point he made.


  President. – Excuse me colleagues, allow me to answer. Thank you, colleagues. First of all, I chair this session totally, as Chair, and I did not see your card, whatever colour it was, so you have to respect my bona fides...

(Interjection from Mr Campbell Bannerman: ‘It is this colour, and your staff did, Madam President ... sorry.’)

Thank you for the apology. I am trying to keep order in this debate, which is a very important debate for all our citizens. If you were looking for a blue card during a blue-card procedure, then I will have to ask the services what we can do in that regard. But I don’t ignore anybody. If I don’t see them myself, I hope my services do and I hope the House accepts that.

You can speak when the microphone is on, sir, not when it is not, so bear with me for a moment.

I take note of the comments from other colleagues. I will not allow Mr Smith to respond because it will simply become a very debased debate, so let us move on to our next speaker, and I will consult the services on your point.


  Jill Evans (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, ‘I am European’ is the title of a campaign that my party, Plaid Cymru (the Party of Wales), launched last week calling for people to have the ability to retain their EU citizenship after the UK leaves the EU. The petition received more than 5 000 signatures in just the first few days. Last Wednesday, the House of Commons debated and backed a Plaid Cymru motion on this.

No one has the right to strip people of their citizenship against their will. That’s the view of many legal experts but that’s what will happen unless there is action now, and it’s a question of political will.

I welcome the fact that this resolution again proposes that the EU27 examine how to mitigate the loss of rights of UK citizens, and I urge the Commission and the Council to recognise that for many, their European citizenship is also an essential part of their identity.


  Luke Ming Flanagan (GUE/NGL). – Madam President, Ireland finds itself in an unenviable position, caught between two large powers, neither of whom history tells us we can trust. We were bullied for years by Britain, then bullied by the EU on Lisbon and Nice, bullied again on bank debt. It is because of this, I believe that Ireland needs a seat on Michel Barnier’s negotiating team. It is only in this scenario, can we get the best possible deal for Ireland both North and South.

We hear support from Donald Tusk, support from Manfred Weber, so they tell us, but I hope it isn’t just support because it suits them now, because we didn’t get support from you in the past.

During these negotiations we’ve got to be pragmatic. We’ve got to work together. We’ve got to protect citizens' rights. We need to be positive. Statements such as you ‘will regret it’ from Mr Juncker, I hope you mean that from the point of view of you won’t make them regret it, but you think they will regret it, because we need this to work out.

I’d like to hear more positive stuff as we heard from Mr Gualtieri that we need to reduce the negative impact as much as possible. We need this to work. We need you all to grow up, stop fighting and support people.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 162(8))


  President. – Just to respond to Mr Campbell Bannerman. Apparently I had given the floor to another speaker before the services saw your blue card, so let there be no doubt about my commitment to fairness in the Chair, and I hope you accept that. Secondly, Mr Flanagan, there is a blue-card request from Mr Rübig. Will you accept it?


  Paul Rübig (PPE), Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte“. –Frau Präsidentin! Wir haben zurecht erkannt, dass es bei einem hard Brexit umso mehr Probleme in Irland geben wird. Können Sie sich vorstellen, dass wir auch im Finanzrahmen der Europäischen Union Vorkehrungen treffen, damit wir im Falle, dass die Konflikte in Irland zu noch größeren Verlusten führen werden, als es sich derzeit darstellt, Irland eine dementsprechende Unterstützung geben können, damit die Katastrophe dort nicht so ausartet, wie wir heute befürchten?


  Luke Ming Flanagan (GUE/NGL), blue-card answer. – Madam President, it will cost Ireland financially and we do need support. In that context, I would ask the European Union and the ECB to stop Ireland borrowing and burning money that the ECB is forcing us to do. Last year we borrowed EUR 4 billion at the behest of the ECB and we burned it into thin air. If the EU is to prove solidarity towards Ireland and that it is our friend at a time when the ECB were engaged in quantitative easing, they’ve got to stop forcing us to get involved in quantitative squeezing.


  Jeroen Lenaers (PPE). – Madam President, in recent months, Mr Juncker, Mr Tusk and Mr Barnier have sounded more and more like the Spice Girls – please, UK, tell us what you want, what you really, really want – because it has been 627 days since the referendum and we have mostly heard from the UK about what they do not want. Somehow, a very narrow referendum result has led to a blueprint for a hard Brexit, where the UK cannot stay in the single market, cannot stay in the customs union, cannot have a customs union and cannot have a Norway- or a Canada-style deal.

Ms May wants to take back control of laws, money and borders, but at the same time, she speaks of the most comprehensive trade deal ever with frictionless trade and no border in Ireland. Where is the sense of reality?

Her speech last week was an opportunity, after two years, to provide and to paint a realistic picture. Instead Ms May again limited herself to empty slogans, carefully drafted to hold together a divided Cabinet and a divided Tory party, still desperately trying to present Brexit as a win-win situation while asking for many more cakes to have and eat and many more cherries to pick. I am glad that this House today states that that is a completely unacceptable position. It is time for Ms May to stop confusing the Brexit negotiations with Conservative Party management and to start developing a credible and serious negotiating position. Let’s get on with that.


  Mercedes Bresso (S&D). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, vorrei tornare sulla proposta che il Parlamento fa di utilizzare la formula dello statuto di associazione per definire le relazioni con il Regno Unito. L'esperienza della Commissione con la Svizzera ci dice che la molteplicità degli accordi bilaterali è francamente impossibile e difficilissima da gestire. Quindi credo che questa sarebbe una buona proposta.

Mi interesserebbe capire quindi dal nostro negoziatore Michel Barnier come la vede, se secondo lui è possibile e in quale contesto, con che dimensioni, in che modalità pensa che potrebbe applicarsi, in particolare ad esempio rispetto all'ipotesi di una commissione bilaterale che gestisca poi tutta la questione della governance e degli accordi fatti.

In secondo luogo, vorrei anche chiedergli a che punto sono le negoziazioni sullo status dei cittadini europei e britannici dopo l'uscita del Regno Unito. Noi finora ci siamo occupati soprattutto di quelli che sono oggi là, ma cosa succederà successivamente?


  Ruža Tomašić (ECR). – Gospođo predsjednice, pregovori o novim odnosima Europske unije i Ujedinjene Kraljevine složeniji su od svih dosadašnjih pregovora Unije s globalnim partnerima. Znali smo da će to biti tako i žao mi vidjeti da su obje strane u taj proces ušle nepripremljene.

Ujedinjena Kraljevina, s jedne strane, još uvijek oblikuje svoje želje i ambicije u jednoj unutarnjopolitičkoj borbi, dok je EU, s druge strane, raspet između potrebe za kvalitetnim trgovinskim sporazumom s vrlo bliskim partnerom i želje establišmenta da se Britance kazni za primjer drugima.

Danas su obje strane još uvijek ostale na istoj točki. Ujedinjena Kraljevina članica je Unije i u potpunosti usklađena s EU27. I nakon Brexita ona će ostati država s istim vrijednostima i jakim demokratskim institucijama, i, nemojte zaboraviti, u kojoj živi više milijuna Europljana.

Ako između ovih dvoje partnera ne može biti dogovora, onda je jasno da se radi ili o nedostatku želje ili o nesposobnosti pregovarača.


  Γεώργιος Κύρτσος (PPE). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, για το μπρέξιτ είμαι ταυτόχρονα απαισιόδοξος και αισιόδοξος. Είμαι απαισιόδοξος γιατί θεωρώ ότι η συντηρητική κυβέρνηση του Ηνωμένου Βασιλείου έχει δυσκολίες να το διαχειριστεί και αυτό έχει σχέση και με την ιστορία του συντηρητικού κόμματος. Να θυμηθούμε ότι η Θάτσερ αμφισβητήθηκε από τους φιλοευρωπαίους, ο Μέιτζορ αμφισβητήθηκε από τους αντιευρωπαίους και ο Κάμερον οδηγήθηκε σε προσωπικό πολιτικό αδιέξοδο στην προσπάθειά του να απαντήσει στην πρόκληση του UKIP, την αντιευρωπαϊκή πρόκληση.

Επομένως κατανοώ τις πολιτικές δυσκολίες –είναι διαχρονικές– και αυτό αναδεικνύει και τον σωστό ρόλο που παίζει ο κ. Barnier με τους συνεργάτες του, δηλαδή κάνουν μια σωστή, δύσκολη, έντιμη, αποτελεσματική διαπραγμάτευση σε ένα πολύ δύσκολο πολιτικό περιβάλλον και νομίζω ότι, αν θέλουμε να ψάξουμε μία ευρωπαϊκή προσωπικότητα γύρω από την οποία μπορεί να ενωθούμε εδώ, αυτή είναι ο κ. Barnier, αντί να ψάχνουμε άλλα παραδείγματα τα οποία είναι λιγότερο φωτεινά.

Από την άλλη, είμαι αισιόδοξος, γιατί θεωρώ ότι το τελικό αποτέλεσμα της διαπραγμάτευσης δεν θα είναι ικανοποιητικό, επομένως η δυναμική του μπρέξιτ θα σπάσει και η δυναμική του remain –γιατί αυξάνονται οι υποστηρικτές του remain στο Ηνωμένο Βασίλειο αλλά δεν έχουν βέβαια πολιτική έκφραση– θα ενισχυθεί. Γι’ αυτό λοιπόν θέλω να είμαστε με ανοιχτό μυαλό και ανοιχτή αγκαλιά έναντι των φίλων του Ηνωμένου Βασιλείου, γιατί, απ’ ό,τι έχω μάθει στην πολιτική και στη ζωή, ποτέ μη λες «ποτέ».


  Nicola Danti (S&D). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, Presidente Juncker, ogni giorno che passa, tutto ciò che sembrava semplice appare maledettamente più complicato, e conciliare l'uscita dall'Unione europea e il mantenimento dei benefici collegati è sempre più difficile, a meno di non minare l'idea stessa di Europa. Questo dilemma emerge in tutta la sua portata quando affrontiamo il tema del mercato unico, dove non c'è spazio per soluzioni fantasiose, come disse il primo ministro May, e non c'è spazio per soluzioni à la carte.

Dopo due anni dal referendum e dopo un anno dall'avvio dei negoziati, abbiamo bisogno adesso di risposte chiare da parte del governo inglese. Le domande sono semplici: mercato unico: sì o no? Unione doganale: sì o no? Accordo commerciale: quale? Una risposta definitiva a queste domande è la premessa per poter finalmente arrivare a definire una strategia di fruttuosa collaborazione per le future relazioni.

Una cosa è chiara, signor Presidente: per l'Europa la protezione e l'integrità del mercato unico, frutto di decenni di costruzione faticosa, non può essere messa in discussione.


  James Nicholson (ECR). – Madam President, two weeks ago the Commission published its draft withdrawal agreement containing proposals on Northern Ireland that, at best, show a disregard of the Belfast Agreement and the principle of consent. At worst, they read as an attempt to use Brexit to pull Northern Ireland away from the rest of the United Kingdom.

Then last week, Leo Varadkar and Donald Tusk chose to dismiss the Prime Minister’s reasonable call between Brussels, Dublin and London on border issues. This kind of attitude is putting strain on relationships and risks hardening opinions on all sides. I would say to Mr Tusk that you are playing a high-stakes game with the United Kingdom, and with Northern Ireland in particular. You are in serious danger of overplaying your hand.

We want and need solutions that avoid a hard border and respect the constitutional integrity of the United Kingdom and the Belfast Agreement. We can only do that if we all work together.


  Gunnar Hökmark (PPE). – Madam President, when our own mini-Trump, Mr Farage, claims here in this plenary that the European Union is bullying the United Kingdom, it is his way of informing us that he now understands the consequences of Brexit. He understands that when you are leaving the internal market, you’re leaving it. When you are leaving the common legislation, you are leaving it. When you are leaving the cooperation for security, you are leaving it.

I must say it doesn’t take a mathematician to understand the consequences of that. But he now understands and blames European Union for his propaganda. That is as Trump as you can get.

We need to be more grown up than that. The European Union, the European Parliament and the Commission – we are of course a part of the negotiations, but we must be more than that. We must take responsibility for Europe as such, for what is best for Europe; what is best for the United Kingdom, in spite of a disoriented government and political establishment; what is best for the remaining countries, and what is best for all of us regarding the economy, financial markets and security. Let’s have that in mind. We are not only part of the negotiations, we are responsible for the future of Europe.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 162(8))


  William (The Earl of) Dartmouth (EFDD), blue-card question. – First of all, thank you very much for taking the Blue Card. I have one very simple question, which is: on the basis of what you said, and which attracted a great deal of support, will the European Parliament in your opinion – I am asking you to make a prediction – vote in favour of any agreement that is reached between the European Commission, the European Council and the British Government? Do you think that the European Parliament will vote in favour of it or vote against it?


  Gunnar Hökmark (PPE), blue-card answer. – Dear colleague, I would like to inform you about democracy. The whole idea of democracy is that things are not decided on before. It is decided when you decide, based upon what you decide on and based upon what you think about that decision. That is the parliamentary system in the United Kingdom, and that is the parliamentary system of this Parliament.


  Josef Weidenholzer (S&D). – Frau Präsidentin! Es ist nicht leicht vorherzusagen, wie dieses traurige Brexit-Theater ausgehen wird. Nicht einmal für uns, die wir uns regelmäßig damit beschäftigen, und schon gar nicht für die unmittelbar Betroffenen – Millionen Menschen, über drei Millionen Bürger aus EU-Staaten in Großbritannien und über eine Million Briten außerhalb des Königreichs. Sie verfolgt diese Frage bis in den Schlaf, ihre Zukunft ist ungewiss. Sie fühlen, dass sie Verhandlungsmasse sind, und fürchten, dass sie am Ende des Prozesses zur Verschubmasse werden können. Fast 4,5 Millionen Menschen – viele Mitgliedstaaten haben weniger Einwohner – sind davon betroffen. Sie haben ihre Entscheidungen im Vertrauen auf den Fortbestand von Rechtsnormen getroffen. Sie brauchen klare Entscheidungen und keine Ungewissheiten.

Als europäische Parlamentarier werden wir alles tun, um zu garantieren, dass Recht Recht bleibt. Die Rechte aus der Unionsbürgerschaft bedürfen unserer besonderen Aufmerksamkeit. Ich kann mir nicht vorstellen, einem Brexit-Deal zu Lasten der Bürgerrechte zuzustimmen, und da bin ich mir mit vielen Kolleginnen und Kollegen einig.


  Tom Vandenkendelaere (PPE). – Voorzitter, het is duidelijk dat elke stap die we nemen in deze onderhandelingen meer vragen met zich meebrengen, en dat aan beide kanten van het Kanaal.

Dat is zeker het geval voor een groep mensen die tot nu toe, en onterecht, onderbelicht bleef: onze vissers. De vissers in Vlaanderen hebben het moeilijk. Ze willen nieuwe investeringen aangaan, maar krijgen daarbij, door Europese regels, geen steun van de Unie. En net nu wordt één van hun grootste factoren voor bedrijfszekerheid in vraag gesteld. Velen onder hen vissen op basis van historische rechten en afspraken in Britse wateren. En ze doen dat met respect voor het milieu en met respect voor geldende regels.

Of we het nu willen of niet, de visserij maakt onvermijdelijk deel uit van deze onderhandelingen. Het is daarom cruciaal dat in onze nieuwe relatie met het Verenigd Koninkrijk op het vlak van de visserij heldere afspraken worden gemaakt. Eerst en vooral moet het gaan over het in stand houden van de visbestanden. Vissen stoppen, ook na de brexit, niet met zwemmen aan de grens tussen de Britse en de Europese wateren. Maar het belangrijkste punt is het volgende. Voor die bedrijfszekerheid van de Vlaamse maar ook Britse vissers is het belangrijk dat die toegang tot elkaars wateren zoals deze vandaag bestaat, verzekerd kan blijven. En daarnaast moet er een duidelijke link bestaan tussen toekomstige visserijakkoorden en de nieuwe relatie met het Verenigd Koninkrijk, zoals die door onderhandelingen tot stand gaat komen. Zo niet, collega's, – vergeef mij de metafoor – dreigen we in verraderlijk vaarwater verzeild te raken, en dat mogen en kunnen we onze vissers niet aandoen.


  Agnes Jongerius (S&D). – Voorzitter, we praten vaak over brexit als een technisch gegeven, maar ik wil hier nog één keer benadrukken: het gaat over mensen en de gevolgen voor diezelfde mensen.

Na TTIP hebben we afgesproken dat handelsverdragen nooit mogen leiden tot verwatering van EU—normen en EU—standaarden. Dat geldt dus ook voor het toekomstige handelsverdrag met de Britten. Dus, goede handhaving bijvoorbeeld op het stuk van voedselveiligheid en milieunormen. Ook willen we garanties dat het VK zich niet gaat ontwikkelen tot een handelspartner die onze sociale standaarden onder druk zet en fiscale dumping stimuleert. Anders zijn het de Europese werknemers die het slachtoffer worden van hun politieke beslissingen.

Bij CETA hebben we afgesproken dat we naar hogere standaarden streven door samenwerking op het gebied van regelgeving. Alleen als de Britten hier ook voor gaan, kan dat leiden tot een duurzame en vruchtbare handelsrelatie.


  Othmar Karas (PPE). – Frau Präsidentin, Herr Kommissionspräsident, lieber Michel Barnier! Ich möchte mich zuerst einmal bei den beiden Herren Juncker und Barnier bedanken, vor allem bei Michel Barnier, mit welch ruhiger Hand, Konsequenz, Kompetenz, Objektivität und Ernsthaftigkeit er diese Verhandlungen leitet und führt.


Eine Ernsthaftigkeit, die mir bei der Premierministerin des Vereinigten Königreiches abgeht. Sie meint noch immer, dass sie so etwas wie einen warmen Eislutscher verhandeln muss. Großbritannien soll den Binnenmarkt und die Zollunion verlassen, aber alle Vorzüge behalten. Das ist ausgeschlossen! Das ist unmöglich!

Ich möchte noch einen zweiten Punkt einbringen: Wir müssen die Brexit-Erfahrungen auch dazu nutzen, die europäische Demokratie weiterzuentwickeln. Der Brexit zeigt uns neuerlich, wie die Referenden über den Verfassungsvertrag, dass nationaler Populismus, parteitaktische Spielchen, persönliche Eitelkeiten und eine Stimmungsdemokratie den Menschen im eigenen Land schaden können, aber auch allen Menschen in der Europäischen Union Schaden zufügen können. 4,6 % Prozent aller EU-Bürgerinnen und --Bürger haben direkt oder indirekt über alle 508 Millionen EU-Bürgerinnen und -Bürger entschieden. Das halte ich nicht für demokratisch. Das ist der europäischen Demokratie nicht angemessen. Es ist notwendig, auch darüber EU-weit zu diskutieren und die europäische Demokratie weiterzuentwickeln.


  Bogusław Liberadzki (S&D). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Panie Przewodniczący Juncker!-Panie Barnier! Chciałem nawiązać do Pana wystąpienia. Trzy momenty szczególnie przypadły mi do gustu. Pierwszy: metodyczne podejście, drugi: transparentność procesu i wreszcie pozytywna ocena dotychczasowej pracy pana Michela Barnier. To są punkty, co do których nie powinniśmy tutaj wyrażać żadnych wątpliwości. Kolejna rzecz. Trzy opcje i w tym opcja: specjalne porozumienie czy rozwiązanie dla Wielkiej Brytanii. Uważam, że jest to naprawdę bardzo daleko idące wyjście naprzeciw. Drugie to wypowiedź pana Roberto Guevary, który zwrócił uwagę na to, że, po pierwsze, nie ma kompetentnej odpowiedzi ze strony rządu Wielkiej Brytanii, po drugie, żeby traktować ludzi lepiej niż towary. Ale za rok, dokładnie za rok, 29 marca 2019 r. brexit może się zdarzyć. Jestem pytany przez przewoźników drogowych, w jaki sposób będą wjeżdżać do Wielkiej Brytanii 30 marca 2019 r., a jest to 4 tys. wjazdów na dobę.


  Marietje Schaake (ALDE). – Madam President, time is running out. The UK Government is encouraged and, actually, urged to make and articulate choices on the future trade relations. Political promises cannot remain vague and contradictory forever. For us, a level playing field is essential. We should not make concessions when it comes to high standards or compromises on the unity of our single market, but it is time for a reality check in London: special trade privileges are only negotiable when the United Kingdom also accepts overarching rules and standards. Yet the UK’s many red lines only lead to one thing: there will be hurdles and friction when it comes to trade, and that negatively impacts citizens, small and medium-sized enterprises and, of course, many other companies.

A solid future relation does not magically emerge on the basis of speeches. I therefore urge Prime Minister May to come up with a realistic proposal about the trade relations she does want for her country after Brexit in relation to the European Union.


  Terry Reintke (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, as this process unfolds, we can all clearly see what the biggest lie was during the Brexit campaign. It was not a bus that was claiming that that there would be GBP 350 million for the NHS, it was not the wrong statistics given or the wrong representations of the European Union; it was the claim itself that was a lie – taking back control – because as we see Brexit develop, we see that it does the exact opposite. Millions of citizens – non-British and British EU citizens – are losing control over their lives. They are losing control over the possibilities that they have in their lives. We see the people on the island of Ireland losing control over the peace process which they thought was going in the right direction. We need to say very clearly that when this is going to unfold, when we are going to lose control, who is going to win from this? It is going to be the bullies, it is going to be the people with no scruples. This Parliament has to make sure that the good people are not going to lose control, that we stand up for their rights, that we stand up for them having control over their lives, even in this very horrible situation.




Procedura "catch-the-eye"


  Francisco José Millán Mon (PPE). – Señor presidente, quiero empezar expresando el deseo de que podamos encontrar entre la Unión Europea y el Reino Unido una asociación futura estrecha, equilibrada y mutuamente beneficiosa que nos permita afrontar de forma coordinada muchos retos que nos son comunes. Yo quiero insistir en una materia en la que debemos seguir cooperando estrechamente, como ya lo ha mencionado el señor Vandenkendelaere.

Desde hace mucho tiempo, pescadores europeos pescan en aguas británicas y en su zona económica exclusiva y, recíprocamente, buques británicos faenan en aguas y en las zonas económicas exclusivas de los Estados miembros. Esto debe seguir siendo así y, para ello, deberemos alcanzar un acuerdo específico de pesca.

También deben proseguir los intercambios de productos de la pesca. Alrededor del 67 % de las exportaciones británicas de pesca y mariscos se destinan a los mercados europeos.

Espero que estos flujos comerciales se mantengan, pero, para ello, tiene que mantenerse también el acceso recíproco a las aguas: los peces no conocen fronteras; la gestión de los stocks de pesca que compartimos también debe efectuarse en estrecha coordinación.

La pesca es un ámbito en el que tendremos que alcanzar una relación futura constructiva, mutuamente beneficiosa. El acceso a aguas y el acceso a mercados deben estar estrechamente vinculados.


  Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). – Señor presidente, han transcurrido ya dos años desde aquel desdichado referéndum en el que se puso de manifiesto —y no por primera vez— un error trágico perpetrado por un gobernante europeo: pretender frenar el populismo y la eurofobia, tan representados en esta Cámara, abrazando sus banderas.

Pero el daño está hecho. Muchos no lo deseábamos. Y lo que hemos visto, a pesar de la complejidad y de la oscuridad que traslucen muchos de los debates sobre el seguimiento del brexit, es que la opinión pública europea, que no lo deseaba, ya se ha hecho a la idea. Pero esto contrasta con la confusión reinante en la posición británica: ninguna claridad en relación con Irlanda del Norte, con Gibraltar —territorios que, por cierto, votaron en contra del brexit— y, sobre todo, preocupación en torno a los acuerdos de aviación comercial por parte de compañías participadas por capital británico.

Por eso son enormemente exigibles, señor Barnier, claridad, resolución y determinación, porque el tiempo corre en nuestra contra y el reloj de arena nos señala el tiempo de caducidad de la negociación. El momento de llevarla a cabo es ahora. El reloj de arena corre en nuestra contra.


  David Campbell Bannerman (ECR). – Mr President, I just want to say briefly in this debate that I am disappointed that none of the realities of the UK leaving have really been touched upon from the EU point of view, such as the fact that the UK will become the largest single market of the EU when we leave – bigger than China, the United States and Japan, for example. We have a GBP 75 billion deficit with the EU of your goods, and we employ 1.5 million Germans through cars, etc. The City of London is very important in funding EU businesses. I have heard none of this today.

What we need is a super Canada deal, one that is bigger, better and deeper than the one with Canada – which is entirely achievable – and a strategic partnership agreement on foreign affairs, defence and security. I thank Mr Verhofstadt for his support for the UK in respect of the dreadful attack on our soil. When it comes to security, we are as one.


  Catherine Bearder (ALDE). – Mr President, this Brexit Government still has no plan: no plan on Northern Ireland, no plan for its citizens, and no plan for businesses. No clear plan is a dereliction of duty. The Church Times wrote, and I quote: ‘when a government sees an impending threat to the people in its care, it fails in its duty if does nothing to remove that threat’. Ms May and her Conservative Government are failing in their duty of care to the country. As the so-called ‘party of business’, it would appear they have no business plan. You can’t run a corner shop without a business plan, let alone a country.

The single market has massive benefits, but it also has rules. This resolution is clear about those rules, and it is reasonable to defend them. But whatever the deal might be, we as the Liberal Democrats demand the people have a say on it. We here will have a vote. It’s likely the Parliament of Wallonia will have a vote. As my hashtag says, #giveusasayMrsMay.


  Ana Miranda (Verts/ALE). – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur Barnier, on vous a connu en tant que commissaire à la politique régionale et vous savez bien ce que sont la pêche et la politique de cohésion. Nous voudrions bien savoir si la Commission européenne – comme nous vous l’avons déjà demandé il y a un an – a fait une étude d’impact sur la pêche européenne et notamment en ce qui concerne la Galice, étant donné que la Galice est un pays de pêcheurs qui sera durement touché par les conséquences du Brexit. Nous voudrions bien aussi connaître l’impact sur la libre circulation des personnes. De nombreux jeunes de mon pays ont émigré au Royaume-Uni et nous ne savons pas ce qu’il adviendra d’eux en tant que citoyens de l’Union. Ils sont dans une impasse. Il ne s’agit pas que d’une ou deux personnes; plus de 40 000 personnes originaires de Galice vivent au Royaume-Uni.


  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL). – Senhor Presidente, os povos devem ter o direito de decidir de forma soberana os seus destinos, incluindo no que se refere à saída da União Europeia. Esta decisão deve ser respeitada e o sequente processo negocial deve ser isento de pressões, de ameaças e de chantagens.

Reiteramos aqui que o acordo de saída do Reino Unido da União Europeia não deve redundar num enfraquecimento das normas relativas aos direitos dos trabalhadores migrantes nem de outros direitos sociais, designadamente o direito de residência, o direito à igualdade de tratamento, o direito de acesso a serviços públicos de cuidados de saúde e de educação, o direito à transferibilidade das prestações de segurança social, o direito ao reagrupamento familiar e o reconhecimento mútuo das habilitações académicas e das qualificações profissionais.

Qualquer futuro acordo económico e comercial entre o Reino Unido e a União Europeia deve ter em conta as especificidades e os interesses dos diferentes Estados-Membros, e cada Estado-Membro deve ter o direito de estabelecer relações com o Reino Unido nas mais diversas áreas, de acordo com os seus interesses próprios.


  Mairead McGuinness (PPE). – Mr President, I dare say there are a few in this House that put a few bob on the horses and we should acknowledge that the Cheltenham Festival is today. There might be a few people there discussing Brexit because actually Brexit will damage the horse—racing industry because it relies on EU rules, and I dare say Mr Farage might be interested in that. This is a huge concern for punters, for breeders, for trainers, and we need to find a solution.

Can I also address Prime Minister Theresa May directly? When she spoke in her speech about a precious union of the United Kingdom, I get that. I fully understand it. But, can I say that the European Union is also precious? Not in the way that sometimes precious is perceived; it’s important, it’s vital, and therefore that’s why we defend it.

Can I say that one of the big hurdles we face, continuing the racing metaphor, is that of the border with Northern Ireland? Jim Nicholson has left the Chamber, but he’s a wise man and he, in my view, is a bridge between the extremes of Sinn Fein and the DUP. Perhaps we should listen to him.


  John Howarth (S&D). – Mr President, as the resolution recognises, the logical consequences of the UK Conservative Government’s red lines are customs checks and delays at Dover and elsewhere, which will seriously impact the supply chains not only of UK businesses, but also businesses in the EU27. Theresa May’s red lines have boxed the UK into a corner, with a free trade agreement now the only option. This will be damaging for the EU and a disaster for the United Kingdom. Whitehall’s own assessment of the impact makes for bleak reading. If the UK ends up with only a free trade agreement, it can expected a GDP drop of 5% nationally, including in my South-East constituency. Under WTO rules, which the likes of UKIP want, that would be even worse.

None of this seems to bother the UK Conservatives, who seem to have abandoned UK business entirely, but it will not be their wealthy chums who suffer from this. It will be ordinary people. It is high time this government dropped its red lines and negotiated with an open mind.


  Arne Gericke (ECR). – Herr Präsident! Wir diskutieren hier und heute Leitlinien für die zukünftigen Beziehungen zwischen der EU und dem Vereinigten Königreich. Das ist wichtig. Allerdings sage ich Ihnen auch: Wenn ich bei mir zu Hause auf den Marktplatz gehe oder am Stammtisch bin, dann diskutieren die Menschen dort nicht, wie es wohl mit dem Vereinigten Königreich weitergehen wird. Was die Menschen von der Kommission erwarten, ist eine Lösung für die EU-27 der Zukunft, vor allem eine finanzielle Lösung. Und auch da ist der Volksmund sehr klar: „Wir zahlen keinen Cent mehr, wir zahlen eh schon genug.“ Leider kommt diese Botschaft in Brüssel nicht an.

Ein Drittel der Brexit-Lücke, sagt Kommissar Oettinger, soll Deutschland füllen – drei bis vier Milliarden Euro mehr pro Jahr. Schon heute zahlen wir 13 Milliarden Euro mehr, als wir bekommen. Plus vier macht 17, dividiert durch 82 Millionen macht 208 Euro pro Kopf. Deshalb mein Appell in dieser Runde: Finden wir eine Lösung für den Haushalt, diskutieren wir auch Leitlinien für die Beziehungen zwischen der EU und ihren Bürgern!


(Fine della procedura "catch-the-eye")


  Michel Barnier, négociateur en chef pour le Brexit. – Monsieur le Président Tajani, Monsieur le Président Juncker, je vous remercie de me permettre de m’exprimer au terme de ce débat, que nous avons évidemment écouté avec beaucoup d’attention.

Madame la Ministre, Mesdames et Messieurs les députés, je suis heureux de vous retrouver pour faire le point. Les citoyens britanniques, dans leur majorité, ont choisi souverainement de quitter l’Union européenne. C’est un choix que nous regrettons, c’est un choix que nous respectons. Désormais, nous le mettons en œuvre. Brexit means Brexit.

Mais à ce stade, je voudrais dire deux choses, préalablement, que tout le monde, ici et ailleurs, doit bien comprendre et garder en mémoire. D’abord, à propos du Royaume-Uni, qui a choisi de quitter l’Union: nous avons eu, j’ai toujours eu, et nous garderons jusqu’au bout, en toute hypothèse et en toutes circonstances, pour ce pays – sa culture, son peuple, son histoire, solidaire de la nôtre dans les moments les plus tragiques, sa diplomatie –, le respect qui est dû à un grand pays, un pays ami et un pays allié.

Ensuite, il est important que tout le monde comprenne que, dans cette négociation extraordinaire, complexe, extraordinairement complexe, notre responsabilité, la vôtre, celle du Conseil et, évidemment, celle de la Commission sous l’autorité du président Juncker, notre responsabilité est de préserver, pour l’avenir et pour le long terme, ce que nous sommes, notre Union, nos valeurs, notre identité, notre marché unique, nos politiques communes. Rien de cela, Mesdames et Messieurs les députés, rien de tout cela n’est négociable, et nous en sommes responsables.

Chaque jour – juste un mot un peu personnel dans la mission qui m’a été confiée, au tout début, par le président Juncker, et que vous accompagnez, Mesdames et Messieurs –, je garde en tête une phrase d’un homme d’État français que je respectais beaucoup, Pierre Mendès France, qui disait, dans un discours, «Ne jamais sacrifier l’avenir au présent». Tout à l’heure, M. Hökmark et Mme McGuinness ont dit cela aussi avec beaucoup de force.

Au moment où nous sommes dans cette négociation, au terme de ce débat, je veux partager avec vous trois messages. D’abord, nous devons mettre les choses dans le bon ordre, comme nous l’avons fait depuis le début, pour préparer et construire un nouveau partenariat ambitieux avec le Royaume—Uni: la condition préalable – le prerequisite –, c’est d’organiser son retrait de manière ordonnée plutôt que de manière désordonnée. Roberto Gualtieri a insisté sur ce point. Sous l’autorité du président Juncker – que je remercie à nouveau de sa confiance –, la Commission – qui fait son travail, qui fait le travail que vous lui avez confié –, a présenté, il y a quinze jours, ce projet complet de traité. Les choses sont maintenant claires, on peut les avoir entre les mains.

Il s’agit, à travers la proposition de ce projet complet de traité, d’accélérer et de faciliter la discussion avec les Britanniques en travaillant, désormais, sur un texte juridique. Comme l’ont très bien dit Danuta Hübner et le président Juncker tout à l’heure, le temps est très court. Il est court pour la négociation de l’accord de retrait, il sera court pour la négociation de toute relation future. Il est également court – permettez-moi d’insister sur ce point – pour la préparation que nous devons effectuer dans chacun de nos pays et, ensemble, avec les parties prenantes, pour préparer les conséquences inévitables du Brexit, que les Britanniques ont choisi. Cette préparation – je tiens à le dire en le remerciant – est conduite aussi, au niveau de la Commission, par notre secrétaire général, Martin Selmayr.

Le temps est court. Nous avons, sur ce texte, des points de vigilance particulière, que vous avez rappelés les uns ou les autres dans vos interventions et que vous rappelez, Guy Verhofstadt, dans cette résolution. Évidemment, notre priorité commune, c’est d’abord les citoyens. Nous resterons jusqu’au bout attentifs – c’est-à-dire jusqu’au moment de la ratification de cet accord de retrait – aux garanties que nous avons obtenues dans le rapport conjoint au mois de décembre et sur la mise en œuvre effective de l’ensemble des droits dans le cadre de procédures simples et non coûteuses.

Madame Miranda, vous avez évoqué tout à l’heure, comme Gabriele Zimmer, ou Barbara Spinelli, Jill Evans et Josef Weidenholzer, cette question prioritaire des droits des citoyens britanniques qui vivent et travaillent – et qui ont choisi de vivre et de travailler – dans l’un de nos 27 pays, et, évidemment, des trois millions et demi d’Européens, parmi lesquels beaucoup d’étudiants, qui vivent et travaillent au Royaume-Uni.

Nous attendons aussi du Royaume-Uni un engagement sincère et des avancées dans les prochains jours sur l’ensemble des autres sujets, tels que la gouvernance de l’accord Euratom. Je pourrais multiplier les exemples des sujets que nous n’avons pas complètement négociés, sur lesquels nous n’avons pas encore d’accord, lesquels font partie de tous les sujets de la séparation et qui sont indispensables à un retrait ordonné. Cela concerne évidemment aussi la transition. Nous acceptons – les dirigeants européens ont accepté, vous avez accepté – la demande du gouvernement britannique, présentée par Theresa May, d’inclure une période de transition dans l’accord de retrait. Évidemment, dans cette période de transition courte, dans le respect de l’article 50, toutes les règles de l’Union devront s’appliquer sans aucune distinction. Par exemple, un citoyen qui arrivera durant cette période de transition – Mercedes Bresso a évoqué ce point – devra bénéficier des mêmes droits que celui qui est arrivé avant le jour du Brexit.

Il y a un deuxième point qui est évidemment celui de notre partenariat futur, évoqué dans votre résolution. Vous dessinez, dans ce texte, l’architecture et le contenu – comme le fera le Conseil européen dans quelques jours, sous l’autorité de Donald Tusk – de ce que pourrait être ce partenariat ambitieux avec le Royaume-Uni. Guy Verhofstadt évoquait l’association future avec ce grand pays autour de quatre piliers, et je me retrouve dans cette architecture que vous proposez.

Premièrement, notre relation commerciale. M. Sulík évoquait tout à l’heure les échanges. Il faut évidemment encadrer ces échanges commerciaux et continuer à faire du commerce avec le Royaume-Uni, y inclus dans cette relation commerciale – comme l’ont évoqué M. Vandenkendelaere, M. Millán Mon ou Mme Miranda –, un accord équilibré sur la question de la pêche.

Deuxièmement, des coopérations thématiques. M. López Aguilar évoquait l’aviation, M. Peter van Dalen évoquait la recherche ou les universités – je pourrais citer Erasmus. Nous établirons, dans un cadre financier réglementaire différent de celui d’aujourd’hui – puisque le Royaume-Uni a choisi de ne plus être dans l’Union –, un cadre de coopération pour maintenir dans l’intérêt commun ce travail avec les Britanniques.

Troisièmement, une coopération en matière de justice, d’affaires intérieures, de coopération policière ou judiciaire et, enfin, évidemment, avec ce grand pays, un partenariat stratégique pour la politique étrangère, la sécurité et la défense.

S’agissant du premier pilier, celui de la coopération économique, au moment où nous parlons, tous les modèles de coopération avec des pays tiers sont encore sur la table. Ils sont disponibles.

We are open for business. It is the UK that is closing doors.

J’ai écouté attentivement le discours de Theresa May à la Mansion House, qui confirme les portes que le Royaume-Uni ferme lui-même objectivement en confirmant des lignes rouges.

Sortir du marché intérieur, quitter l’union douanière, Elmar Brok a rappelé tout à l’heure cette ligne rouge. Esteban González Pons aussi. Retrouver une autonomie réglementaire et commerciale, cela nous a été dit tout à l’heure par plusieurs d’entre vous. Ne plus jamais être lié par la Cour de justice, voilà les lignes rouges que le Royaume-Uni confirme. Nous en prenons acte, mais alors il faut se rendre à l’évidence. On ne peut pas vouloir à la fois le statut d’un pays tiers et demander en même temps les avantages appartenant à l’Union et uniquement à l’Union, comme l’a précisé Philippe Lamberts. On ne peut pas et on ne pourra pas utiliser le marché intérieur à la carte – M. Lenaers tout à l’heure ou M. Danti l’ont dit –, alors qu’il constitue un écosystème intégré et que les quatre libertés, y inclus la liberté de circulation, sont indivisibles et indissociables. On ne peut pas vouloir participer à nos agences sans l’engagement juridique d’adopter et d’appliquer le droit de l’Union et la juridiction de la Cour de justice. On ne peut pas et on ne pourra pas solliciter de l’extérieur la reconnaissance mutuelle des règles et des normes, alors que cela ne peut reposer que sur la confiance, c’est-à-dire une loi commune, une supervision cohérente et une juridiction unique. Mesdames et Messieurs les députés, Monsieur le Président, c’est une idée assez étonnante, en effet, que de croire que les 27 États membres de l’Union et votre Parlement pourraient accepter, en quelque sorte, la convergence quand le Royaume-Uni le souhaite et lui laisser en même temps la possibilité de diverger quand il s’agirait pour lui de créer un avantage comparatif.

To coin a phrase, it’s time to face up to the hard facts.

M. Ferreira, M. Lange et Mme Scott Cato notamment ont évoqué la question des normes au Royaume-Uni – ce sera un pays tiers et souverain – et puis chez nous aussi. C’est un point très important et c’est une question que j’ai posée il y a quelques semaines et pour laquelle nous n’avons pas encore de réponse du Royaume—Uni. Le Royaume-Uni choisit de quitter l’Union, choisit de quitter le marché unique et l’union douanière. Nous en prenons acte.

Est-ce qu’il veut aussi quitter ou s’éloigner de notre modèle règlementaire, celui-là même que nous avons construit patiemment ensemble avec vous et vous avec nous depuis 44 ans? Un modèle réglementaire qui n’est pas seulement une question de normes, de standards ou de lois, derrière lequel il y a en fait des choix de société que nous avons faits ensemble: l’économie sociale de marché, la protection sociale, la sécurité et certains modèles alimentaires, la régulation financière. Je pourrais citer d’autres exemples de ces choix de société communs que nous avons fait à 28 et qui sont traduits, consolidés par ce modèle réglementaire. Et cette question est très importante. Est-ce que le Royaume-Uni veut aussi s’éloigner de ce modèle-là que nous avons construit avec lui et s’engager dans la voie de la concurrence réglementaire, voire du dumping, contre nous? Cette question n’est pas seulement importante – je le dis en passant – pour l’économie elle-même, pour les citoyens et pour les consommateurs. Elle est aussi très importante pour les conditions politiques de la ratification de tout futur accord de relations entre nous et le Royaume-Uni, parce que ce jour-là, il s’agira pour le Parlement européen de se prononcer, pour le Conseil aussi, mais aussi à l’unanimité pour les 27 parlements nationaux et peut-être même pour certains parlements régionaux. Et je recommande sur cette question de la divergence, voire du risque de dumping, d’être très attentifs, dès maintenant, aux conditions de cette ratification.

Enfin – c’est mon dernier point –, il y a la question de l’Irlande à la charnière, à la jonction de ce que nous sommes, l’Union européenne, et de ce que représente et de ce que veut dire le Brexit. Mme McGuinness a évoqué ce point avec beaucoup de force. Chacun sait que l’Union a joué son rôle, a tenu sa place pour le dialogue et la paix en Irlande, pour rapprocher et donner un horizon commun, les conditions de la stabilité et du dialogue entre des communautés autrefois divisées. L’Union n’est pas responsable des conséquences du Brexit mais elle est comptable de cette coopération, de cette stabilité et de cet avenir commun. Voilà pourquoi, comme beaucoup l’ont souhaité, un accord solide et durable sur le Brexit – écoutez-moi bien –, sur le retrait ordonné, doit comporter une solution solide et durable pour l’Irlande et pour l’Irlande du Nord.

C’est là le sens du protocole que nous avons proposé dans ce projet d’accord de retrait. Cette option, cette troisième option que nous avons opérationnalisée fait partie des engagements communs entre nous et le Royaume-Uni au plus haut niveau, celui de Theresa May, du Président Juncker et de Donald Tusk. Et ce document ne fait que mettre en œuvre une des options du rapport conjoint de décembre. Je vous l’ai déjà dit, Madame Dodds, quand nous sommes vus dans mon bureau, il y a quelques jours, et je le dis aussi à M. Nicholson que j’écoute toujours avec attention, elle fait partie ni plus ni moins des options que nous avons décidé d’étudier pour apporter des solutions concrètes. C’est notre responsabilité de préciser de manière opérationnelle comment nous éviterons une frontière dure sur l’île d’Irlande en l’absence d’autres solutions et en tenant compte de la décision du Royaume-Uni de quitter le marché unique et de quitter l’union douanière. Et je ne cesserai pas de répéter que cette solution de repli (backstop), une parmi les trois, nous sommes prêts à la remplacer par toute autre solution meilleure qui serait proposée par le gouvernement britannique. C’est un point qu’a évoqué M. Carthy ou Richard Corbett tout à l’heure.

En conclusion, Monsieur le Président Tajani, Madame la Ministre, Mesdames et Messieurs les députés, je veux simplement confirmer que la solidité et la clarté de la position de l’Union, notre unité sur les sujets du retrait, comme sur l’avenir, c’est cela qui fait notre force dans cette négociation. Évidemment, cette clarté et cette solidité ne seraient pas possibles sans la confiance que vous accordez à notre équipe de négociation et à votre équipe de négociation et nous continuerons à travailler comme je l’ai dit au groupe de pilotage sur le Brexit, à Guy Verhofstadt, dans une attitude permanente de dialogue et de transparence avec vous.

Je tiens, Monsieur le Président, à vous remercier, ainsi que Guy Verhofstadt et chacun des membres du groupe de pilotage sur le Brexit, les présidents des groupes et les présidents des commissions, et vos coordinateurs, pour la qualité et la sincérité de notre travail en commun et je pense que la résolution que vous allez adopter est essentielle pour le succès des étapes que nous avons devant nous.


  Monika Panayotova, Présidente en exercice du Conseil. – Monsieur le Président, étant donné que nous partageons le même point de vue sur le Brexit, à la suite de l’intervention de M. Barnier en langue française, je vais faire mes remarques de conclusion aussi en français.

Mesdames et Messieurs les députés, je voudrais souligner encore une fois que la présidence estime que l’unité de l’Union des 27 et de nos institutions est essentielle pour le succès des négociations. Nous attendons avec impatience de recevoir demain la nouvelle résolution du Parlement qui, j’en suis persuadée, comme les précédentes, aura une contribution utile au processus.

Nous souhaitons réitérer notre soutien à l’équipe de la Commission européenne chargée des négociations et aussi au négociateur en chef, M. Barnier.

Nous nous engageons à continuer nos échanges avec le Parlement et le groupe de pilotage sur le Brexit au cours des négociations afin d’obtenir le meilleur accord possible pour l’Union et les citoyens.


  Presidente. – Comunico di aver ricevuto due proposte di risoluzione conformemente all'articolo 128, paragrafo 5, del regolamento.

La discussione è chiusa.

La votazione si svolgerà mercoledì 14 marzo 2018.

Dichiarazioni scritte (articolo 162)


  Cristian-Silviu Buşoi (PPE), în scris. – Încep prin a da credit eforturilor remarcabile depuse în cadrul negocierilor Brexit de reprezentantul UE, Michel Barnier, alături de echipa dumnealui, și de a-l asigura în continuare de suport și solidaritate în special în vederea apărării drepturilor cetățenilor, dar și a respectării angajamentelor legale de contribuție la bugetul UE din partea Marii Britanii.

În al doilea rând, aș vrea să subliniez importanța post-Brexit a respectării în egală măsură atât a drepturilor cetățenilor britanici în cadrul Uniunii Europene, cât și a drepturilor cetățenilor europeni pe teritoriul Marii Britanii și a asigurării bilaterale că nici un cetățean nu va fi privat de drepturi. Consecințele acestei decizii politice nu trebuie să aibă efecte ireversibile asupra celor pe care îi reprezentăm, iar drepturile cetățenilor după retragere trebuie să fie clar specificate și pe deplin respectate de autoritățile ambelor părți, cu deosebire în ceea ce privește persoanele vulnerabile.

Cred într-un parteneriat puternic UE-UK chiar și după retragere, Uniunea și Marea Britanie demonstrând că pot întreprinde acțiuni mult mai sustenabile, eficace și eficiente împreună, decât separat.


  Maria Grapini (S&D), în scris. – Domnilor președinți ai Parlamentului, Comisiei și Consiliului, Brexitul este o discuție tristă, pentru că unul dintre statele mari a decis printr-un referendum și cu un guvern încăpățânat să iasă din Uniunea Europeană. Negocierea de ieșire durează de doi ani și cetățenii europeni sunt îngrijorați din două perspective: respectarea drepturilor cetățenilor europeni aflați în Marea Britanie și acordurile comerciale.

Domnule Michel Barnier, sunteți negociatorul UE și aveți o responsabilitate majoră. Vă rog, dați-ne un mesaj clar: se vor respecta sau nu drepturile cetățenilor în Marea Britanie? Acordurile comerciale vor ține cont de protejarea pieței interne prin impunerea unor standarde de produse similare în schimburile comerciale? Când vor ști cetățenii și companiile care au schimburi comerciale despre modul de lucru al UE cu Marea Britanie, care va deveni terț? Consiliul și Comisia au responsabilitatea de a urgenta finalizarea Brexitului fără efecte negative asupra cetățenilor și companiilor din Uniunea Europeană.


  Antanas Guoga (PPE), in writing. – Dear President, dear Colleagues, The UK is an important member of the EU and it is important that it would remain an important and close ally of the EU after Brexit. Therefore, I support the resolution of the European parliament were it states that close cooperation is foreseen between the EU and the UK in international security, foreign policy, research and development, education. Also, the negotiation process most importantly has to secure citizen’s rights and their free movement which has been of the core values of the EU. It has to remain this way. In regards to the EU Single Market, the EU should stand firm for the values it represents and the UK has to respect the values and rules which come. If it doesn’t want to ‘play’ by them, then the UK cannot enjoy the EU Single Market. A pick-and-mix approach for a non-member state should not be an option. Therefore, I support the common line by the EU, that free trade agreement will be offered as an alternative.


  Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE), in writing. – Scotland’s coastal communities must not be made to suffer as a consequence of Brexit. A London Tory government deemed our fishing communities expendable on our way in to the EU and it would be no surprise if the industry is deemed by the UK Government to be expendable again on the way out. This resolution calls for a new bilateral partnership agreement and it is vital that the UK agrees only to a deal which will benefit our fishing industry, fully adhering to international law. The agreement must allow Scottish fishermen to fully benefit from our resource-rich waters. And our fishermen’s interests must not be bartered away for the interests of the City of London or any other sector. The key word in this resolution is ‘agreement’ – and the UK government must only agree to a deal which fully protects our coastal communities. As part of that deal, fishing powers must be returned to the Scottish parliament so that we can benefit Scotland’s coastal communities, managing our rich fishing resources sustainably and entering future fisheries negotiations as a normal coastal state. I call upon the UK Government to give our fishing communities the priority they deserve in this negotiation.


  Vladimír Maňka (S&D), písomne – EP schválil základné piliere ďalšej spolupráce so Spojeným kráľovstvom po jeho vystúpení z Únie. Partnerstvo a spolupráca v oblasti obchodných a hospodárskych vzťahov, zahraničnej politiky, bezpečnostnej a rozvojovej spolupráce, vnútornej bezpečnosti a tematická spolupráca najmä v oblastiach spoločného záujmu musia byť nosnými myšlienkami každej zmluvne upravovanej oblasti. Budúce vzťahy musia byť založené na vzájomnom rešpektovaní, reciprocite a výhodnosti, musia brať do úvahy existujúce záväzky a musia v maximálne možnej miere zohľadňovať záujmy občanov všetkých zmluvných strán.


  Daciana Octavia Sârbu (S&D), par écrit. – Nous devons être intransigeants au sujet des droits des citoyens européens dans le cadre du Brexit et de la future relation UE-Royaume-Uni; cette résolution le reconnaît. Nous avons fait des progrès à cet égard, notamment par la mention des futurs époux dans le projet d’accord de la Commission. Cependant, le combat ne s’arrêtera pas ici. Cette résolution donne son consentement à la conclusion par l’UE d’un accord Brexit et d’une période transitionnelle en octobre 2018 ; jusqu’à cette date, la protection des droits de tous citoyens européens sera notre devoir. En tant que députés européens, nous représentons les intérêts des peuples européens, et donc aussi ceux des citoyens du Royaume-Uni jusqu’au retrait formel du Royaume-Uni. Il faudra avant tout assurer le droit de résidence et de mouvement des citoyens européens au Royaume-Uni post-Brexit, s’il est question d’accès au marché européen pour le Royaume-Uni. Il faudra aussi maintenir le droit des citoyens du Royaume-Uni habitant un pays de l’UE de circuler librement dans les pays de l’Union. Nous tiendrons ces intérêts à cœur même en débattant du sort de l’Irlande, aujourd’hui le principal obstacle à un accord servant les intérêts, et assurant les droits du plus grand nombre possible.


  Theodor Dumitru Stolojan (PPE), în scris. – Guvernul Regatului Unit a stabilit liniile sale roșii: ieșirea din piața unică și din uniunea vamală. UE, la rândul său, are linii roșii: integritatea pieței unice și a uniunii vamale.

Cu linii roșii de o parte și de alta este greu să se ajungă la un acord cu privire la viitorul relațiilor dintre UE și Regatul Unit, așa cum le dorim cu toții, adică fără bariere comerciale și cu circulația liberă a cetățenilor europeni și a celor britanici. Este nevoie de flexibilitate din ambele părți pentru progresul negocierilor.

Din păcate, între aceste linii roșii, problema relației viitoare dintre Irlanda de Nord și Irlanda a rămas încă fără nicio soluție.


  Tibor Szanyi (S&D), írásban. – Brexit-ügyben szerintem továbbra is csak kármentés folyik, hiszen a brit nacionalisták gátlástalansága, a korábbi konzervatív kormány felelőtlensége, illetve a jelenlegi tehetetlensége miatt előállt jelenlegi helyzetből szinte csak veszteséggel jöhet ki mindkét fél. Jelentésünk is mutatja: az EU szempontjából a veszteség korlátozásában változatlanul az EP a leginkább következetes és felelős szereplő. Ezért is támogatom azt a tárgyalási irányelvünket, hogy az EU–brit kapcsolatok jövőjét lehetőleg egy korszerű társulási megállapodásban szabályozzuk, még ha London szűklátókörűsége ezt egyelőre nem is teszi elérhetővé.

Ugyanakkor az EP-nek abban is kiemelt felelőssége van, hogy a tárgyalási folyamat szoros felügyeletével és teljes egységben biztosítsuk, hogy a megállapodásban érvényesüljön a kötelezettségek és jogok egyensúlya, szavatoljuk az egységes piac sértetlenségét, az EU jogi és politikaalakítási döntési autonómiáját, mert a nem tagállam Nagy-Britannia nem élvezhet a 27-ek kárára velük azonos előjogokat. Szocialistaként számomra különösen fontos szempont, hogy a szociális Európát, valamint a fenntarthatóságot célzó erőfeszítéseinket és uniós normákat, ezáltal az EU versenyképességét se áshassa alá a kilépés utáni rendezés. A nagy-britanniai munkavállalásban erősen érintett tagállam képviselőjeként pedig külön is kérem képviselőtársaim további támogatását a letelepedők, munkavállalók kölcsönös jogainak szigorú érvényesítésében, az átmenet és a post-brexit időszakában egyaránt, ugyanis a Tanácstól a tagállamok eltérő érdekeltsége, sőt egyesek ellenérdekeltsége miatt ezt hiába várjuk el.


  Bogdan Andrzej Zdrojewski (PPE), na piśmie. – Przyszła umowa o partnerstwie z Wielką Brytanią nie może pomijać współpracy w dziedzinie badań naukowych, edukacji oraz kultury i sektora kreatywnego, które są obszarami obopólnych korzyści. Przygotowana przez Parlament Europejski rezolucja słusznie podkreśla to stanowisko. Jako przewodniczący Grupy Monitorującej brexit w Komisji Kultury i Edukacji zaproponowałem, aby na obecnym etapie Unia Europejska zachowała maksymalną elastyczność w zakresie przyszłych rozwiązań dotyczących współpracy ze Zjednoczonym Królestwem. Zdajemy sobie sprawę, że obecnie kraje spoza UE i EOG objęte programem zawierają konkretne umowy dwustronne z UE dla każdego programu. Jednak w toku negocjacji może się okazać, że w interesie UE może być określenie warunków uczestnictwa w programie np. w ramach umowy stowarzyszeniowej. Cieszę się, że powyższe propozycje zostały zaakceptowane. Należy jednak pamiętać, że po wyjściu z UE Zjednoczone Królestwo stanie się krajem trzecim i obowiązywać je będą te same zasady co inne kraje spoza UE.

Senaste uppdatering: 5 juni 2018Rättsligt meddelande - Integritetspolicy