During her speech in Florence on Friday 22 September, the British prime minister, Theresa May, attempted to provide her European partners with reassurances about her ability to successfully conclude the on-going negotiations on the United Kingdom leaving the European Union.
She made constant calls for the Europeans and British to display “creativity” in their efforts to work out an unprecedented partnership between the EU and her country, once the UK is no longer part of the EU. May sought to provide guarantees on the three priority issues identified by the EU27 – citizens’ rights, the Irish question and the budget payment the UK would have to make for leaving.
Whatever the modalities finally decided, she acknowledged that putting this “deep and special” partnership into practice will require an “implementation period of around two years” after the effective Brexit date arranged for 29 March 2019. If the EU27 agree to this request, it will help to gain time.
In an effort to mitigate “the concerns” regarding the question of the rights of European citizens remaining in the United Kingdom after Brexit, May suggested that any agreement on this question should be “completely” incorporated into British law and that the British courts would refer to it directly. In the event of any legal uncertainty arising, the national courts will be able to “take account of” European jurisprudence. The British citizens remaining in the EU will also have to enjoy the same symmetrical rights. Nonetheless, according to May, the European Court of Justice will not be able to have a direct remit on disputes in this connection.
A lot of creativity will be needed to prevent a return to a physical border separating Ireland from Northern Ireland after Brexit. May emphasised that negotiations had progressed on maintaining the Belfast Agreement and common travel area. She also emphasised that they had explicitly declared that they would not agree to any “physical infrastructure” at the border in Ireland but she did not mention what measures would be necessary to achieve this situation.
On the question of the budget payment to be made on leaving the EU, the prime minister did not provide any exact amount that the United Kingdom was prepared to pay to respect the commitments made by the EU28 in the context of current financial perspectives. She indicated that as a consequence of the British decision to leave the EU, “I do not want our partners to fear that they will need to pay more or receive less over the remainder of the current budget plan as a result of our decision to leave. The UK will honour commitments we have made during the period of our membership”. May said that in the future she wanted her country to continue to participate in policies and programmes that had mutual benefits in the scientific, educational and cultural and security sectors.
For a smooth transition
In her proposal for a two-year implementation period, May appears to have gained the upper hand on ministers such as Boris Johnson, who advocated a no deal Brexit by 29 March 2019. She explained that “people and businesses – both in the UK and in the EU – would benefit from a period to adjust to the new arrangements in a smooth and orderly way”.
“So, during the implementation period access to one another’s markets should continue on current terms”, she said, convinced that this solution would help reassure economic actors. This period will help to pursue the same bases for cooperation in security matters and also help to gradually introduce new immigration controls by obliging new arrivals to register.
Now that the request for a transition period has been officially formulated, it will be up to the EU27 to reach an official position on this issue. In Rome on Thursday, the EU chief negotiator, Michel Barnier, indicated that from a legal point of view, any “short” period of transition would necessarily be included in the United Kingdom’s withdrawal agreement.
Barnier repeated in a press release on Friday that “should a time-limited prolongation of Union acquis be considered, this would require existing Union regulatory, budgetary, supervisory, judiciary and enforcement instruments and structures to apply”.
Out of the three major withdrawal challenges, he responded positively to May’s ideas on citizens' rights, but he did not see anything new on the question of Ireland and requested new proposals on the withdrawal payment.
Neither Norway nor Canada
Highlighting several elements in the close partnership that her country could forge with the EU in the future, the British prime minister again advocated creativity in an effort to develop a relationship that involves neither belonging to the European Economic Area (EEA) nor one that is based on the free trade agreement with Canada (CETA).
“I don’t believe either of these options would be best for the UK or best for the European Union”, May said. She rejected any “loss of democratic control” that would be involved if her country became a member of the EEA or adopted EU rules without having the possibility of shaping them. As for the CETA (see EUROPE 11866), she explained that this would represent such a restriction on mutual market access that it would not be beneficial to the two parties.
At the Parliament, the leader of the EPP Group, Manfred Weber from Germany said he was still concerned after the Florence speech and did not see anything new in it. The tone was more positive from the S&D Group. Gianni Pittella from Italy, said that the ideas on citizens’ rights and the “exit bill” constituted progress. The British Conservative, Syed Kamall, praised the Florence speech, which he said clearly demonstrated how far the British government is prepared to go and he pointed out that “EU leaders need to realise that the British people voted to leave the EU in order for things to be different. Our future relationship should be less about open cheques and more about open trade”. (Original version in French by Mathieu Bion)