MEPs, meeting in plenary session in Strasbourg on Tuesday 3 October, officially called on the European Council, when it meets later this month, not to open the second phase of negotiations on post-Brexit relations between the European Union and the United Kingdom. Parliament believes that, though progress has been made, it is still insufficient.
In a resolution passed by a very wide majority (557 votes to 92, with 29 abstentions), MEPs indicated that, in their view, the progress achieved in the three key areas of the divorce – citizens’ rights, the financial settlement and Ireland – was still too little to allow London to discuss the future partnership (see EUROPE 11872).
Many MEPs also used the debate preceding the vote on the resolution to express their annoyance at the strategy adopted by the British negotiators and at the UK government’s internal political turmoil. Manfred Weber (Germany), leader of the EPP Group, even called on Theresa May to “sack” her foreign minister, Boris Johnson, wondering whether it was May, or David Davis or Johnson who was in charge of the negotiations.
While May’s Florence speech of 22 September was, in general, well received (see EUROPE 11868), MEPs reject any discussion of the post-Brexit transition period of around two years called for by the UK prime minister until such time as all the priority issues of the UK’s withdrawal have been settled.
In Parliament to brief MEPs on the negotiations, EU Chief Negotiator Michel Barnier expressed a similar view, highlighting the need firstly to make progress on the terms of the divorce before talking about the transition period and opening discussions on the future relationship.
He was backed up by Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker who said that, at this stage, it is impossible to move to the next phase of the negotiations despite the positive content of the Florence speech. Speeches are not, however, negotiating positions and, in terms of the mandate given to the Commission by the 27 member states, the conditions for moving on to the second phase have not been met, he pointed out.
In concrete terms, the resolution calls on the UK government to – bring forward definite proposals to guarantee all the rights currently enjoyed by 4.5 million European citizens (those residing in the UK and the British living elsewhere in the EU); - “respect in full its financial obligations” towards the EU; and “provide a unique, effective and workable solution that prevents a ‘hardening’ of the border (between Ireland and Northern Ireland), ensuring “full compliance with the Good Friday Agreement in all its parts”.
Parliament’s Brexit coordinator Guy Verhofstadt (ALDE, Belgium) said that Parliament was not adopting this resolution lightly. “I regret this resolution”, he commented. But Michel Barnier thought that, by October, sufficient progress would have been made, he noted. He also legitimised the role of Parliament, which has no input during the negotiations but will have to approve the final agreement.
The Conservative group, however, argued that the resolution was a mistake. “We regret that, with this resolution, Parliament is ruling out the second phase of negotiations. A stance like this could make it more difficult to find a solution”, stated Rafaele Fitto (Italy).
James Nicholson (ECR, UK) argued that Parliament was making “a serious error”. In his view, it will no longer be possible to view Guy Verhofstadt as neutral. This criticism was addressed by Elmar Brok (EPP, Germany) who stated that Parliament was not engaging in propaganda and that the vast majority of MEPs genuinely wanted an agreement with the UK.
The Parliamentary resolution comes a few days before a further round of negotiations, due to begin on 9 October, the last before the European summit on 19 October.
On Tuesday, Barnier and Juncker set out the points on which the EU was looking for progress: delivery of clarity on financial commitments. The 27 member states should not have to pay for “what was agreed by 28”, Barnier pointed out. Other areas where progress is hoped for are protection of citizens’ rights after Brexit and the role of the European Court of Justice. (Original version in French by Solenn Paulic)