Several MEPs expressed, on Thursday 14 January during a debate in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs (AFCO), their dissatisfaction with the minor role reserved for the European Parliament in the governance of the agreement between the European Union and the United Kingdom.
The most vehement of them, Guy Verhofstadt (Renew Europe, Belgium) said he was “shocked” that he had not heard the words ‘European Parliament’ in the presentations of the two representatives of the European Commission. “If we want to improve the deal, an agreement (with the Commission) is necessary on the role of the Parliament”, he added, criticising the fact that MEPs will not have a say if part of the bilateral agreement is suspended. “This is not possible!”, stated the Belgian liberal.
Gerolf Annemans (ID, Belgium), Niklas Nienaβ (Greens/EFA, Germany) and Helmut Scholz (GUE/NGL, Germany) supported him. The latter called for the participation of the European Parliament in the EU Partnership Council, the political body that will ensure regular monitoring of the EU/UK agreement.
Expressing a certain “uneasiness” at hearing the Commission’s presentations, Domènec Ruiz Devesa (S&D, Spain) said that the European Parliament’s “very clear omission” demonstrates its “minor role”. As proof of this, the joint parliamentary assembly to bring together the European Parliament and the British Parliament has not been set up. “The Commission must at least declare in writing that when the EU Partnership Council takes a decision, it must obtain the consent of the Parliament”, said Mr Ruiz Devesa, calling for “an Interinstitutional Agreement” on this issue.
Marie Simonsen, Head of Unit in the Commission’s ‘Article 50’ task force, said that if the Trade and Cooperation Agreement with London is revised, “the Parliament would be involved” and its consent would be required. In her opinion, the Commission will do its best to keep the European Parliament informed in a timely manner on the work of the sectoral joint committees. And, on the selection of the members of the arbitration panels, it is considering a process acceptable to all parties.
As for the joint parliamentary assembly, Ms Simonsen assured that the EU’s initial intention was to set up this body when the agreement was drawn up. This meeting will be able to hold the EU Partnership Council to account and that it will have to take due account of its positions.
On behalf of the EPP group, Portugal’s Paul Rangel noted that the provisional application of the EU/UK agreement to avoid border disruption was a “fait accompli” and that MEPs were therefore “almost forced” to approve it to avoid chaos. He also said he wanted an active role of the European Parliament in monitoring the respect of citizens’ rights on the ground, because we are already receiving “a lot of complaints”. (Original version in French by Mathieu Bion)