On Thursday 4 February, the European Parliament's Committee on International Trade (INTA) and Foreign Affairs (AFET) Committee heard the opinions of all the parliamentary committees that were due to deliver their opinions on the Trade and Cooperation Agreement agreed between the European Union and the United Kingdom at the end of 2020.
The rapporteurs of the two committees responsible, Christophe Hansen (EPP, Luxembourg) and Kati Piri (S&D, Netherlands) will then present their draft report on 5 February.
Ideally, both elected representatives would like to have enough time to analyse the bilateral agreement, as the European Parliament President has requested an extension of the period of provisional application of the agreement (see EUROPE 12638/16). However, they seemed ready to ensure that the European Parliament would ratify the agreement by 28 February, the deadline originally set.
“If necessary, we will be ready”, said Mr Hansen, insofar as the European Parliament, which does not have this extension decision “in its give”, is preparing “for all scenarios”.
The subject was debated at the conference of political group presidents on Thursday morning. But no firm decision has been taken, as this extension must first be agreed between London and the European Commission.
In the meantime, the opinions delivered by the various parliamentary committees show that opinions on this agreement are divided, between relief over fishing rights or transport connectivity and disappointment, for example, over the British abandonment of Erasmus, and concerns.
Many committees are indeed wondering how to ensure the “fair” implementation of the agreement by the British government. This is particularly the case for fisheries, stressed Frenchman François Xavier Bellamy (EPP), citing the first problems in granting fishing licences in early January in Jersey or Guernsey waters (see EUROPE 12649/8, 12645/34).
The environment committee also finds that UK standards will need to be closely monitored, particularly the implementation of the CO2 emissions trading scheme (see EUROPE 12645/12). The independence of the British Environment Agency also raises questions.
On financial services, UK rules must also be subject to “systematic monitoring”, said Irene Tinagli (S&D, Italy), according to whom the Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee (ECON) will also have to assess all UK plans on tax transparency (see EUROPE 12649/33).
While she welcomes the fact that the two partners will cooperate on money laundering or the fight against terrorist financing, the ECON Committee regrets that these aspects cannot be settled by arbitration in the event of problems.
The Regional Policy Committee (REGI), for its part, criticised the lack of space given to cohesion programmes in the agreement, with the exception of Northern Ireland, and wanted to know whether new cooperation with other British regions was possible, as with Scotland, which had shown an interest.
As for the external policy aspects, the AFET and Development (DEVE) Committees regretted the absence of provisions in the bilateral agreement (see EUROPE 12648/7). Swede Tomas Tobé (EPP), who chairs the DEVE committee, hoped that the UK would remain a key global player in development aid policy, which he doubted if the country experiences Brexit-related economic problems.
Generally speaking, the European Parliament wants to be involved in the monitoring of this agreement and to be able to intervene with a ratification stage on its part at the slightest change. It is this close scrutiny that will ensure that the rules of fair competition and non-regression are fully respected.
There are “shortcomings, but also many positive points” in the evaluation of this agreement, summed up Christophe Hansen, listening to all these opinions, and it will remain to be seen whether the United Kingdom wants to cooperate with the EU in a “positive way” in the future, he said. (Original version in French by Solenn Paulic)