Guy Verhofstadt

:00:32. > :00:39.I would like to start the meeting. We are already late, so could we

:00:40. > :00:56.please stop the meeting. As thank you very much indeed. There

:00:57. > :01:02.we start our usual meeting dedicated to the discussion of the Brexit

:01:03. > :01:13.process and we today have to parts for this discussion. First of all we

:01:14. > :01:18.will listen to Guy Verhofstadt, the coordinator of the Brexit process.

:01:19. > :01:24.And we will have a regular hearing from Guy Verhofstadt on the process.

:01:25. > :01:28.A lot has happened, and we have those moments of discussion on

:01:29. > :01:34.Brexit because this committee, as you all know, this committee has a

:01:35. > :01:38.very important horizontal role in the process. At the end of the

:01:39. > :01:40.process, this is the committee that will do the evaluation of the

:01:41. > :01:48.results of the Brexit negotiations and the proposal to endorse the

:01:49. > :01:53.results of the procedure, so first we will listen to Guy Verhofstadt

:01:54. > :02:05.and then we will have the chance to also ask questions and then we will

:02:06. > :02:14.listen to a presentation on the consequences and legal issues

:02:15. > :02:18.regarding citizens rights in the process. Guy Verhofstadt, I hope you

:02:19. > :02:27.can have five minutes later on to response to questions that we might

:02:28. > :02:33.have. I am at the disposal of the committee. First of all, if you

:02:34. > :02:43.allow me, I want to thank you, chair, for the invitation to give a

:02:44. > :02:50.new overview of where we are in the preparation of them negotiations on

:02:51. > :02:58.Brexit. That is the follow up on an earlier report that I did, two

:02:59. > :03:07.months ago, where we prepared the resolution of the Parliament on

:03:08. > :03:17.Brexit. Maybe I can start by recalling this resolution that has

:03:18. > :03:23.been prepared by the Conference of Presidents and has been backed by

:03:24. > :03:27.five political groups in the Parliament and has been adopted with

:03:28. > :03:37.an overwhelming majority, as you know, with 560 votes with 50

:03:38. > :03:48.abstentions. I think that I do not exaggerate when I say that this

:03:49. > :03:55.resolution has also been the basis for because alterations, and later

:03:56. > :04:00.on for the mandate and the guidelines that have been decided by

:04:01. > :04:07.the European Council last Saturday. The fact that apparently the meeting

:04:08. > :04:15.of the European Council on the mandate only lasted four minutes, I

:04:16. > :04:22.think, was a sign of the good preparation on these guidelines,

:04:23. > :04:28.based on the resolution of the Parliament and I can tell you that

:04:29. > :04:35.when you compare the resolution of the Parliament with the guidelines

:04:36. > :04:48.of the European Council, there is an enormous similarity in not only

:04:49. > :04:57.content but also in wording. And the representatives of the European

:04:58. > :05:02.Parliament, myself also Mistiroc, and with the help of the services of

:05:03. > :05:09.the Parliament, had been involved in the preparatory meetings to finalise

:05:10. > :05:16.the text that has been approved in the European Council meeting. --

:05:17. > :05:22.myself and also Mr Barack. I do not recall all of the elements of that

:05:23. > :05:31.resolution and I do not recall the content of the guidelines, but what

:05:32. > :05:37.is now important is to decide on what will be presented today by the

:05:38. > :05:50.negotiator after the meeting of the European Commission, on the

:05:51. > :05:53.negotiation directives. These directives contain a proposal on

:05:54. > :06:07.paper which has already been put at the disposal last week. And when I

:06:08. > :06:15.received the text of this project, the negotiation directives, I

:06:16. > :06:18.immediately transferred them to the different committees that were

:06:19. > :06:28.involved because in fact the negotiation directives concerning a

:06:29. > :06:32.few specific points that will be discussed. First of all the citizens

:06:33. > :06:40.rights issue, with everything that implies. That will BA first block in

:06:41. > :06:43.the negotiation directives. The second block is everything

:06:44. > :06:51.concerning the financial settlement. And more details about what the

:06:52. > :07:01.different elements are of the financial settlement. And then a

:07:02. > :07:07.number of more general issues about borders and the Good Friday

:07:08. > :07:15.Agreement, which is also a third essential element of the agreement.

:07:16. > :07:21.And then a chapter on administrative procedures, and a final chapter on

:07:22. > :07:32.the oversight of the whole process by the European board of justice.

:07:33. > :07:42.Those are the main five elements of this so-called negotiation

:07:43. > :07:54.directives. And so I have to inform members that we follow up this

:07:55. > :07:59.process, since the approval of the resolution, with what we call a

:08:00. > :08:03.Brexit steering group. In which the representatives of the five groups

:08:04. > :08:11.will be there, present, that have backed the resolution of the

:08:12. > :08:20.European Parliament. Plus, naturally, your presence as the

:08:21. > :08:25.chair of AFCO, because it is clear that AFCO needs to keep the overview

:08:26. > :08:32.in this process, I should say, and your presence in the Brexit steering

:08:33. > :08:44.group is extremely important for that goal and for that objective. So

:08:45. > :08:52.today, the commission will present a proposal for these negotiation

:08:53. > :08:59.directives, with these five elements, or sediments -- on

:09:00. > :09:05.citizens rights and the Good Friday Agreement, on administrative

:09:06. > :09:17.procedures and also on the oversight of the European court of justice.

:09:18. > :09:25.And that proposal will be adopted in a general council meeting on the

:09:26. > :09:34.22nd of May. And it is the intention of the Conference of Presidents to

:09:35. > :09:43.formally react to that proposal of the College on the 11th of May. In

:09:44. > :09:53.advance of the meeting of the General Council on the 22nd of May.

:09:54. > :10:06.In general, I can say that the Brexit steering group, we are nearly

:10:07. > :10:16.100% in line with the known paper was all that will be presented today

:10:17. > :10:26.in the college. And for that, we have asked our committees to give us

:10:27. > :10:31.the necessary information so we will send that immediately to a number of

:10:32. > :10:34.committees, and the committees involved are connected to citizens

:10:35. > :10:42.rights, and the employment committee. We have sent the

:10:43. > :10:48.financial settlement chapter to the budgetary committees, the budget

:10:49. > :11:00.committee itself and the budgetary control committee. And actually, all

:11:01. > :11:11.of these texts have been sent to the chair of our committee, to ensure

:11:12. > :11:15.that we are on the right track. The reactions that we have received from

:11:16. > :11:21.the committees were all positive. There were no fundamental remarks or

:11:22. > :11:38.criticisms on the text proposed. Nevertheless, yesterday,

:11:39. > :11:45.in the Brexit steering group, we have made a number of concrete, more

:11:46. > :11:54.detailed proposals that have been sent to the commission, and that

:11:55. > :12:07.will be repeated if necessary in the official position of the Conference

:12:08. > :12:14.of Presidents on the 11th of May. An important addition that would repeat

:12:15. > :12:20.every time in our contacts discussing this directive, this

:12:21. > :12:25.negotiation directive, is that on the issue of borders, and the Good

:12:26. > :12:30.Friday Agreement, it is absolutely key that every time we specify that

:12:31. > :12:36.it concerns all parts of the Good Friday Agreement. Because it is an

:12:37. > :12:45.important addition that has been done by the Parliament from day one,

:12:46. > :12:48.and it needs to be taken on board in the negotiation directives. It is

:12:49. > :12:55.already in the guidelines, as we know, but also in the negotiations

:12:56. > :13:06.and the directives. Secondly, on citizens rights, we have also

:13:07. > :13:11.suggested that the mandates of the UK representatives on European Works

:13:12. > :13:19.councils in European companies should be maintained, so the whole

:13:20. > :13:26.problem around the European Works Council established in the UK, we

:13:27. > :13:36.think that is a useful addition to the chapter on citizens rights, in

:13:37. > :13:42.the negotiation directives. We also think that it is necessary, and it

:13:43. > :13:49.was another proposal by the Parliament that in the issue of

:13:50. > :13:57.citizens rights, there needs to be reciprocity from the beginning until

:13:58. > :14:02.the end. And naturally, as a Parliament, we agree and we have

:14:03. > :14:05.even insisted that the chapter on citizens rights needs to be the

:14:06. > :14:14.first chapter to be negotiated between the UK and the European

:14:15. > :14:17.union, because we cannot continue to have a situation in which millions

:14:18. > :14:23.and millions of UK citizens and millions of EU citizens continue to

:14:24. > :14:28.live in uncertainty, as is the case today. So we have agreed at this

:14:29. > :14:36.point that it is the first point of the negotiation. But we have done a

:14:37. > :14:47.few proposals to complete the negotiation directives on this

:14:48. > :14:57.issue. On the financial settlement, naturally we have repeated the

:14:58. > :15:01.position that we underlined in the resolution of the European

:15:02. > :15:10.Parliament, taking on board our commitments, taking on board all

:15:11. > :15:19.liabilities, including contingent liabilities to the budget committees

:15:20. > :15:23.which are in anyway positive about the way the financial settlement and

:15:24. > :15:35.different elements of the financial settlement is approached. On the

:15:36. > :15:41.issue of the oversight of the whole process, Parliament has proposed,

:15:42. > :15:46.based on your proposal, chair, to make it clear that in the whole

:15:47. > :15:51.process, it will be the European board of justice that has the over

:15:52. > :15:56.site of the whole process, and to make it clearer in the negotiation

:15:57. > :16:10.directives than it was already the case in the guidelines. -- oversight

:16:11. > :16:15.of the whole process. And finally, we have also proposed to the

:16:16. > :16:25.commission and if necessary we will repeat that at the General Council

:16:26. > :16:33.of the 22nd of May, that in the introduction of the negotiation

:16:34. > :16:38.directives, it should be useful to put a principle in place which is

:16:39. > :16:47.that these negotiations must be done in good faith and certainly not in

:16:48. > :16:51.any way hindered by the day-to-day activities of the European Union.

:16:52. > :17:02.That is that is a clear problem, we have seen last week that files

:17:03. > :17:08.linked to the financial framework and the budget are put on hold

:17:09. > :17:16.because there are negotiations about Brexit. That cannot be repeated in

:17:17. > :17:23.the future, so it's important and we have suggested to the commission and

:17:24. > :17:32.hopefully they will take that on board in their proposal they adopt

:17:33. > :17:37.today in the college that a clear indication in the introduction of

:17:38. > :17:42.these negotiations directives that we cannot accept that the normal

:17:43. > :17:48.decision-making process in the union is jeopardised, I should say, by

:17:49. > :18:00.these first phase of the negotiations. On the sequencing of

:18:01. > :18:04.the negotiations, the proposal we have made in the resolution has been

:18:05. > :18:11.taken on board and the guidelines will be repeated also in the

:18:12. > :18:17.negotiation directives. It means that the first phase is to agree on

:18:18. > :18:26.a withdrawal agreement and only when sufficient progress is made in this

:18:27. > :18:35.first phase, we can start to talk about the second phase, the future

:18:36. > :18:44.relationship with the UK. In that respect, it's important to know and

:18:45. > :18:52.we have to play a key role in this, it's the intention of the European

:18:53. > :18:56.Parliament and the proposal of conference of Presidents to the

:18:57. > :19:00.European Parliament to make its own assessment in the second half of the

:19:01. > :19:06.year if sufficient progress has been made. If sufficient progress is made

:19:07. > :19:10.and we can go to the second phase, it's a decision that will be taken

:19:11. > :19:17.by the European Council. Because they decide on the guidelines. I

:19:18. > :19:21.think it's the role of the Parliament and the responsibility of

:19:22. > :19:27.the Parliament to give its opinion, if sufficient progress is made in

:19:28. > :19:34.due course. That can be in October, November. The idea is that besides

:19:35. > :19:43.the resolution we have adopted a few weeks ago, we should have a second

:19:44. > :19:46.horizontal resolution about the question if sufficient progress is

:19:47. > :19:52.made in the negotiation table from phase one phase two and to do that

:19:53. > :19:56.with a resolution adopted in the finery of the Parliament before the

:19:57. > :20:04.European Council is making its assessment. I think that's central

:20:05. > :20:08.to the role that we have to play, to see that if within the guidelines

:20:09. > :20:15.and the negotiation directives, we can call from phase one, sufficient

:20:16. > :20:21.progress in the withdrawal of treatment, two phase two,

:20:22. > :20:28.negotiations and talks about the future relationship of the European

:20:29. > :20:36.Union. On the future relationship, I want to recall to my colleagues that

:20:37. > :20:41.Parliament in its resolution has from day one made a very clear

:20:42. > :20:46.choice. We have indicated article 217 from the association agreement

:20:47. > :20:51.is the framework to do so. It's a flexible framework for is that you

:20:52. > :20:59.can do a lot of things inside the association agreement. It can be

:21:00. > :21:03.small, it can be brought and it can not only be about trade and economy

:21:04. > :21:10.but also about security, internal and external. Is the Lisbon Treaty,

:21:11. > :21:27.it gives a framework that didn't exist before and that clarifies a

:21:28. > :21:32.lot. I think we need... My advice is that to the Brexit steering group

:21:33. > :21:36.and all of our contacts and in our briefings with the commission

:21:37. > :21:47.negotiator and the council should continue on that line and to see the

:21:48. > :21:51.association agreement is the right framework for the future

:21:52. > :22:03.relationship with the UK. The next step for us is preparation

:22:04. > :22:06.of this general counsel with the Brexit steering group and with your

:22:07. > :22:14.presence, chair, that will normally be done next week. Thank you. Thank

:22:15. > :22:19.you very much and I like to open the floor for the discussion on the

:22:20. > :22:27.first to speak, I would like to ask it to be as concise as possible in

:22:28. > :22:31.your questions and comments. It is very much and my thanks to all the

:22:32. > :22:38.white that you have done for coming along today and giving us his very

:22:39. > :22:44.clear outline of the state of play. I want to begin by eating two

:22:45. > :22:50.general suggestions, one is that no negotiation ends up for the

:22:51. > :22:56.negotiators would like it to end up. There always are expected events,

:22:57. > :22:59.feeling in this particular case, a snap election called by Theresa May

:23:00. > :23:07.was exactly one of these unexpected events. The second general point is

:23:08. > :23:11.that this is a reciprocal process. In the perception, what impact does

:23:12. > :23:15.he think the five points that he made and I think the five points are

:23:16. > :23:23.well taken, what impact are these likely to have on the attitude of

:23:24. > :23:30.the United Kingdom. The second point, in your perception, however

:23:31. > :23:35.where is the UK said at the levels that matter of the role this

:23:36. > :23:47.Parliament, I don't get the feeling that has really sunk in that I hope

:23:48. > :23:54.I'm wrong on this. Thirdly, if you link the point on citizens rights,

:23:55. > :23:58.the financial elements on the fifth point, the role of the EU CJ, it

:23:59. > :24:04.seems to me that what were looking at is the of the EU CJ will actually

:24:05. > :24:08.be there for the forthcoming period as far as one can see, we know from

:24:09. > :24:13.the British side that this is totally unacceptable, I expect there

:24:14. > :24:25.will be a very serious conflict on this but I don't know how he sees

:24:26. > :24:28.it. I question you don't have to answer but a hypothetical, if you

:24:29. > :24:36.had a time machine, how would you have drafted Article 50? Much the

:24:37. > :24:39.same as it is? Not at all, radical changes, I'm curious because of all

:24:40. > :24:51.your experience working on this, whether you think Article 50 in its

:24:52. > :24:59.present form is the best option? Very much. Please be as short as

:25:00. > :25:05.possible. Thank you very much for your presentation and your earlier

:25:06. > :25:10.work. I have not political but just detailed questions and comments,

:25:11. > :25:20.it's related to the cross committee work on some issues, for example

:25:21. > :25:27.citizens rights. On one hand we are looking at some much more

:25:28. > :25:32.complicated solutions. Privacy protection, writes. Very important

:25:33. > :25:39.for trade and business development for the economy and on the other

:25:40. > :25:42.hand it's important with the rule of reciprocity and for citizens on both

:25:43. > :25:51.sides in the European Union and the UK. We are on the way to implement

:25:52. > :25:56.general data protection regulations and we have started the work and how

:25:57. > :26:04.to solve those problems and create some kind of agreements and work on

:26:05. > :26:18.complicated issues. Thank you very much for coming along

:26:19. > :26:21.this morning, I'm sure you will understand that when I listen to

:26:22. > :26:25.what you have to say and you take hardline and I compare that with the

:26:26. > :26:30.head of the Liberal Democrats in the United Kingdom who seem to have

:26:31. > :26:33.undergone some form of change and have now announced them as a

:26:34. > :26:38.Eurosceptic. Did you contact him to get some input to the comments

:26:39. > :26:42.you've made? Even so, I will take on board everything that you've

:26:43. > :26:46.mentioned foot of the troubling matter for a number of people who

:26:47. > :26:50.have taken the trouble to contact me since the weekend as an MEP in the

:26:51. > :26:54.United Kingdom is in the context that they recognise that both

:26:55. > :26:57.parties involved in negotiating situation established their

:26:58. > :27:01.positions, that parameters and red lines. That is to be expected, there

:27:02. > :27:07.is no problem in terms of that context. However, what I think has

:27:08. > :27:11.inflamed public opinion in the United Kingdom was the position

:27:12. > :27:15.taken following the meeting between Jean-Claude Juncker and the Prime

:27:16. > :27:21.Minister, seemingly meeting of comments to the press and

:27:22. > :27:25.effectively a continuation of the bullying coming out of the European

:27:26. > :27:30.Union in terms of the position announced and the comment made was

:27:31. > :27:35.why the immature and puerile comments by Jamaat can I ask you to

:27:36. > :27:40.comment on that and give some idea of whether you support the position

:27:41. > :27:44.taken last weekend of whether you would be prepared to take back, in

:27:45. > :27:50.your position as one of the lead negotiators, to ask for an element

:27:51. > :27:54.of toning down and to return to what was previously a very conservatory

:27:55. > :28:01.position taken by the United Kingdom and one that was, I believe, in the

:28:02. > :28:08.past, up until the weekend conducive towards the so-called amicable

:28:09. > :28:12.divorce. Thank you very much. Following from that, may I underline

:28:13. > :28:18.there are a variety of views within the United Kingdom about the events

:28:19. > :28:23.that have taken place over the last few days. Perhaps I could ask the

:28:24. > :28:30.gentleman whether she gets the impression that the British site of

:28:31. > :28:34.honour about whether the understand the role of the European Parliament,

:28:35. > :28:39.do they understand the procedure in general? Because at times one gets

:28:40. > :28:42.the impression that they have a completely different negotiating

:28:43. > :28:52.procedure in mind and what the European Union has put on the table.

:28:53. > :28:58.Secondly, British public opinion is still blissfully unaware of what the

:28:59. > :29:05.UK Government is intending to demand in these negotiations on a number of

:29:06. > :29:12.fronts. We still don't know whether the UK ultimately, the UK Government

:29:13. > :29:15.will ultimately asked to remain with them at least aspects of the customs

:29:16. > :29:22.union, we don't know whether the UK Government intends to ask to have

:29:23. > :29:25.some sort of continuing participation in the various EU

:29:26. > :29:32.agencies, the aviation agency, chemicals agency, medicines agency,

:29:33. > :29:34.we don't know what ultimate goal, normal transitional arrangements

:29:35. > :29:39.they wish to put in place regarding fisheries are regarding agriculture.

:29:40. > :29:43.There are a lot of things that the British Government has still not

:29:44. > :29:50.spelled-out even to its own public for its own parliament. Have you had

:29:51. > :29:53.any indications from the British side of what their intentions are in

:29:54. > :30:03.this respect and can you enlighten us?

:30:04. > :30:11.Thank you for the presentation, I think you are a competent

:30:12. > :30:17.representative of this house despite various attacks that come from Ukip,

:30:18. > :30:24.but that should not preoccupy us more than it does. It is nothing.

:30:25. > :30:29.Jean-Claude Juncker came out of this dinner seeing I have the impression

:30:30. > :30:33.the British Government is on another galaxy that that's not only on

:30:34. > :30:43.another planet of this galaxy but another galaxy. Endlessly far-away

:30:44. > :30:50.from what we discuss here and Richard asked the same question. On

:30:51. > :30:56.what galaxy is the British negotiators compared with ours? That

:30:57. > :31:03.come to my second question, you mentioned that we have in the treaty

:31:04. > :31:10.Article 217 that any country in the associated to the EU, so it's only

:31:11. > :31:17.possible if a country wants to re-associate with the EU, if they

:31:18. > :31:22.want to be a WTO country, then this article will not help us.

:31:23. > :31:30.And with this article I would be worried that we get cherry picking,

:31:31. > :31:34.that the British side has let say ten points they like and 20 points

:31:35. > :31:40.they do not like, and then you negotiate an agreement of lots of

:31:41. > :31:47.likes, and I think one element of our guidelines were that a country

:31:48. > :31:50.leaving the EU cannot have a better situation than a member country. So

:31:51. > :32:00.one has to be careful about the outcome, if the cherry picking

:32:01. > :32:03.continues what we have seen over the years. To be short, my third

:32:04. > :32:11.question would be transparency. I learned from the dinner in Downing

:32:12. > :32:20.Street that the British side would like to hide the position papers,

:32:21. > :32:26.whereas the new side -- the EU side would like to publish it. It depends

:32:27. > :32:32.on TTIP and all the negotiations that we do. We have been working for

:32:33. > :32:33.transparency and it would be ridiculous if these negotiations

:32:34. > :32:52.were in secret. I would like to speak Polish.

:32:53. > :33:01.TRANSLATION: I would have one very simple recommendation the

:33:02. > :33:05.recommendation to adopt a more rational and calm tone that should

:33:06. > :33:12.definitely improve the climate during negotiations. The European

:33:13. > :33:19.Parliament definitely has all the rights to play its own role in the

:33:20. > :33:25.whole process, however it will be best if the European Parliament also

:33:26. > :33:29.felt its responsibility for the process as a whole, for its final

:33:30. > :33:37.results. I think it's in the best interests of you to make sure that

:33:38. > :33:44.it all ends up with a good agreement based on mutual understanding from

:33:45. > :33:48.both parties. No, it's not a win-win situation, obviously, but it's all

:33:49. > :33:53.about minimising the collateral damage, if I can put it this way,

:33:54. > :33:59.and sustaining certain relations. Negative comments that destroy the

:34:00. > :34:05.climate, unfortunately, have been altered by both sides and the first

:34:06. > :34:14.resolution of the European Parliament after the referendum also

:34:15. > :34:17.presented some comments full of irritation that definitely did not

:34:18. > :34:23.contribute to making the climate or atmosphere better. Yes, we have to

:34:24. > :34:27.influence the negotiations but we have to be aware that we are

:34:28. > :34:30.responsible, we have a responsibility for the process as a

:34:31. > :34:42.whole. And I think that you're assessed and, -- your assessment Mr

:34:43. > :34:51.Verhofstadt, that should be conducted in autumn by the European

:34:52. > :35:01.Parliament, I am sure it will be a practical assessment and not at all

:35:02. > :35:05.to exert pressure on other actors in the negotiations. I would like to

:35:06. > :35:10.repeat what I think we need is a rational and calm tone to make sure

:35:11. > :35:19.we have a positive outcome. Positive for Europe. And I think that bearing

:35:20. > :35:24.a grudge or telling the British that they live in a different galaxy does

:35:25. > :35:38.not contribute to improving the climate of the talks.

:35:39. > :35:44.TRANSLATION: Thank you, Mr Verhofstadt for that excellent

:35:45. > :35:53.presentation. I am happy, as he is, about the fact that the Parliament

:35:54. > :35:59.has taken on this accelerating role regarding the council positions. But

:36:00. > :36:09.I am happy in particular with regard to the role of the court of justice

:36:10. > :36:18.that you spoke about. And also for the future transition agreement. My

:36:19. > :36:22.questionnaires, on the position of the Council, because that is less

:36:23. > :36:30.clear than that of the Parliament at this point. -- my question is. And I

:36:31. > :36:40.would propose a mechanism to resolve controversy. I am happy about these

:36:41. > :36:43.things but I am extremely concerned about the climate of the negotiation

:36:44. > :36:47.and all of the indiscretions that have come out over the past few

:36:48. > :37:00.days. I am not worried about the Ukip attacks but I am worried about

:37:01. > :37:08.what I think is a hard Brexit positioning on everybody's part. The

:37:09. > :37:17.UK Government, and also on the part of the Europe of the 27. There are

:37:18. > :37:22.differences, clear differences, not only on the financial issue but also

:37:23. > :37:36.on the issue of the rights of European citizens, and on the phased

:37:37. > :37:45.negotiation idea. Now that gives me cause for concern and I would like

:37:46. > :37:48.to know what Guy thinks about that. Apparently rights will not be

:37:49. > :37:57.guaranteed in a detailed manner, as we would like. They will become

:37:58. > :38:04.currency for exchange regarding other agreements and given that

:38:05. > :38:09.everybody is thinking about a hard Brexit, there is no will to move

:38:10. > :38:16.towards an agreement. Why am I saying that? Well, because it is

:38:17. > :38:22.clear that the principal of an agreement should come first and then

:38:23. > :38:35.we need to think about other agreements. But Article 50 itself,

:38:36. > :38:39.and I agree that one day we need to use Time Machine and rewrite that

:38:40. > :38:53.article, but Article 50 also says that we need to in mind future

:38:54. > :39:08.relations. And negotiate the first phase. And the withdrawal. Now, Link

:39:09. > :39:11.to this, I would like to know from Geevor Hof is that what he thinks

:39:12. > :39:17.about the sentence that really worries me, appearing in the case

:39:18. > :39:22.decisions, or in the guidelines. -- I would like to know from Guy

:39:23. > :39:25.Verhofstadt. Nothing can be subject to agreement until everything is the

:39:26. > :39:31.subject of agreement, or nothing must be agreed on until everything

:39:32. > :39:40.is agreed on. I don't know if that is a good basis for negotiation but

:39:41. > :39:47.I would like to know what you think. I think that this was already

:39:48. > :39:55.rejected as a negotiating line. In South Africa, because it was really

:39:56. > :40:01.risky. Could be a total impasse. If we use that as a basis for

:40:02. > :40:09.negotiation. Thank you. We have five minutes more for responses and for

:40:10. > :40:11.people on the list to speak. Please be short. Let me thank Guy

:40:12. > :40:19.Verhofstadt for his very useful presentation. I have a brief but I

:40:20. > :40:24.believe important issue on citizens rights. For the sake of

:40:25. > :40:36.clarification, the guidelines adopted by the Council working again

:40:37. > :40:39.on this resolution say that on the date of withdrawal, the treaties

:40:40. > :40:53.will cease to apply to the United Kingdom. But I also say that,

:40:54. > :40:59.regarding the traditional arrangement, should the union be

:41:00. > :41:04.considered, it will require additional judiciary and enforcement

:41:05. > :41:10.instruments and structures to apply. My questionnaires does this include

:41:11. > :41:20.the principle of free movement of people? It means that if such a

:41:21. > :41:24.situation should be prolonged for a traditional period, then we should

:41:25. > :41:29.understand that the principle of free movement of people should be

:41:30. > :41:41.capped for the entire transitional period. Thank you. TRANSLATION:

:41:42. > :41:50.Thank you. I would like to thank Guy Verhofstadt for this clear and size

:41:51. > :41:54.presentation. Since there isn't much time, I have a couple of questions

:41:55. > :42:03.that I will ask quickly. The first has to do with the financial

:42:04. > :42:13.settlement. And would it be possible to distribute a clear document on

:42:14. > :42:22.the negotiation proposals made since this is one of the hot topics, and

:42:23. > :42:25.if I have understood correctly, it is causing problems in the first

:42:26. > :42:30.phase of the negotiations. And on the second point, I am concerned

:42:31. > :42:39.about the climate, particularly about the impression that the

:42:40. > :42:44.citizens' rights would be the hardest points to negotiate. From

:42:45. > :42:51.this point of view... A couple of points on the negotiating position

:42:52. > :42:57.for the second phase and for the framework would be necessary. Also

:42:58. > :43:05.on the part of the European Union. We need to think about citizens,

:43:06. > :43:20.Britons in Europe and Europeans in Great Britain. It is hard for people

:43:21. > :43:23.to relate this to the future. There is a barrier regarding rights and I

:43:24. > :43:27.think that would be hard to accept by the public. Some sort of idea

:43:28. > :43:38.about what the European Union wants for the future to agree on a

:43:39. > :43:41.framework that isn't simply closing everything off and thinking on WTO

:43:42. > :43:51.agreements. It would be useful to have that, particularly in order to

:43:52. > :43:54.respond to what all Europeans and British people are starting to think

:43:55. > :44:04.about with regard to the future of relations. On citizens and citizens'

:44:05. > :44:11.rights. Then we can move on the second phase after the is reached.

:44:12. > :44:16.And we can think about what the European Union might bring to the

:44:17. > :44:25.table. Max Anderson and then we still have Fabiola. Please keep

:44:26. > :44:32.comments to one minute. Briefly, I am worried by these negotiations.

:44:33. > :44:41.Theresa May has been saying that no deal is better than a bad deal.

:44:42. > :44:46.Theresa May is wrong. A no deal situation would be terrible for the

:44:47. > :44:50.United Kingdom. It would be car crashed Brexit. And it would be

:44:51. > :45:05.quite a big problem for the EU as well. In your considered opinion,

:45:06. > :45:11.what is the risk of a hard Brexit? TRANSLATION: I will try to be brief.

:45:12. > :45:21.I would like to thank my colleagues for the report. I am delighted that

:45:22. > :45:27.the first point is about citizens' rights. In that we cannot think

:45:28. > :45:34.about the fact that, well, there are more than 200,000 living in Greater

:45:35. > :45:38.London. And I think that the number is greater than the number that is

:45:39. > :45:42.actually registered, so I am glad you have focused on that point. And

:45:43. > :45:45.I do hope that this will be confirmed during the course of

:45:46. > :45:49.negotiations and that it is not just a matter for exchange as mentioned

:45:50. > :46:06.earlier when referring to risks. The steering group, what about the

:46:07. > :46:17.difference in views compared to the negotiation proposal made the second

:46:18. > :46:20.question, picking up on what Barbara said about the risks, I'd like to

:46:21. > :46:26.echo what she said about the hard Brexit and I want to know, in light

:46:27. > :46:35.of these rumours and what we read in the papers today, is there a greater

:46:36. > :46:45.risk that will conclude these two years with a hard Brexit and then

:46:46. > :46:49.there will be very difficult negotiations, that's clear, but I'd

:46:50. > :46:59.like to know if any thought has been given to the practical nature of

:47:00. > :47:09.resolving future elections, for example and how to avoid that

:47:10. > :47:14.paradoxical situation of the exit of the UK and then an electoral

:47:15. > :47:19.campaign, I think this is key with regard to reflections on the future

:47:20. > :47:26.of the European Union. The second thing, there has been mention of the

:47:27. > :47:33.principle of good faith and that the UK cannot move ahead with

:47:34. > :47:40.negotiations and trade agreements without this initial agreement but

:47:41. > :47:46.have we thought about the fact that they might have some kind of legal

:47:47. > :47:58.condition, might consider some kind of legal condition with regard to

:47:59. > :48:03.the application of this agreement? Will it be possible for them to

:48:04. > :48:10.negotiate regardless of their current situation. Agreement be

:48:11. > :48:13.valid only if and when we leave the European Union? Do you think the

:48:14. > :48:33.solution might be possible? Thank you for your remarks, it's

:48:34. > :48:39.clear with the guidelines where we are. One question to all of us and

:48:40. > :48:41.probably to you in particular, how are we guaranteeing that according

:48:42. > :48:48.to the principle nothing is agreed before this and everything is agreed

:48:49. > :48:53.that free movement for citizens interests are not traded in other

:48:54. > :48:59.chapters with other issues, so how can we guarantee that as a red line

:49:00. > :49:08.for the parliament and our decision is really kept for us. The second

:49:09. > :49:12.question, coming from the International trade committee, we

:49:13. > :49:19.have also discussed the problems with East African communities and

:49:20. > :49:23.West African communities, we have countries which are not interested

:49:24. > :49:30.in concluding the ongoing negotiations because they don't know

:49:31. > :49:36.what the Brexit means for the future relationship, so if we are starting

:49:37. > :49:39.the trade negotiations of the new relationship between the United

:49:40. > :49:46.Kingdom and the European Union 27 means that for the ongoing

:49:47. > :49:52.negotiations today the other countries, how we are bridging this

:49:53. > :50:04.challenge in our commercial and foreign policy relationships. The

:50:05. > :50:10.floor is yours. To start with, the element on the risk of all the hard

:50:11. > :50:18.Brexit. I agree with the comments that were made that it would be a

:50:19. > :50:25.bad thing for Europe and an even worse thing for the UK. I don't

:50:26. > :50:33.think that is from the European site have to start the negotiations with

:50:34. > :50:37.that goal. The goal has to be to find a new partnership and

:50:38. > :50:42.relationship with the UK based naturally on the principle that you

:50:43. > :50:50.can never have a better status outside the union than inside the

:50:51. > :50:58.union. Also a point that was made. A hard Brexit would be bad for

:50:59. > :51:06.everybody but certainly a hard hit for the UK. Let's not... That brings

:51:07. > :51:16.me to the second point, the climate is not good, I can tell you, I had

:51:17. > :51:20.in my life a few negotiations. When you are already a number of decades

:51:21. > :51:25.in politics, you have done some negotiations and in my own country

:51:26. > :51:29.and I'm not so surprised by what is happening, it always happens before

:51:30. > :51:34.the start of a negotiation. It's the building up of pressure from both

:51:35. > :51:56.sides. So I'm not so worried about that,

:51:57. > :52:02.the building up of the pressure from the duties owed the European side,

:52:03. > :52:08.it's also difficult for me to tell you to give comments of what

:52:09. > :52:13.happened in the meeting between Juncker and... I was not there and

:52:14. > :52:20.it's difficult to tell something about it and what really happened.

:52:21. > :52:25.That doesn't, in my eyes, it's not a problem that we are talking about

:52:26. > :52:28.series negotiations, it's a serious matter, it's a search for a new

:52:29. > :52:37.relationship and the building up of this pressure, I've seen that plenty

:52:38. > :52:48.of times in other situations. My preoccupation is a bit different, it

:52:49. > :52:55.is... What is now the proposals from the UK side? It's difficult to

:52:56. > :53:04.assess that for the moment. That gives an uncertainty for the moment,

:53:05. > :53:07.and uncertainty that is not good, certainly not for citizens because

:53:08. > :53:16.we are here for citizens, the citizens are now ready for one year,

:53:17. > :53:23.and uncertainty about their rights. Their status. They don't know.

:53:24. > :53:25.Everything can happen and we receive, Parliament receives

:53:26. > :53:32.thousands and thousands of e-mails from people living in Britain and

:53:33. > :53:35.British nationals living on the continent and they ask what will

:53:36. > :53:44.happen, can you help me a little bit? I think that we had to take

:53:45. > :53:49.away as fast as possible this uncertainty as part of a global

:53:50. > :53:54.withdrawal agreement that means we can start with that topic but

:53:55. > :54:00.formally it will naturally only be formalised at the moment at the

:54:01. > :54:07.moment of the withdrawal agreement as a whole. That means that you have

:54:08. > :54:12.only an agreement on the point, you have an agreement on everything I

:54:13. > :54:17.think it's a sound principle in politics, I've never seen politics

:54:18. > :54:33.working differently than based on that principle. I'm preoccupied by

:54:34. > :54:38.that, we cannot afford ourselves... We have two

:54:39. > :54:45.-- we cannot continued uncertainty with the citizens, another six

:54:46. > :54:52.months or a year, it is destroying lives, families, businesses and

:54:53. > :54:59.Parliament has two deal with this at the forefront to avoid this. I can

:55:00. > :55:03.tell you that is done in the negotiation directors. The European

:55:04. > :55:08.Union makes clear in transparency, so that document will be published

:55:09. > :55:16.today, maybe at the moment that we are speaking, it is published, how

:55:17. > :55:28.to take away this uncertainty for the citizens. All workers, all

:55:29. > :55:33.self-employed, all families and so on. What we are talking about, what

:55:34. > :55:40.citizens rights, social rights, labour mobility, writes Link to

:55:41. > :55:44.that, self-employment and the recognition of diplomas

:55:45. > :55:53.certificates, formal qualifications and so on. We indicate how from the

:55:54. > :56:01.European side, we indicate how to deal with the citizens rights in a

:56:02. > :56:14.broad sense, not the narrow sense, a broad sense. And immediately to

:56:15. > :56:19.respond to Mr Pereira's remarks, we for some reason, there is a

:56:20. > :56:25.transition period, for example a phasing out that means that its

:56:26. > :56:31.continuing for a limited period, we have that in a resolution, maximum

:56:32. > :56:37.three years. 'S clear that, for example, if we continue, this is an

:56:38. > :56:41.example, if we continue with a single market like that, it's the

:56:42. > :56:45.whole single market, also it's the free movement of people, we won't

:56:46. > :56:54.start in a transition period to say, it's only for good, but not for

:56:55. > :57:01.people. That's the reason of the wording that you have read, it has

:57:02. > :57:04.to be consistent, it will then be all the key elements about

:57:05. > :57:15.continuing. And also the oversight by the UK court of justice because

:57:16. > :57:23.still union law that's applicable. I think that with what happened today,

:57:24. > :57:26.an important thing from the European side, we publish in full

:57:27. > :57:31.transparency because that's the way. We have published the guidelines,

:57:32. > :57:38.the guidelines, you will know them today. A final version of the

:57:39. > :57:46.negotiation directors will be on the table. Everybody can see, feel,

:57:47. > :57:48.read. What the position of the European Parliament and institutions

:57:49. > :58:00.backed by the European Parliament will be. There is no secret mandate.

:58:01. > :58:10.That is given in the four corners of the European institutions. I say

:58:11. > :58:15.that you because this transparency is key and I think it's very

:58:16. > :58:26.important for the European side to keep that. The next point on the

:58:27. > :58:33.financial settlement. People have said it's a question of punishment,

:58:34. > :58:39.that's nothing to do with it. It simply that if we have a divorce,

:58:40. > :58:45.you go out of your management and your partner will take all the

:58:46. > :58:49.bills. And by buying. That's not how it works, I've never divorce so I

:58:50. > :59:03.cannot tell you is not by experience. People can confirm what

:59:04. > :59:10.I'm saying. There has to be a financial settlement. That is

:59:11. > :59:15.obvious. The way we see it with Parliament, we have never entered in

:59:16. > :59:24.that discussion today are about the figure. That's fantastic, maybe for

:59:25. > :59:33.the media. Our approach is different. We say let's agree. They

:59:34. > :59:38.are now also in the negotiation directive. Accounting principles,

:59:39. > :59:48.that has to be the basis for such financial settlement. If you agree

:59:49. > :59:53.on that, then the figure is the outcome, even when I'm realistic,

:59:54. > :00:01.and the end we now hope political negotiations work. The reason why we

:00:02. > :00:04.have to be keen on that is not a question of revenge or punishment,

:00:05. > :00:11.it's just fairness and we cannot ask to the 27 remaining members of the

:00:12. > :00:17.European Union to pay the bill for a departure of a country. That will

:00:18. > :00:23.not be done. I was in several meetings and none of the 27th is

:00:24. > :00:30.ready to do that. The way to settle this, I think, is let's agree on

:00:31. > :00:38.sound accounting principles and then let's apply them and we see what the

:00:39. > :00:42.figure is. At the end there can be a negotiation about it but it's not a

:00:43. > :00:49.question of punishment or revenge, it's not fair to say that.

:00:50. > :01:01.In the same way, no cherry picking, not a better position out than in,

:01:02. > :01:10.citizens first, I have given you that that will be key. On the

:01:11. > :01:16.questions of trade, in the position of the parliament, it is clear that

:01:17. > :01:26.there can be no sanctions, that doesn't exist. If the British sites

:01:27. > :01:31.are threatening the we must continue trading with the same companies, we

:01:32. > :01:40.have indicated what should be done in our resolution. I stick to that.

:01:41. > :01:45.There are no formal measures, but in any way, it is a little bit

:01:46. > :01:51.difficult. I cannot imagine that, for example, you are negotiating

:01:52. > :01:57.with the country and we are negotiating with the same country.

:01:58. > :02:01.You can add to the three things at the same time. That is not how you

:02:02. > :02:09.deal with this. We have given a proposal for that in our resolution

:02:10. > :02:23.and I think it makes sense to stick to that. The final question, the

:02:24. > :02:30.Article 50, I hope that this is the only time we need to use Article 50

:02:31. > :02:34.and never again in the future, because the problem doesn't exist

:02:35. > :02:44.any more about Article 50. If we don't need to use it any more. It is

:02:45. > :02:51.not such a bad article, maybe it is not so precise, but the lack of

:02:52. > :02:59.precision gives us some opportunities to work through

:03:00. > :03:01.negotiations. Thank you. There is no time for repetition of questions, so

:03:02. > :03:08.I would like to thank you very much for being with us and I hope to see

:03:09. > :03:14.you soon. We hope to see you in every meeting because you are a full

:03:15. > :03:28.member. While we the next briefing, by the start of negotiations, maybe.

:03:29. > :03:38.Thank you in any case. I would like to move to the second half of this

:03:39. > :03:43.discussion. We are using... We are not paying for his overnight, we

:03:44. > :03:49.really appreciate the effort you have done to stay in Brussels and to

:03:50. > :03:56.come here and your time, first we will speak and then ask questions.

:03:57. > :04:02.It is about citizens, which is of big interest to many of us here.

:04:03. > :04:06.Thank you Madame chair and thank you to the committee for the invitation

:04:07. > :04:10.to speak to you about the consequences of Brexit with regard

:04:11. > :04:15.to citizenship. Also, thank you for the opportunity for listening to the

:04:16. > :04:21.previous and very engaging discussion. Actually, I felt tempted

:04:22. > :04:25.about commenting on some of the things that said. I will not do that

:04:26. > :04:32.for obvious reasons. That is not what I was asked to come here. I

:04:33. > :04:39.will talk about the time Article 50 four subject to recall that when

:04:40. > :04:44.Article 50 was adopted, every EU lawyer, including myself and every

:04:45. > :04:49.constitutional scholar of the European Union presented Article 50

:04:50. > :04:54.not as an opportunity to leave the European Union, but so as to make

:04:55. > :04:57.member states more comfortable in staying. I think it is important to

:04:58. > :05:05.recall that. Historically, the way it was presented was by formally

:05:06. > :05:07.forcing the possibility for a member state to exit will reinforce the

:05:08. > :05:11.voluntary character of the membership of the European Union and

:05:12. > :05:18.that will make it more comfortable for everyone to stay. This is just

:05:19. > :05:21.to remind us of the law of and predictable consequences and the

:05:22. > :05:25.extent to which one would think Brexit itself and what will be the

:05:26. > :05:31.final outcome of this process, I will be very careful in predicting

:05:32. > :05:38.whatever outcome will be. I mean whatever outcome would be of Brexit.

:05:39. > :05:42.You will remember that we have a famous singer in Portugal of a

:05:43. > :05:46.football player that I always used to say predictions only at the end

:05:47. > :05:52.of the match. I will say the same thing regarding Brexit. Now, moving

:05:53. > :06:01.to the question of citizenship, I will address, very briefly, several

:06:02. > :06:05.possible alternatives and issues that arise in the context of the

:06:06. > :06:11.protection of the rights of citizens. Both the rights of

:06:12. > :06:15.citizens of other European states residing in the United Kingdom

:06:16. > :06:20.currently, or up to the moment of exit. That is one of the questions

:06:21. > :06:25.that will have to be discussed. What is the cut-off date in terms of

:06:26. > :06:31.safeguarding those rights. Also, the rights of UK citizens in the

:06:32. > :06:39.European Union, in particular after Brexit. So, I will also try at the

:06:40. > :06:44.end to relate this discussion with a broader discussion on the concept of

:06:45. > :06:48.European citizenship. What should we learn for the concept of European

:06:49. > :06:55.citizenship more broadly in this context? The first strategy is what

:06:56. > :06:59.I would call protect the rights, even if you cannot protect the

:07:00. > :07:10.citizenship. It seems the more natural approach is to decouple the

:07:11. > :07:14.rights that residents both UK citizens in other European member

:07:15. > :07:18.states at the moment and other European member states in the UK at

:07:19. > :07:23.the moment have, to decouple these rights they have and protect those

:07:24. > :07:32.rights, even if they no longer will have the prospective citizenship.

:07:33. > :07:37.This is a possibility. It involves finding a package of rights that we

:07:38. > :07:43.want to protect. We just heard some of them. Recognition of diplomas,

:07:44. > :07:46.free movement, right of establishment, a variety of social

:07:47. > :07:53.protections in that context. It has to be clear that it is not the same

:07:54. > :07:58.thing as protecting those rights and the citizenship. I do not mean that

:07:59. > :08:04.in a symbolic or political recognition sense, even if that is

:08:05. > :08:06.important in itself. That will also have a broader consequences because

:08:07. > :08:14.one of the things that citizenship does is it provides a dynamic

:08:15. > :08:23.character to the existing set of rights that are linked to it. Even

:08:24. > :08:28.to rights that exist and were given even before the existence of

:08:29. > :08:32.citizenship. Citizenship itself, when it was created, didn't bring

:08:33. > :08:39.many new rights. It brought some political rights. It brought right

:08:40. > :08:46.to not economically active citizens, but also then, mostly through the

:08:47. > :08:50.interpretation of the European Court of Justice, was to expand the scope

:08:51. > :08:56.of existing rights. They quite clearly used the concept of

:08:57. > :09:00.citizenship to expand its scope of obligation of non-discrimination. If

:09:01. > :09:04.we decouple the rights from citizenship will be losing that

:09:05. > :09:09.dimension. There is also the matter of political rights, the extent to

:09:10. > :09:12.which they can be maintained in the absence of citizenship. He said that

:09:13. > :09:18.there is a dynamic nature of that is lost. That's one of the reasons why

:09:19. > :09:24.some people have raised the possibility, particularly for UK

:09:25. > :09:29.citizens and in particular for UK citizens that are currently residing

:09:30. > :09:34.in other European member states, even if the possibility in the

:09:35. > :09:37.abstract can be conceived for all UK citizens, I think that this is

:09:38. > :09:42.citizens initiative even, raising the possibility. That is the

:09:43. > :09:46.possibility being raised of them maintaining European Union

:09:47. > :09:52.citizenship. There are two possibilities in which that could

:09:53. > :09:54.take place. One partial possibility. The first possibility is what could

:09:55. > :10:06.be called of associate citizenship. That is to say that the European

:10:07. > :10:10.Union will give citizenship to UK citizens, even if the UK will no

:10:11. > :10:14.longer be a member of the European Union. This will be a fundamental

:10:15. > :10:17.transformation on the concept of European citizenship as it is today.

:10:18. > :10:24.The concept of European citizenship is a derivative right. It results

:10:25. > :10:28.from your national citizenship. If, on the one hand, this will be

:10:29. > :10:32.politically symbolic and important and it is a continuation of the

:10:33. > :10:36.debate that has taken place in the past, with some arguing that the

:10:37. > :10:40.European Union should be able to give European citizenship

:10:41. > :10:43.independently from the existence of national citizenship. On the other

:10:44. > :10:48.hand, it is important that we understand fundamental impact that

:10:49. > :10:52.has. The fact that European citizenship is derivative from state

:10:53. > :10:58.citizenship, is derivative from national citizenship, is something

:10:59. > :11:03.that has a value because at the same time European citizenship transport

:11:04. > :11:06.is beyond our states, it also reinforces and strengthens our

:11:07. > :11:13.relationship with our state. We are only European citizenship because we

:11:14. > :11:18.have state citizenship. This dimension will be lost. There are

:11:19. > :11:23.advantages, but also costs in opening the door to that fundamental

:11:24. > :11:28.transformation. A second possibility that I think much more unlikely

:11:29. > :11:31.we'll be the European Union to agree to impose on member states to give

:11:32. > :11:38.their national citizenship to those UK residence and as a consequence

:11:39. > :11:42.then they will have you citizenship. I think that is very unlikely

:11:43. > :11:47.because that would be European Union determining the conditions for the

:11:48. > :11:57.acquisition of national citizenship. I think that proposal is unfeasible

:11:58. > :12:00.politically. Both proposals would require treaty amendments. There is

:12:01. > :12:06.no other legal bases to do that. There is one possibility that will

:12:07. > :12:12.still be within the decouple of rights. There is one possibility is

:12:13. > :12:16.to guarantee the UK citizens that are residing in other member states

:12:17. > :12:23.a set of rights that are back in to the similar rights they have under

:12:24. > :12:26.European citizenship. One of the differences on the statues of

:12:27. > :12:30.citizens from other member states that will continue to reside in the

:12:31. > :12:37.kingdom and will have the right to reside and associate rights. The

:12:38. > :12:42.position of UK citizens that are residing in another member state is

:12:43. > :12:45.that if the only automatic transformation will give these UK

:12:46. > :12:50.citizens residing in other member states the right to reside and

:12:51. > :12:55.similar rights to those they have in those member states, they will lose

:12:56. > :12:59.one fundamental dimension, the possibility to be mobile and

:13:00. > :13:04.circulate in other member states. But there is one possibility to

:13:05. > :13:09.address that the dispute Article 79, the European Union is it legal bases

:13:10. > :13:15.regulating the rights of third country nationals residing in member

:13:16. > :13:17.states. That may be one possibility, but still, again, going back to the

:13:18. > :13:23.possibility of decoupling citizenship from the package of

:13:24. > :13:26.rights. There is one other possibility with respect to

:13:27. > :13:35.maintaining citizenship. Again, I think it is very unlikely and very

:13:36. > :13:37.doubtful in legal terms to be successful, but interesting. There

:13:38. > :13:42.might be some challenges being brought to the court in this

:13:43. > :13:47.respect. That is to use the European court of justice case. There is a

:13:48. > :13:55.case before the court where I was the advocate general in that case.

:13:56. > :14:01.In that decision, the court conceded, for the first time, that

:14:02. > :14:04.even if the European Union could not impose an member states the

:14:05. > :14:12.conditions for the acquisition or loss of national citizenship, the

:14:13. > :14:18.European Union could control the conditions under which member states

:14:19. > :14:23.themselves will withdraw the citizenship of other nationals. The

:14:24. > :14:29.court said that member states could not determine the loss of national

:14:30. > :14:33.citizenship in a way that would be disproportionate. One possibility,

:14:34. > :14:37.and I have heard there are groups of UK citizens who are intent on trying

:14:38. > :14:42.to challenge the loss of citizenship that would result from Brexit using

:14:43. > :14:48.this case law. They are arguing it would be disproportionate. I think

:14:49. > :14:55.it is unlikely that that would be successful. If the court will say

:14:56. > :15:00.so, we will basically devoid Article 50 of any useful purpose because the

:15:01. > :15:07.consequence of Article 50, of leaving, it has to be losing

:15:08. > :15:11.citizenship. So, it would be very difficult to square those two

:15:12. > :15:16.objectives and those two purposes. There is one angle in which this

:15:17. > :15:21.possible legal challenge, in my view, will have a stronger

:15:22. > :15:26.likelihood of success, even if it is still highly sensitive. That is the

:15:27. > :15:30.following. To my knowledge, that question was raised before the

:15:31. > :15:35.referendum took place and I have to say that at that moment, I thought

:15:36. > :15:40.that at least they understood why, politically, it was not pursued and

:15:41. > :15:43.the British court did not refer to the brink of justice when those

:15:44. > :15:48.issues were raised before the British courts. I think that,

:15:49. > :15:57.legally, there was a strong argument in that respect and it is the

:15:58. > :16:00.following. If the UK citizens residing in other member states,

:16:01. > :16:09.many of them did not have the right to vote in the referendum. They will

:16:10. > :16:13.have a stronger argument in invoking the way they lost, the way they will

:16:14. > :16:16.lose their European citizenship, because they will be forced to

:16:17. > :16:28.abdicate that citizenship in I think there would have been a

:16:29. > :16:32.basis to challenge the decision. Not to say the member state has no right

:16:33. > :16:37.to withdraw but to say even the decision of the member state to

:16:38. > :16:40.withdraw has to take place in accordance with certain fundamental

:16:41. > :16:43.principles. One of them will be, for example, the right of participation

:16:44. > :16:48.of all the citizens of those member states. Particularly that they are

:16:49. > :16:51.not deprived of the right to participate in that decision by the

:16:52. > :16:55.simple fact that they want to live in another member state. If you

:16:56. > :17:00.think about that, that was the crucial aspect. In my view, that in

:17:01. > :17:05.itself legally would be a very strong argument. I understand

:17:06. > :17:12.politically at this point it will be highly unlikely that even the Court

:17:13. > :17:16.of Justice will accept to take this decision, but in legal terms I think

:17:17. > :17:25.there is a strong foundation in that argueful. -- argument. There is one

:17:26. > :17:28.other possibility that is to have some UK citizens may maintain

:17:29. > :17:34.citizenship of the European Union and others won't. This is a

:17:35. > :17:38.provocation and it is nothing prevents a part of the UK to stay

:17:39. > :17:44.and another part to leave. We have a precedent with that. It's called

:17:45. > :17:49.Greenland. We have the case of one member state where a part of its

:17:50. > :17:55.territory left the European Union and another part stayed. So in

:17:56. > :17:58.principle, nothing will prevent for the territories, for example, of

:17:59. > :18:04.Northern Ireland and Scotland to stay in the European Union and for

:18:05. > :18:09.the rest of the territory of the UK no longer to be part of the European

:18:10. > :18:12.Union. Of course, this will be complex to organise in practice and

:18:13. > :18:14.will require a border inside the member state because it will

:18:15. > :18:18.basically mean Scotland and Ireland will remain part of the European

:18:19. > :18:23.Union and part of the United Kingdom. But it will not be

:18:24. > :18:27.impossible. Still it will be again very problematic in political terms

:18:28. > :18:33.and the consequences of it will make it difficult. If you think about it,

:18:34. > :18:38.I think on the one hand one risk will be economic for the UK because

:18:39. > :18:42.naturally you will have, I would say for Scotland and Northern Ireland,

:18:43. > :18:46.it would be extremely positive. They'd attract lots of investments

:18:47. > :18:49.and companies that will locate in those territories because they'll

:18:50. > :18:53.benefit from those markets. Of course for the rest of the United

:18:54. > :18:56.Kingdom, it will be even more dramatic because there'll be

:18:57. > :19:01.economic mobility to that part of its territory. For the European

:19:02. > :19:08.Union, the difficulty will be that if this will take place without the

:19:09. > :19:12.UK formally leaving as a state because part of its territory will

:19:13. > :19:17.stay, the same way that happened with Denmark and Greenland. It will

:19:18. > :19:23.mean that the representation of that part of the territory will be made

:19:24. > :19:26.by the UK Government, not by the Scottish and the Northern Ireland

:19:27. > :19:33.Government. Another because in terms of for this to be done, without

:19:34. > :19:36.living and then coming in as Scotland and Northern Ireland to be

:19:37. > :19:40.then in terms of state cessation, the representation of this part of

:19:41. > :19:45.the territory will have to continue to be done by the United Kingdom

:19:46. > :19:54.central Government. Of course, there'll be the possibility to live

:19:55. > :19:59.as UK and convene as part of the UK. That will be another alternative. On

:20:00. > :20:05.the question of the European Union citizens' rights in the Unit Kingdom

:20:06. > :20:09.- just a couple of issues that I believe are important and less

:20:10. > :20:15.discussed. One is the cut-off date. If we say that we are going to

:20:16. > :20:19.protect the rights of those of European citizens that are currently

:20:20. > :20:24.in the UK, what is the cut-off date. Some people have said the date of

:20:25. > :20:32.the referendum, others have said the date when the exit agreement or the

:20:33. > :20:38.new agreement or both will be concluded and signed, or the actual

:20:39. > :20:49.exit date because the two will not in all likelihood coincide. In my

:20:50. > :20:53.view, to limit to a date previous to the exit date itself, it's already

:20:54. > :20:56.to limit the rights of the EU citizens at the moment while the UK

:20:57. > :21:02.is a member of the European Union. So if we'll say that we'll only

:21:03. > :21:06.protect the rights of those, for example, that were living in the UK

:21:07. > :21:11.until the date of the referendum or until the date the UK deposits the

:21:12. > :21:15.notification under the Article 50, what we are saying is that in this

:21:16. > :21:20.period that starts the United Kingdom is no longer complying with

:21:21. > :21:26.a series of obligations it has under EU law. In my view, there is no

:21:27. > :21:30.alternative but to say it has to be the exit at the date that the

:21:31. > :21:34.agreement will be concluded. Of course, one of the things that is

:21:35. > :21:39.said is that there is a risk of fraud of people that will move

:21:40. > :21:45.massively in order not to benefit from those rights, but moreover, I

:21:46. > :21:51.think that likelihood is low. Second, there is a mechanism in EU

:21:52. > :21:55.law to protect that. The court has said with respect to free movement,

:21:56. > :22:00.when it's artificial, it's not recognisable. It's akin to a fraud

:22:01. > :22:06.of law. So I think that is instrumental. The general principle

:22:07. > :22:15.can be used in that context and that will be the more correct way to

:22:16. > :22:19.work. Now, another crucial question that has to be addressed and, as

:22:20. > :22:27.mentioned already, is the legal protection and interpretation of

:22:28. > :22:32.those rights after exit. I'm very much in line with what the draft

:22:33. > :22:37.guidelines have, with the possibility of seeing the commission

:22:38. > :22:42.and that proposes a system close to the one that exists in the European

:22:43. > :22:50.economic area, that is basically that in that case, the UK will

:22:51. > :22:55.continue to be bound by past case law and it will be required to take

:22:56. > :22:58.into account future case law of the European Court of Justice and the

:22:59. > :23:02.interpretation of those rites, the rights that will be maintained for

:23:03. > :23:07.those that will continue to reside in the UK and vice versa for UK

:23:08. > :23:16.citizens in the European Union. By the way, in the practice of the

:23:17. > :23:19.court in applying this approach, in the practice there's been not much

:23:20. > :23:26.different in being bound by past case law and being required to take

:23:27. > :23:37.into account future case law of the court of the European Court of

:23:38. > :23:44.Justice. The other question is, who will be the courts enforcing this?

:23:45. > :23:48.Contrary to what some have raised, I will not be having much reservations

:23:49. > :23:57.in allowing UK courts to actually apply this. The British judicial

:23:58. > :24:01.system has in the history of European integration shown a great

:24:02. > :24:08.degree of loyalty that other judicial systems not always have

:24:09. > :24:12.shown to the same extent. So I'll trust British courts to enforce and

:24:13. > :24:17.apply the rights in the same way that that's what we have the EA. It

:24:18. > :24:23.applies in the after area, the case of the European case law of the

:24:24. > :24:31.European Court of Justice past. It's the European Court of Justice that

:24:32. > :24:40.applies in the European Union area for EA citizens, the same thing. I

:24:41. > :24:46.don't see the need to create a new judicial body in that respect to

:24:47. > :24:49.resolve those kinds of disputes. Now, one question before I conclude.

:24:50. > :24:56.Two brief questions before I conclude. One has to do with a link

:24:57. > :25:03.to the European citizenship. I think that if there is something that

:25:04. > :25:08.Brexit teaches us, and actually the loss of popularity that we have seen

:25:09. > :25:14.in the European Union in many respects, is that there is actually

:25:15. > :25:18.emerged the vision between two categories of citizens. Probably

:25:19. > :25:23.many of the divisions we see today are and the different positions that

:25:24. > :25:29.citizens take, are based between what we could describe as mobile an

:25:30. > :25:35.non-Noble Citizens. We have a group of citizens that see themselves as

:25:36. > :25:40.mobile and part of an open world in which they use their mobility. Even

:25:41. > :25:44.when they don't physically move, their understanding of the world is

:25:45. > :25:48.shaped by that mobile conception. We have another group of citizens I

:25:49. > :25:53.will call nonmobile that have a vision of the world that is the

:25:54. > :25:58.opposite in that respect. If I think that something that we can learn is

:25:59. > :26:03.that one of the problems, perhaps the major shortcoming of European

:26:04. > :26:11.Union citizenship is that is seen as a citizenship only for mobile

:26:12. > :26:15.citizens. Non--mobile citizens see themselves as strangers to the

:26:16. > :26:19.concept of European citizenships, strangers to the benefits of

:26:20. > :26:26.European integration. This means that we need to work on rendering

:26:27. > :26:32.the benefits clear to this other set of citizens. It also means something

:26:33. > :26:36.else that is less discussed and that might seem paradoxical at first

:26:37. > :26:40.sight. One of the problems of European citizenship is that its

:26:41. > :26:44.discourse, its language, is only focussed on rights. You don't really

:26:45. > :26:51.have citizens until those citizens understand that they also have

:26:52. > :26:55.duties. We have never articulated, never developed the conception of

:26:56. > :27:02.duties for European citizens. In my view, the instrument for that is

:27:03. > :27:06.actually to link it to another discussion in the European Union, a

:27:07. > :27:13.discussion that in five years ago I stressed very much in a report to

:27:14. > :27:17.this Parliament that is on own resources. I have to say, it's an

:27:18. > :27:21.old obsession of mine. If there is one issue that I think is the

:27:22. > :27:26.transformative issue for all of the issues of the European Union, its

:27:27. > :27:30.own resources. I think, as I put it, it's the poisonous tree of

:27:31. > :27:36.everything else. The way the union is funded is structured in such a

:27:37. > :27:41.way that first doesn't render clear to citizens how the burden is shared

:27:42. > :27:44.between them, doesn't make clear to citizens the benefits of the

:27:45. > :27:53.European Union and transforms any discussion on the European Union in

:27:54. > :27:59.the zero game. If one essential element of constructing a genuine

:28:00. > :28:06.European citizenship is by redesigning own resources and

:28:07. > :28:10.leaking those own resources with an understanding for citizens on how

:28:11. > :28:15.the burden is shared between them and at the same time by linking

:28:16. > :28:19.those own resources in a way that I would like to the added value of the

:28:20. > :28:24.European Union. For example, by linking those own resources with

:28:25. > :28:30.areas of taxation that member states can no longer individually

:28:31. > :28:34.effectively impose. And by doing that, actually the European Union is

:28:35. > :28:40.doing something member states can no longer do. It's reinstating tax

:28:41. > :28:46.justice in when member states can no longer do it. So I think one crucial

:28:47. > :28:53.aspect that we need to think about European citizenship is that one.

:28:54. > :29:00.One final point that I think is crucial on the entire way that

:29:01. > :29:03.Brexit will be dealt and it's linked with the broader reforms the

:29:04. > :29:08.European Union may have to take. Should Brexit be linked or not with

:29:09. > :29:14.the broader debates on the reforms of the European Union? To a large

:29:15. > :29:19.extent, this is a reproduction of a debate that took place before the

:29:20. > :29:25.referendum. If you remember, when the special regime for the UK was

:29:26. > :29:31.discussed in order to even avoid exit, the strong argument at the

:29:32. > :29:38.time was, let's not embark on a big debate, let's deal with this in a

:29:39. > :29:43.very narrow as an exceptional regime in other not to open up a Pandora

:29:44. > :29:47.box, it didn't -- in other words not to open up a Pandora box. It didn't

:29:48. > :29:52.work. In my view, it's probably better to link it with the broader

:29:53. > :29:58.contalksal debate under the European Union. Why? For three reasons; the

:29:59. > :30:05.first because whatever you will end up deciding on Brexit, whatever will

:30:06. > :30:10.be decided will require unanimity and ratification in all member

:30:11. > :30:18.states in all likelihood. Article 50 doesn't. It's a qualified majority.

:30:19. > :30:23.Unless there is a real Brexit, I think that will be and we'll be back

:30:24. > :30:28.for the European Union and it will be dramatic for the United Kingdom.

:30:29. > :30:33.If that is not the case, then any agreement on exit in Article 50 will

:30:34. > :30:38.have to take place at the same time that you conclude a new agreement

:30:39. > :30:43.with the United Kingdom and this new agreement in the United Kingdom can

:30:44. > :30:47.very likely require Norwich Union any morety and ratification even in

:30:48. > :30:51.the member states -- unanimity. If you have to undergo the processes

:30:52. > :30:53.maybe perhaps to do it together as part of a broader package of reforms

:30:54. > :31:03.in the European Union. You might find a solution is that

:31:04. > :31:09.you might otherwise have because you can create opportunities for

:31:10. > :31:15.trade-offs. The third one is that, actually, I will not exclude the

:31:16. > :31:20.possibility for that will allow a final solution worked the UK will

:31:21. > :31:23.leave and stay at the same time. If, for example, there is broader reform

:31:24. > :31:28.of the European Union with different circles of integration, nothing

:31:29. > :31:32.prevents for an alternative agreement with the United Kingdom to

:31:33. > :31:35.correspond to one of these weaker forms of integration. That will give

:31:36. > :31:43.one possibility to an extent for the United Kingdom to leave and at the

:31:44. > :31:49.same time to stay in a weaker form. Of course, this raises the issue of

:31:50. > :31:55.constitutional amendments and I will conclude with that. I think that is

:31:56. > :32:00.the other democratic deficit that no one talks about in the European

:32:01. > :32:03.Union. It is also a democratic deficit when you cannot

:32:04. > :32:06.constitutionally amend yourself, because you are making any new

:32:07. > :32:14.generation bound by what was decided in the past. We really need to face,

:32:15. > :32:18.I understand the difficulties and white no one wants to open any new

:32:19. > :32:22.process of treaty amendments. I wrote that for many years that I

:32:23. > :32:28.thought it was better not to open a big constitutional discussion and

:32:29. > :32:35.try to constitutionally amend the European Union without a treaty

:32:36. > :32:37.amendment. That is to interpretation by the court. The point is

:32:38. > :32:43.comparably needed to face that issue. Some years ago I met with a

:32:44. > :32:50.colleague of mine from jail and we had a proposal we called the South

:32:51. > :32:54.African proposal. What it called the South African proposal? There had a

:32:55. > :32:59.similar problem with the end of apartheid. They wanted a

:33:00. > :33:04.constitution that would reflect the interests of the majority of the

:33:05. > :33:07.population, but at the same time they also needed a document that

:33:08. > :33:16.could somehow be vetoed and accepted by all the different communities.

:33:17. > :33:20.So, what they did was to agree first on a charter of very fundamental

:33:21. > :33:26.principles that could be vetoed by any of those groups. The

:33:27. > :33:32.constitution then had to conform with that charter and could be

:33:33. > :33:37.approved by a qualified majority, but its conformity with those

:33:38. > :33:41.fundamental principles was controlled by the Constitutional

:33:42. > :33:45.Court of South Africa. What I propose is a new mechanism of treaty

:33:46. > :33:50.amendment in the European Union where you have an intergovernmental

:33:51. > :34:00.conference that will first decide and deliberate just on a general set

:34:01. > :34:03.of principles and this will be with ratification in national parliaments

:34:04. > :34:09.and with referendums if necessary. The deal document would then be

:34:10. > :34:12.drafted. It could be drafted even by representatives would be selected at

:34:13. > :34:21.the same time that the ratification of the basic document was being

:34:22. > :34:26.ratified. It is the deal document compliance of conformity with the

:34:27. > :34:31.basic principles which would be controlled by an ad hoc judicial

:34:32. > :34:36.body composed of the presidents of the supreme Courts of the different

:34:37. > :34:41.member states. This is one way of untangling and freeing us and it

:34:42. > :34:46.will not be easy, I understand, but it might be one possibility is to

:34:47. > :34:49.take a step forward in terms of treaty amendments for the European

:34:50. > :34:54.Union. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak. We have put

:34:55. > :34:58.your finger on of very sensitive issues.