Debate: Withdrawal Agreement of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community
Date: WEDNESDAY, 29 JANUARY 2020
Speaker: Guy Verhofstadt
Country: Bulgaria
Language: EN

At the beginning of this debate, Mr President, I want also to pay tribute to our British colleagues – well, at least the overwhelming majority of them.  I have to say to them that they have always brought wit, charm, intelligence (some of them). And, let’s recognise, sometimes also stubbornness in this House. I think that I can say, in the name of all of us, from all Groups, I can only say we will miss you in the coming time and in the coming years. Mr President, let me be clear from the start of this debate. Today’s vote is not a vote in favour of or against Brexit; it’s a vote for an orderly Brexit against a wild, a hard Brexit. I will be very honest with you: if we could stop Brexit by voting ‘no’ today, I would be the first to recommend it. But that’s not on our plate today. That’s not on our table and not the issue today. It is indeed a sad issue: sad to see a nation leaving, a great nation that has given all of us so much. I mean culturally, I mean economically, I mean politically, even its own blood in two world wars. It’s in fact sad to see a country leaving that twice liberated us, has twice given its blood to liberate Europe. And I think, Mr President, in these debates we cannot escape a key question: how could this happen? How is it possible that, more than 40 years after, I think, an enormous overwhelming majority of nearly 70% voted to enter into the European family, how 40 years later they decided, based on their sovereign rights, to leave this European project? I have to tell you that, since the outcome of the referendum (and that is now more than 3 years ago), I have heard many opinions about it. Everybody has an opinion about it. Some people are saying: well look, they are simply afraid, the Brits, of losing their sovereignty. That’s the issue. But colleagues, what does ‘sovereignty’ in fact mean today, in a world that is completely dominated by powerhouses like China, like India, like the US; in a world where we have to challenge transnational problems like climate change and the digital supremacy – tomorrow, of China, today of the US? Let me say it maybe a little more punchily: what is in fact threatening Britain’s   sovereignty most – the rules of our single market or the fact that tomorrow there will be, maybe, the planting of Chinese 5G masts in the British Isles? The cruel reality that we have to consider today in this debate is that European countries lost their sovereignty already a long time ago, and that Europe is just the way to regain that sovereignty in the coming years. There have been other people who told me and Michel Barnier: look, you don’t understand it. It’s all about migration that Brexit is happening: migrants working in British hospitals, migrants working in British universities, migrants working on construction sites in London. While in fact, dear colleagues, these migrants are European citizens exactly like British citizens are: paying taxes to Britain and, in fact, contributing to the future of British society. Then, finally, there are other opinions, but I will be short today (for once). There are others who are saying, and pointing the finger at us, and saying: yes, the reason for Brexit is simple. You didn’t give enough to Mr Cameron when he came to Brussels and when he requested new exceptions for Britain: exceptions on free movement, exceptions on the question of the political union. Well I have to tell you, Mr President and colleagues today, that, as rapporteur, it’s my personal opinion and my firm conviction that the opposite is true. Brexit started not three and a half years ago. Brexit started long ago, and I think, personally, that Brexit started exactly the day we started giving exceptions: with opt-ins, with opt-outs, with rebates. That’s, in my opinion, the moment the Union ceased to be in union. And it’s also the moment, colleagues, that the discontent about Europe started. All these exceptions, all these vetoes make a union, in my opinion, not capable to act effectively: always acting too little, too late. And it is, in my opinion, this lack of effectiveness that leads to even more discontent. It’s like a self-fulfilling prophecy, with members – one leg in the Union and another leg outside the Union – only looking for the advantages, not for the obligations. So in my opinion: yes, Brexit is also a failure of the Union. It’s also our failure: we have to recognise that in this debate. And yes, there is a lesson to learn from it, and this lesson, dear colleagues, is not to undo the union, as some are arguing here; no, this lesson is – and we have to learn this from Brexit – to deeply reform the union, to make it a real union in the coming years. That means a union without opt-ins, opt-outs, rebates, exceptions and, above all, without unanimity rules and veto rights. Only then can we act, and only then will we defend our interests, and only then will we defend our values. It is this lack of effectiveness that is the problem that we have seen in Brexit. I have to tell you – and that will be my conclusion, Mr President – in the last couple of days, I received – maybe as you – hundreds of mails from British citizens saying they desperately want either to stay or to return. And I have to tell you, for once – normally it’s easy for me – but this time I don’t know what to respond, because it’s not in our capacity to decide that. But that doesn’t mean that we don’t have a responsibility to make sure that the Union to which they will return will be another Union, effective and more democratic. So – and that’s my last sentence as rapporteur, Mr President (thank you for the support): this vote is not an