Debate: Proposed mandate for negotiations for a new partnership with the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Date: TUESDAY, 11 FEBRUARY 2020
Speaker: Nikolina Brnjac
Language: EN

First of all, given the comprehensive mandate called for by the European Council, the scope of the negotiations is very broad. We cannot therefore afford to delay their start. An early start calls for an early adoption of the mandate. We intend to do that at the General Affairs Council on 25 February. This time constraint is made all the more stringent by Prime Minister Johnson’s decision not to extend the transition period beyond the end of 2020. Given the broad scope of the mandate, this will require that several strands of negotiations have to proceed in parallel. This is a negotiating mandate, not the final outcome of the negotiations. Therefore, it cannot spell out in full detail our expected landing zones, our final offers and the trade-offs we may have to contemplate. Adequate negotiating space should be preserved. Besides – and this goes back to my point about unity and time constraints – a very prescriptive mandate would require more time to resolve possibility, diverging interests and priorities. What we should focus on is the Union’s interest in achieving an outcome that is fair and equitable for all Member States and their citizens. Last, we have to factor in the UK red lines. The UK Government’s intention is to discontinue free movement, with an obvious impact on mobility and citizens’ rights, and also to diverge from the Union’s regulatory framework with no less obvious consequences in terms of access to the single market and trade in general. On the substance of the mandate, regarding the various sectors that should be covered, I think that we largely share the view in the Parliament’s position, as reflected in your draft resolution. This means a fair degree of ambition as compared to the Union’s relationship with other countries. It should be clear, however, that this cannot amount to giving the UK the same benefit as a Member State, especially in the light of its red lines. But let me focus briefly on more horizontal aspects of the partnership: governance and level playing field. There should be no doubt here. The EU might be prepared to offer an ambitious free trade agreement with significant market access, but this cannot be to the detriment of the competitive position of EU companies, social and health standards, or state aid rules. In other words, the partnership should include wide ranging provisions on a level playing field, based on high standards. This is all the more relevant given the UK’s stated intention to diverge from the European Union. In my view, this is closely linked to the issue of effective dispute settlement enforcement and remedies. There is no point in developing wide ranging level playing field provisions if they cannot be enforced. I will make two important remarks before closing. First, although we are well aware that the line of the UK’s Government is to put an end to the free movement of persons, we should see to it that the future relationship that we will start to negotiate shortly will be ambitious enough in terms of mobility. Second, and this is a link to my previous remark, these negotiations will keep both our institutions and the Commission busy for quite some time, but this should not make us forget about the Withdrawal Agreement. We should continue to monitor its thorough implementation. There is therefore once again a shared interest all along the coming negotiations in pursuing the good cooperation that we expected during the Brexit phase.