2020/2136(INI) | [ParlTrack]

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. ~~Recalls that the framework for the future relationship between the EU and the UK was laid down in the Political Declaration accompanying the Withdrawal Agreement, which~~Understands why the UK did not wish to include~~s clear~~ provisions ~~established by both parties on cooperat~~regarding cooperation with the Union in the areas of foreign policy, security and defence;

Amendment 11 #

Jérôme RIVIÈRE, Thierry MARIANI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Regrets that the legally non- binding nature of the Political Declaration gave the UK legal grounds not to engage with crucial parts of its content, in particular those relating to foreign and security policy, which therefore formed no part of the negotiations;deleted

Amendment 12 #

3. ~~Regrets that the legally non- binding nature of the Political Declaration gave the UK legal grounds not to engage with crucial parts of its content, in particular those relat~~Considers it perfectly legitimate for the United Kingdom, as a sovereign state, not to have envisaged concluding an agreement binding it structurally with the European Union regarding to foreign and ~~security policy, which therefore formed no part of the negotiation~~defence policy issues;

Amendment 13 #

Anna FOTYGA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. ~~Regret~~Notes that the legally non-binding nature of the Political Declaration gave the UK legal grounds not to engage with ~~crucial~~important parts of its content, in particular those relating to foreign and security policy, which therefore formed no part of the negotiations;

Amendment 14 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Hopes that, on the basis of the commitments contained in the Political Declaration setting out the framework for future relations between the European Union and the United Kingdom, an agreement can be concluded as soon as possible on cooperation in the field of foreign policy, security and defence policy, modelled for example on the Strategic Partnership Agreement - SPA) already concluded with Canada and Japan;

Amendment 15 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3 a. Regrets that this resulted in a missed opportunity for both sides to negotiate a close and stable cooperation in the field of foreign and security policy, which would have been of mutual interest;

Amendment 16 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3 a. Takes into account that any cooperation between the EU and the UK relation to foreign policy, security and defence must be in line with international law and the defence of human rights;

Amendment 17 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)

3 b. Stresses that, although the Political Declaration has not been honoured and there is no agreement on foreign policy and defence, both sides should continue to cooperate on foreign policy, through the promotion of democracy, peace and the rule of law, human security and global stability, the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, the fight against climate change, the protection of women's and LGBTQI+ rights, and disarmament and non-proliferation;

Amendment 18 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)

3b. Deplores the attitude of the United Kingdom Government, which has on several occasions demonstrated its willingness to unilaterally modify the implementation of the Protocol on Northern Ireland annexed to the Withdrawal Agreement; considers that Protocol issues should be addressed through the structures provided for in the Withdrawal Agreement in order to preserve mutual trust and future relations between the EU and the UK;

Amendment 19 #

Anna FOTYGA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Believes that ~~for the framework~~while a political declaration on the future relationship between a withdrawing Member State and the Union ~~to inform the~~and a withdrawal agreement~~, its nature must in future be unequivocal, irrevocable and binding on~~ remain different in nature, the future aim should be to keep the framework as convergent as possible during the negotiations on the future relationship upon the entry into force of the relevant withdrawal agreement.

Amendment 2 #

Draft opinion
Recital B a (new)

Ba. whereas the Political Declaration setting out a framework for the future relationship between the EU and the UK establishes the parameters for an ambitious, broad, deep and flexible partnership extending to foreign policy, security and defence and wider areas of cooperation;

Amendment 20 #

Nathalie LOISEAU, Javier NART, Klemen GROŠELJ, Marie-Pierre VEDRENNE, Bernard GUETTA, Petras AUŠTREVIČIUS, María Soraya RODRÍGUEZ RAMOS, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. ~~Believ~~Notes that ~~for the framework on the future relationship between a withdrawing Member State and the Union to inform the withdrawal agreement, its nature must in future~~there are numerous variables that could affect the position of the parties in the time that lapses between the drafting of the withdrawal agreement and that of the framework on the future relationship, which is why the withdrawal agreement cannot be unequivocal, irrevocable and binding on the negotiations on the future relationship ~~upon the entry into force of the relevant withdrawal agreement~~.

Amendment 21 #

Vladimír BILČÍK

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4 a. Reiterates the importance of parliamentary scrutiny at all stages of this process; underlines the importance of the European Parliament's crucial role in the withdrawal procedure; in this respect, notes the importance of full application of Article 218 (10) TFEU with regards to Parliament's prerogatives regarding the withdrawal, which states that the European Parliament must be informed at all stages of the procedure of negotiations between the Union and third countries; underlines that the Commission must keep Parliament informed on an equal footing with the Council;

Amendment 22 #

Javier NART

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Underlines the difficulties encountered by the EU Delegation to the United Kingdom concerning recognition of its status at a time when its work is particularly necessary following the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union; hopes that solutions will be found and implemented rapidly to enable the EU Delegation to the UK to fulfil its mission effectively, with equivalent measures in any case being applied on a reciprocal basis to the United Kingdom;

Amendment 23 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4 a. 1. Is deeply concerned about recent decisions taken unilaterally by the United Kingdom and going against the full implementation of the Withdrawal Agreement to which both parties have committed; supports the actions taken by the Commission and calls on the UK to quickly return to a cooperative and good faith attitude;

Amendment 24 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)

4 b. Regrets that the Commission has initiated infringement proceedings against the UK, a sovereign non-Member State, for an alleged breach of the Northern Ireland Protocol.

Amendment 25 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4 a. Underlines that during the implementation of Article 50 numerous disruptions have occurred and a high level of geopolitical uncertainty has developed; in this regard, invites the Commission to incorporate legal and binding mechanisms into the framework of potential withdrawals to avoid such disruptions

Amendment 26 #

Nathalie LOISEAU, Javier NART, Klemen GROŠELJ, Marie-Pierre VEDRENNE, Bernard GUETTA, Petras AUŠTREVIČIUS, María Soraya RODRÍGUEZ RAMOS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4 a. Believes that after a Member State has withdrawn from the European Union, its own judicial system should reign supreme, in accordance with the principle of sovereignty;

Amendment 27 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)

4 b. 1. Recalls that the Withdrawal Agreement provides that the practical modalities of its implementation can be discussed in the Joint Committee, while the EU has already shown flexibility in granting grace periods, a deliberate and unilateral violation of commitments made will have consequences;

Amendment 28 #

Nathalie LOISEAU, Javier NART, Klemen GROŠELJ, Marie-Pierre VEDRENNE, Bernard GUETTA, Petras AUŠTREVIČIUS, María Soraya RODRÍGUEZ RAMOS, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 c (new)

4 c. 3. Stresses the difficulties encountered by the EU delegation in the United Kingdom with regard to the recognition of its status, at a time when its work is particularly necessary following the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union; hopes that solutions can be found and implemented rapidly to enable the EU delegation in the United Kingdom to fulfil its mission effectively;

Amendment 3 #

Nathalie LOISEAU, Javier NART, Klemen GROŠELJ, Marie-Pierre VEDRENNE, Bernard GUETTA, Petras AUŠTREVIČIUS, María Soraya RODRÍGUEZ RAMOS, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER

Draft opinion
Recital B a (new)

B a. whereas the involvement and the oversight of the European Parliament is fundamental in the whole process, guaranteeing transparency and political accountability;

Amendment 4 #

Draft opinion
Recital B a (new)

B a. Considering the current tensions generated by the UK's failure to comply with its obligations under the Protocol on Ireland and Northern Ireland;

Amendment 5 #

Jaak MADISON, Lars Patrick BERG, Harald VILIMSKY, Susanna CECCARDI

Draft opinion
Recital B b (new)

Bb. whereas the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland is an integral part of the Withdrawal Agreement, which has the formal status of a Treaty and is therefore fully binding under international law; whereas the main purpose of the Protocol is to protect the Good Friday Agreements, which have ensured security and peace on the island of Ireland in recent decades;

Amendment 6 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Recalls that, as per Article 50(2) TEU, withdrawal agreements are to take account of the framework for the withdrawing state’s future relationship with the Union; emphasises that the withdrawal agreement should be negotiated in good faith by both the EU and the withdrawing Member State; emphasises that the EU should not seek to punish the withdrawing State when negotiating the withdrawal agreement;

Amendment 7 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1 a. Welcomes that the Withdrawal Agreement included “specific arrangements relating to the Union's external action” whereby, namely the United Kingdom was bound during the transition period by the obligations stemming from the international agreements concluded by the Union to implement the Union's restrictive measures in place or decided during the transition period, to support EU statements and positions in third countries and international organisations and to participate on a case by case basis in EU military operations and civilian missions established under the Common and Security Defence Policy (CSDP), yet without any leading capacity through a Framework Participation Agreement; underlines that these arrangements were put in place in order not to disrupt the UK's participation in the mentioned policy during the transition period;

Amendment 8 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)

1 b. Notes that the Withdrawal Agreement included a provision for early agreements on the future EU-UK relationship in the area of CFSP and CSDP;

Amendment 9 #

Danuta Maria HÜBNER, Vladimír BILČÍK, Seán KELLY, Paulo RANGEL, Loránt VINCZE, Brice HORTEFEUX

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 c (new)

1 c. Regrets that despite the mutual interest in such an agreement, which would be based on shared values, contributing to promotion of peace and strengthening of the rules-based global order, the parties could not take advantage of this possibility, due to the UK government's unwillingness to negotiate on foreign and security policy cooperation;

source: 691.083

2021/07/21 AFCO 199 amendments...

Amendment 1 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 1

— having regard to the Treaty on European Union (TEU), and in particular Article 50 and Article 8 thereof,

Amendment 10 #

Danuta Maria HÜBNER, Vladimír BILČÍK, Seán KELLY, Paulo RANGEL, Loránt VINCZE, Brice HORTEFEUX

Motion for a resolution
Recital -A a (new)

-Aa. Whereas the reflection on the implementation of Article 50 contributes to a better understanding of key components of the EU constitutional identity, the principles underpinning the European integration, the importance of the decision making autonomy and the right to regulate, to be taken into account in future treaty change;

Amendment 100 #

Gunnar BECK, Laura HUHTASAARI, Gilles LEBRETON, Jaak MADISON, Jessica STEGRUD, Peter KOFOD

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Believes that although the withdrawal is not conditional upon an agreement between the withdrawing Member State and the Union, the process of the withdrawal of the UK shows the importance of concluding an agreement on the withdrawal arrangements; considers that the EU institutions ~~did their utmost and accomplished their obligation to ensure the conclusion of an agreement; commends the efforts m~~' unreasonable demands, especially with regards to the role of the Court of Justice of the EU, almost leade to ~~avoid~~ a no- deal scenario;

Amendment 101 #

Danuta Maria HÜBNER, Vladimír BILČÍK, Seán KELLY, Paulo RANGEL, Loránt VINCZE, Brice HORTEFEUX

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. ~~Believes that although~~Deplores the fact that the withdrawal is not conditional upon an agreement between the withdrawing Member State and the Union,; emphasises that the process of the withdrawal of the UK shows the importance of concluding an agreement on the withdrawal arrangements, particularly with a view to protecting the rights and legitimate expectations of the citizens involved; considers that the EU institutions did their utmost and accomplished their obligation to ensure the conclusion of an agreement; commends the efforts made to avoid a no- deal scenario;

Amendment 102 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)

10a. Notes, in this regard, that if an agreement is not reached, the withdrawal becomes effective two years after notification of the Council, in accordance with Article 50 (3) of the TEU; emphasises that there are no provisions in the Treaty to tackle a no-deal scenario;

Amendment 103 #

Danuta Maria HÜBNER, Vladimír BILČÍK, Seán KELLY, Paulo RANGEL, Loránt VINCZE, Brice HORTEFEUX

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 b (new)

10b. Reiterates the importance of the work undertaken by the Commission and the Member States at all levels of public administration and in reaching out to citizens and private sectors, in terms of awareness raising and preparation, through the publication of a great number of specific stakeholder preparedness notices, and the timely adoption of unilateral and temporary contingency measures;

Amendment 104 #

Danuta Maria HÜBNER, Vladimír BILČÍK, Seán KELLY, Paulo RANGEL, Loránt VINCZE, Brice HORTEFEUX

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 c (new)

10c. Flexibility under Article 50 of the TEU Or. en (This is not a paragraph, but a title before paragraph 11)

Amendment 105 #

Danuta Maria HÜBNER, Vladimír BILČÍK, Seán KELLY, Paulo RANGEL, Loránt VINCZE, Brice HORTEFEUX

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 c (new)

10c. Notes that the Treaty does not specify any substantive requirements on the guidelines of the European Council under Article 50(2) of the TEU, or regarding the framework for the future relationship between the withdrawing Member State and the Union and its link with the withdrawal arrangements;

Amendment 106 #

Danuta Maria HÜBNER, Vladimír BILČÍK, Seán KELLY, Paulo RANGEL, Loránt VINCZE, Brice HORTEFEUX

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 – introductory part

11. Considers that Article 50 of the TEU strikes a balance between ensuring a legally sound withdrawal process and safeguarding the political flexibility necessary for adaptation to the specific circumstances; believes, however, that~~, in~~ the ~~framework of a future reform of the Treaty, the opportunity of remedying some of the loopholes identified in Article 50 of the TEU could be assessed, with particular regard to~~complexity of the withdrawal process and the far-reaching nature of its consequences are disproportional in relation to the lack of detail of the provisions of Article 50 of the TEU, including on the following aspects:

Amendment 107 #

Gunnar BECK, Laura HUHTASAARI, Gilles LEBRETON, Jaak MADISON, Peter KOFOD

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 – introductory part

11. Considers that Article 50 of the TEU strikes a balance between ensuring a withdrawal process and safeguarding the flexibility necessary for adaptation to the specific circumstances; believes~~, however, that, in the framework of a future reform of the Treaty, the opportunity of~~ that the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties comprises the necessary rules to remedy~~ing~~ some of the ~~loophol~~challenges identified in ~~Article 50 of the TEU could be assessed, with particular regard to the following:~~the exercise of Article 50 of the EU;

Amendment 108 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 – introductory part

11. Considers that Article 50 of the TEU strikes a good balance between ensuring a withdrawal process and safeguarding the flexibility necessary for adaptation to the specific circumstances; believes, however, that, in the framework of a possible future reform of the Treaty, the opportunity ~~of remedying some of the loopholes identified~~to further clarify some provisions in Article 50 of the TEU could be assessed, with particular regard to the following:

Amendment 109 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 – introductory part

11. Considers that Article 50 of the TEU str~~ikes~~uck a balance between ensuring a withdrawal process and safeguarding the flexibility necessary for adaptation to the specific circumstances; believes, however, that, in the framework of a future reform of the Treaty, the opportunity of remedying some of the loopholes and shortcomings identified in Article 50 of the TEU could be assessed, with particular regard to the following:

Amendment 11 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas Article 50 of the TEU solved the pre-existing uncertainty and ambiguity surrounding the right to withdraw from the EU by explicitly giving Member States the unilateral right to withdraw, subject to no conditions apart from compliance with their own national constitutional requirements; whereas, while the compliance with such requirements is a question of the national law of the Member State wishing to withdraw, uncertainty may arise if different branches of government express conflicting views on what compliance requires;

Amendment 110 #

Danuta Maria HÜBNER, Vladimír BILČÍK, Seán KELLY, Paulo RANGEL, Loránt VINCZE, Brice HORTEFEUX

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 – introductory part

11. Considers that Article 50 of the TEU strikes a balance between ensuring a withdrawal process and safeguarding the flexibility necessary for adaptation to the specific circumstances; believes, however, that, in the framework of a future reform of the Treaty, the ~~opportun~~possibility of remedying some of the loopholes identified in Article 50 of the TEU could be assessed, with particular regard to the following:

Amendment 111 #

Gunnar BECK, Laura HUHTASAARI, Gilles LEBRETON, Jaak MADISON, Peter KOFOD

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 – indent 1

- del~~imited requirements for the extension of the period of two years set out under Article 50(3) of the TEU,~~eted

Amendment 112 #

Pedro SILVA PEREIRA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 – indent 1

- del~~imited requirements for the extension of the period of two years set out under Article 50(3) of the TEU,~~eted

Amendment 113 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 – indent 1

- ~~delimited requirements for~~ the extension of the period of two years set out under Article 50(3) of the TEU,

Amendment 114 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 – indent 1

- delimited requirements for the extension of the ~~period of~~ two -years period, set out under Article 50(3) of the TEU, which should be limited to one prolongation, except in particular circumstances,

Amendment 115 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 – indent 1 a (new)

- an obligation to enclose an outline of ambitions as regards future cooperation with the notification of the intention to withdraw,

Amendment 116 #

Danuta Maria HÜBNER, Vladimír BILČÍK, Seán KELLY, Paulo RANGEL, Loránt VINCZE, Brice HORTEFEUX

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 – indent 1 a (new)

- laying down a negotiation period longer than the two years set out under Article 50(3) of the TEU,

Amendment 117 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 – indent 1 a (new)

- the formal requirements of the notification of the intention to leave,

Amendment 118 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 – indent 1 b (new)

- specification of a two-phase approach, starting with a withdrawal agreement, followed by the negotiation of the future relationship,

Amendment 119 #

Gunnar BECK, Laura HUHTASAARI, Gilles LEBRETON, Jaak MADISON, Peter KOFOD

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 – indent 2

~~- a legal basis and strict conditions for transitional arrangements,~~deleted

Amendment 12 #

Danuta Maria HÜBNER, Vladimír BILČÍK, Seán KELLY, Paulo RANGEL, Loránt VINCZE, Brice HORTEFEUX

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas Article 50 of the TEU ~~solv~~addressed the pre-existing uncertainty and ambiguity surrounding the right to withdraw from the EU by explicitly giving Member States the unilateral right to withdraw, subject to no conditions apart from compliance with their own national constitutional requirements;

Amendment 120 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 – indent 2

- ~~a legal basis and strict conditions for~~the transitional arrangements,

Amendment 121 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 – indent 2

- a possible legal basis ~~and strict conditions~~ for transitional arrangements,

Amendment 122 #

Gunnar BECK, Laura HUHTASAARI, Gilles LEBRETON, Jaak MADISON, Peter KOFOD

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 – indent 3

~~- explicit conditions for the revocation of the notification of the intention to leave,~~deleted

Amendment 123 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 – indent 3

- explicit ~~conditions for the revocation of~~recognition of the right to unilaterally revoke the notification of the intention to leave,

Amendment 124 #

Danuta Maria HÜBNER, Vladimír BILČÍK, Seán KELLY, Paulo RANGEL, Loránt VINCZE, Brice HORTEFEUX

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 – indent 3

-to explicit ~~conditions for the -~~ly grant the possibility of revocation of the notification of the intention to leave,

Amendment 125 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 – indent 3

- ~~explicit conditions for~~ the revocation of the notification of the intention to leave,

Amendment 126 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 – indent 3

- explicit conditions for the revocation of the notification of the intention to leave, clearly setting out that in the event of notification being revoked the withdrawal procedure lapses without any consequences for the Member State that initiated the Article 50 procedure,

Amendment 127 #

Danuta Maria HÜBNER, Vladimír BILČÍK, Seán KELLY, Paulo RANGEL, Loránt VINCZE, Brice HORTEFEUX

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 – indent 3 a (new)

- ensuring a greater role for Parliament in the procedure and during the course of negotiations on the withdrawal agreement,

Amendment 128 #

Gunnar BECK, Laura HUHTASAARI, Gilles LEBRETON, Jaak MADISON, Peter KOFOD

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 – indent 4

~~- clarification of the application of the provisions of Article 218 of the TFEU, notably on the role of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the procedure;~~deleted

Amendment 129 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 – indent 4

- ~~clarification of~~ the application of the provisions of Article 218 of the TFEU~~, notably on the role~~ other than its paragraph 3, and in particular on the role of the European Parliament and of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the procedure;

Amendment 13 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)

Aa. whereas Article 50 of the TEU confirms that the Member States are the ‘masters of the Treaties’ and the EU is a free association of states and not a mandatory project;

Amendment 130 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 – indent 4 a (new)

- a simplified and accelerated accession procedure for regions that have become independent in a legal and democratic manner, with a transition period during which relations between the EU and the region remain unchanged;

Amendment 131 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 – indent 4 a (new)

- clarification on the obligation to take into account the framework of the future relationship;

Amendment 132 #

Danuta Maria HÜBNER, Vladimír BILČÍK, Seán KELLY, Paulo RANGEL, Loránt VINCZE, Brice HORTEFEUX

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Believes, furthermore, that the withdrawal provisions of the Treaty should, a~~s much as possible,~~lways ensure legal certainty for the EU citizens affected by the withdrawal, ~~setting out minimum standards for the protection of their rights~~fully safeguarding their rights and protecting them against any discriminatory treatment;

Amendment 133 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. ~~Believes, furthermore,~~Regrets that the withdrawal of the UK from the Union entailed the departure of an entire community of EU citizens; believes that the withdrawal provisions of the Treaty should, as much as possible, ensure legal certainty for the vast number of EU citizens affected by the withdrawal, setting out minimum standards for the protection of their rights obtained on the basis of EU law;

Amendment 134 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Believes, furthermore, that the withdrawal provisions of the Treaty should, as much as possible, ensure legal certainty for the EU citizens, as well as citizens of the departing State - including through affected by the withdrawal, setting out minimum standards for the protection of their rights; Believes that citizens and organisations representing citizens should be consulted throughout the withdrawal process;

Amendment 135 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Believes, furthermore, that the withdrawal provisions of the Treaty should, as much as possible, ensure legal certainty for the EU citizens affected by the withdrawal, setting out minimum standards for the protection of their ~~rights~~fundamental and social rights; underlines the need for further protection and legal certainty for vulnerable EU citizens affected by the withdrawal;

Amendment 136 #

Danuta Maria HÜBNER, Vladimír BILČÍK, Seán KELLY, Paulo RANGEL, Loránt VINCZE, Brice HORTEFEUX

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Believes, furthermore, that the withdrawal provisions of the Treaty should, as much as possible, ensure legal certainty for the EU citizens affected by the withdrawal, setting out minimum standards ~~for the protection of their right~~and an effective enforcement system for the protection of their rights without the prejudice of also include the creation of follow-up mechanisms and information campaigns;

Amendment 137 #

Gunnar BECK, Laura HUHTASAARI, Gilles LEBRETON, Jaak MADISON, Peter KOFOD

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Believes, furthermore, that the withdrawal pro~~visions of the Treaty~~cedures should, as much as possible, ensure legal certainty for the EU citizens affected by the withdrawal, setting out minimum standards for the protection of their rights;

Amendment 138 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)

12a. The role of the institutions in the withdrawal process Or. en (This is not a paragraph, but a title before paragraph 13)

Amendment 139 #

Danuta Maria HÜBNER, Vladimír BILČÍK, Seán KELLY, Paulo RANGEL, Loránt VINCZE, Brice HORTEFEUX

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)

12a. Points out that in order to ensure a better level of democratic accountability and transparency and to avoid uncertainty for citizens and businesses, provisions should ensure that the triggering of Article 50 is accompanied by a mandate from the departing state concerning the withdrawal agreement and the future relationship;

Amendment 14 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)

Aa. whereas the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) is not directly applicable to the TEU as the EU is not a party to the Convention;

Amendment 140 #

Laura HUHTASAARI, Gerolf ANNEMANS, Gunnar BECK, Jaak MADISON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 b (new)

12b. Believes that, given the nature of the decision to leave the Union and its fundamental impacts on citizens of the departing states, the holding of a referendum to confirm the final decision to leave can be an important democratic safeguard; Considers that the confirmation of this final choice by citizens is also crucial in case negotiations of a withdrawal agreement would have failed to conclude, provoking a no-deal scenario; Considers that all possible steps should be taken during this process to avoid disinformation, foreign interference and funding irregularities;

Amendment 141 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. ~~Believe~~Considers that the EU institutions and the Member States have collectively been responsive and have followed a coherent and unified approach, providing for a timely, clear and well-structured definition of the aspects of the withdrawal process, including those which are not explicitly specified in Article 50 of the TEU, in particular the objectives and general principles ofble for acting in bad faith in the withdrawal process by not allowing negotiations about the future relationship to take place before the negotifications, the EU’s competences for issues related to the withdrawal, the sequencing of negotiations, the scope of the Withdrawal Agreement, the transitional arrangements, and the framework of the future relationship of Article 50; is therefore of the view that in potential future withdrawal cases the EU should abandon its policy of no negotiation before notification of Article 50 in order to emphasise bona fide and to demonstrate that the EU is a voluntary union of independent and sovereign nation states;

Amendment 142 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Believes that the EU institutions and the Member States have ~~collectively~~in general been responsive and have followed a coherent and unified approach, providing for a timely~~, clear and well-~~ and structured definition of the aspects of the withdrawal process, including those which are not explicitly specified in Article 50 of the TEU, in particular the objectives and general principles of the negotiations, the EU’s competences for issues related to the withdrawal, the sequencing of negotiations, the scope of the Withdrawal Agreement, the transitional arrangements, and the framework of the future relationship;

Amendment 143 #

Danuta Maria HÜBNER, Vladimír BILČÍK, Seán KELLY, Paulo RANGEL, Loránt VINCZE, Brice HORTEFEUX

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)

13a. Considers that the withdrawal agreement and the negotiation of future trade relations with the withdrawing State, pursuant to Article 50(2) of the TEU, should be more strictly aligned with each other, in view of the obstacles in the sequencing of negotiations imposed by the EU and the delays in resolving issues concerning withdrawal resulting from the absence of a shared vision on the content of future relations; in addition, asserts the importance of defining transitional measures inspired by the principle of sincere cooperation, with conditions set in the interests of both parties and of European citizens, which must be clearly defined and limited in time and subject to effective and fair application mechanisms;

Amendment 144 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)

13a. Emphasises that the European Parliament played a pivotal role in the entire process of the withdrawal, contributing actively with duly substantiated resolutions to the identification of strategies and to the protection of the interests and priorities of the EU and its citizens, since the run-up to the UK referendum on EU membership; recalls in this regard that the contribution of Parliament was structured mainly through the Brexit Steering Group (BSG), created by the Conference of Presidents on 6 April 2017, with the support and close involvement of Parliament’s committees and the Conference of Presidents;

Amendment 145 #

Danuta Maria HÜBNER, Vladimír BILČÍK, Seán KELLY, Paulo RANGEL, Loránt VINCZE, Brice HORTEFEUX

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)

13a. Reminds that until a Member States has left the EU, its citizens remain EU citizens; Considers, therefore, that prior to the decision to trigger the Article 50 procedure and during the negotiations referred to in Article 50 (2), the EU institutions have a role to play towards their citizens; Believes, in particular, that provisions should ensure that the EU institutions provide information to the citizens during the different phases related to Article 50;

Amendment 146 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 b (new)

13b. Stresses that the Parliament was mobilised as a whole and in unison in the monitoring of the process of withdrawal, both through its political bodies and through its committees, which were called to identify from early on the impact of the UK’s withdrawal on the policy areas and legislation in their respective fields of responsibility; reiterates the importance of the continuous involvement of the committees responsible for sectoral policies during the negotiations; commends the long and exhaustive preparatory work undertaken by the committees in gathering evidence, advice and expertise through hearings, workshops and studies on all issues related to the withdrawal or the future relationship between the EU and the UK;

Amendment 147 #

Danuta Maria HÜBNER, Vladimír BILČÍK, Seán KELLY, Paulo RANGEL, Loránt VINCZE, Brice HORTEFEUX

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 c (new)

13c. Recalls that the European Parliament has engaged in active dialogue with citizens and organisations representing them, through auditions and meetings organised by parliamentary committees and the BSG, who have striven to give a voice to their concerns and expectations during the withdrawal process;

Amendment 148 #

Danuta Maria HÜBNER, Vladimír BILČÍK, Seán KELLY, Paulo RANGEL, Loránt VINCZE, Brice HORTEFEUX

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Is of the view that the European Council played an aggregating and stabilising role in the process, including through its guidelines under Article 50(2) of the TEU, by interpreting and applying the provisions of Article 50 of the TEU, including in relation to the elements about which the provisions are silent, and setting a clear political direction in line with the interests of the Union in the definition of the negotiation terms and in nominating the Commission as the Union’s negotiator; underlines the importance of the unity of EU member states regarding the UK withdrawal and calls for a similar attitude regarding EU topics;

Amendment 149 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)

14a. Reminds that according to Article 50 (4) of the TEU, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State cannot participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning the process of withdrawal, while the Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) elected in the withdrawing Member State continue to be MEPs with all their rights and obligations intact until the withdrawal becomes effective;

Amendment 15 #

Danuta Maria HÜBNER, Vladimír BILČÍK, Seán KELLY, Paulo RANGEL, Loránt VINCZE, Brice HORTEFEUX

Motion for a resolution
Recital B

B. whereas Article 50 of the TEU establishes ~~the only~~an exclusive procedure under which a Member State may lawfully withdraw from the EU; by integrating withdrawal into the EU legal order and thereby excluding relevant provisions from international law;

Amendment 150 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 b (new)

14b. Recalls the central role of the Union negotiator in liaising and creating remarkable unity between the Union’s institutions and the 27 Member States;

Amendment 151 #

Danuta Maria HÜBNER, Vladimír BILČÍK, Seán KELLY, Paulo RANGEL, Loránt VINCZE, Brice HORTEFEUX

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 c (new)

14c. Recognises the unprecedented nature of inter-institutional cooperation and transparency in the implementation of the Article 50 of the TEU, including the working methods and structures involved in the negotiations, the information channels, the publication of negotiating documents and the participation in meetings, and in particular in Sherpa meetings and meetings of the General Affairs Council;

Amendment 152 #

Danuta Maria HÜBNER, Vladimír BILČÍK, Seán KELLY, Paulo RANGEL, Loránt VINCZE, Brice HORTEFEUX

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 d (new)

14d. Acknowledges the relevance of the core principles proposed by the European Parliament and introduced by the European Council in its successive negotiation guidelines, and subsequently implemented in the negotiations: - Protecting citizens’ rights derived from their status as EU citizens; - Acting in the interest of the Union and preserving its constitutional integrity and the autonomy of its decision-making; - Safeguarding the role of the Court of Justice of the European Union; - Preserving the financial stability of the Union; - Defending the withdrawing state’s enjoyment of all the rights and fulfilment of all the obligations deriving from the Treaties, including the principle of sincere cooperation; - Defending the clear difference in status between Member States and non-member States, as a state having exited the Union cannot have the same rights and obligations as a Member State;

Amendment 153 #

Danuta Maria HÜBNER, Vladimír BILČÍK, Seán KELLY, Paulo RANGEL, Loránt VINCZE, Brice HORTEFEUX

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 e (new)

14e. Continues to support fully the abovementioned principles;

Amendment 154 #

Danuta Maria HÜBNER, Vladimír BILČÍK, Seán KELLY, Paulo RANGEL, Loránt VINCZE, Brice HORTEFEUX

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 f (new)

14f. Is of the opinion that the abovementioned principles reach beyond the context of Article 50 of the TEU, as they underpin European integration and have become key elements of the EU constitutional identity and EU legal order even though they are not part of the treaty;

Amendment 155 #

Danuta Maria HÜBNER, Vladimír BILČÍK, Seán KELLY, Paulo RANGEL, Loránt VINCZE, Brice HORTEFEUX

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 g (new)

14g. Notes that in this respect, the Article 50 of TEU exit procedure has led both the EU and its Member States to reaffirm the Union’s constitutional identity;

Amendment 156 #

Danuta Maria HÜBNER, Vladimír BILČÍK, Seán KELLY, Paulo RANGEL, Loránt VINCZE, Brice HORTEFEUX

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 h (new)

14h. Rights and obligations of the EU and the withdrawing Member State Or. en (This is not a paragraph, but a title before paragraph 15)

Amendment 157 #

Gunnar BECK, Laura HUHTASAARI, Gilles LEBRETON, Jaak MADISON, Jessica STEGRUD, Peter KOFOD

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. ~~Reiterates that, until a withdrawal agreement~~Believes that a Member State should be considered a third country from the date of ent~~ers~~ry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, ~~the~~ two- year period mentioned in Article 50(3) of the TEU has elapsed, the withdrawing State remains a Member State, and enjoys all the rights and is under all the obligations deriving from the Treaties without exception, includings after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend theis peri~~nciple of sincere cooperation laid down in A~~od, in accordance with article 450 (3) ~~of the TEU, as well as the obligation to hold elections to the European Parliament~~TEU;

Amendment 158 #

Danuta Maria HÜBNER, Vladimír BILČÍK, Seán KELLY, Paulo RANGEL, Loránt VINCZE, Brice HORTEFEUX

15. Reiterates that, until a withdrawal agreement enters into force or, failing that, the two-year period mentioned in Article 50(3) of the TEU has elapsed, the withdrawing State remains a Member State, and enjoys all the rights and is under all the obligations deriving from the Treaties without exception, including the principle of sincere cooperation laid down in Article 4(3) of the TEU, as well as the obligation to hold elections to the European Parliament and to appoint its representatives in the institutions and bodies of the Union;

Amendment 159 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

Amendment 16 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)

Ba. whereas the principles and provisions of international law, and in particular the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, are applicable;

Amendment 160 #

Danuta Maria HÜBNER, Vladimír BILČÍK, Seán KELLY, Paulo RANGEL, Loránt VINCZE, Brice HORTEFEUX

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

Amendment 161 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)

15a. Parliament’s scrutiny Or. en (This is not a paragraph, but a title before paragraph 16)

Amendment 162 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)

15a. Notes that while Article 50 preserves and respects the interests of the Member State that is withdrawing, it does not however protect sufficiently the interests of the Union as a whole by providing for unilateral revocation of its provisions by the withdrawing Member State; calls therefore for a more balanced procedure to be defined in any future Treaty reform;

Amendment 163 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Emphasises that the role of political oversight of the European Parliament is indispensable in a parliamentary democratic system; insists, in this regard, that ~~no procedural constraints or political objectives should override or limit in time or scope the parliamentary scrutiny phase as regards~~the parliamentary powers regarding the scrutiny phase should be properly guaranteed as regards the conclusion of any international agreements, and in particular, those concluded in the context of a withdrawal from the European Union;

Amendment 164 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Emphasises that the role of political oversight of the European Parliament, through full and immediate provision of information at all stages of the procedure, is indispensable in a parliamentary democratic system; insists, in this regard, that no procedural constraints or political objectives should override or limit in time or scope the parliamentary scrutiny phase as regards any international agreements, and in particular, those concluded in the context of a withdrawal from the European Union;

Amendment 165 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Emphasises that the role of political oversight of the European Parliament is indispensable in a parliamentary democratic system; insists, in this regard, that no procedural constraints or political objectives should override or limit in time or scope the parliamentary scrutiny phase as regards any international agreements, including through their provisional application, and in particular, those concluded in the context of a withdrawal from the European Union;

Amendment 166 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)

16a. Believes that both the Brexit Steering Group as well as the UK Coordination Group structures created by the European Parliament in the context of the negotiations with the UK were of the outmost importance to guarantee the follow-up and the involvement of the Parliament in the negotiations; Further believes that this experience provided a good example of collective coordination between institutions;

Amendment 167 #

Gunnar BECK, Laura HUHTASAARI, Gilles LEBRETON, Jaak MADISON, Jessica STEGRUD, Peter KOFOD

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. Considers, in this context, that the role of the Parliament is essential in safeguarding the parliamentary and democratic dimension of a procedure ~~with such a~~of major constitutional and institutional impact on the Union; considers that its role must be enhanced in any future Treaty reform, in all aspects of the process from the negotiations to the implementation of a withdrawal agreement, including for major decisions such as extensions in accordance with Article 50(3) of the TEU;

Amendment 168 #

Pedro SILVA PEREIRA

17. Considers, in this context, that the role of the Parliament is essential in safeguarding the parliamentary and democratic dimension of a procedure with such a constitutional and institutional impact on the Union; considers that its role must be enhanced in any future Treaty reform, in all aspects of the process from the negotiations to the implementation of a withdrawal agreement, including for major decisions such as extensions in accordance with Article 50(3) of the TEU;and safeguarded in all relevant aspects of the process.

Amendment 169 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. Considers, in this context, that the role of the Parliament is essential in safeguarding the parliamentary and democratic dimension of a procedure with such a constitutional and institutional impact on the Union; cConsiders that citizens’ rights are an important issue and that the Parliament was particularly active in advocating for citizens throughout the process; Considers that its role must be enhanced in any future Treaty reform, in all aspects of the process from the negotiations to the implementation of a withdrawal agreement, including for major decisions such as extensions in accordance with Article 50(3) of the TEU;

Amendment 17 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)

Ba. whereas the withdrawal agreement is an EU legal act, on the content of which the CJEU may issue rulings through the annulment procedure or through preliminary ruling requests;

Amendment 170 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. Considers, in this context, that the role of the Parliament is essential in safeguarding the parliamentary and democratic dimension of a procedure with such a constitutional and institutional impact on the Union and on the rights of EU citizens; considers that its role must be enhanced in any future Treaty reform, in all aspects of the process from the negotiations to the implementation of a withdrawal agreement, including for major decisions such as extensions in accordance with Article 50(3) of the TEU;

Amendment 171 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. Considers, in this context, that the role of the Parliament is essential in safeguarding the parliamentary and democratic dimension of a procedure with such a constitutional and institutional impact on the Union; considers that i~~ts role must be enhanced i~~n any future Treaty reform, its role must be enhanced to consent in all aspects of the process from the negotiations to the implementation of a withdrawal agreement, including for major decisions such as extensions in accordance with Article 50(3) of the TEU;

Amendment 172 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. Considers, in this context, that the role of the Parliament is essential in safeguarding the parliamentary and democratic dimension of a procedure with such a constitutional and institutional impact on the Union; considers that its supervisory role must be enhanced in any future Treaty reform, in all aspects of the process from the negotiations to the implementation of a withdrawal agreement, including for major decisions such as extensions in accordance with Article 50(3) of the TEU;

Amendment 173 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)

17a. Believes that the inclusion of the European Parliament during all the phases of the negotiation and the level of transparency throughout the negotiation process was instrumental in safeguarding the unity of the Union and guaranteeing the trust of the citizens; Notes that it demonstrates that when it comes to international negotiations, transparency is not detrimental to the Union interests but can on the contrary be a fundamental asset; Recommends, therefore, that the same level of transparency is applied to all negotiations of international treaties;

Amendment 174 #

Danuta Maria HÜBNER, Vladimír BILČÍK, Seán KELLY, Paulo RANGEL, Loránt VINCZE, Brice HORTEFEUX

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)

17a. Notes the role of the European Parliament in the negotiations Needs to be codified, especially the way it is being informed by the Commission which was and should be in the exact same way and at the same time as the Council; furthermore, points out Parliament’s association in political decisions, for example when the EP sherpa’s took part in the Council sherpa meetings prior to the European Council meetings;

Amendment 175 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)

17a. Emphasises in this regard that while the Article 50 process is concluded once the withdrawal from the EU becomes effective, the actual unwinding of EU membership and implementation of the withdrawal agreement is a long term process; Reaffirms in this context that Parliament will play its full role in the monitoring of the implementation of the Withdrawal Agreement;

Amendment 176 #

Danuta Maria HÜBNER, Vladimír BILČÍK, Seán KELLY, Paulo RANGEL, Loránt VINCZE, Brice HORTEFEUX

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 b (new)

17b. Issues for reflection Or. en (This is not a paragraph, but a title before paragraph 18)

Amendment 177 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

18. Considers that Article 50 of the TEU addresses and solves the procedural aspect of a Member State’s withdrawal, but does not solve the significant political and economic consequences and disruptive effects of the withdrawal of a Member State from the EU; believes, nonetheless, that Brexit has demonstrated that it is not possible in all cases to set out in the Treaty all the practical requirements of withdrawal, since many questions and problems that arose during the process were addressed using ad hoc decisions and procedures, developed by interpreting the wording of Article 50 of the TEU, as they were both unexpected and unforeseeable;

Amendment 178 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

Amendment 179 #

Danuta Maria HÜBNER, Vladimír BILČÍK, Seán KELLY, Paulo RANGEL, Loránt VINCZE, Brice HORTEFEUX

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

18. Considers that Article 50 of the TEU addresses and solves the procedural aspect of a Member State’s withdrawal, but does not solve the significant political, social and economic consequences and disruptive effects of the withdrawal of a Member State from the EU, within and across EU members states and internationally;

Amendment 18 #

Gunnar BECK, Laura HUHTASAARI, Gilles LEBRETON, Jaak MADISON, Peter KOFOD

Motion for a resolution
Recital C

C. whereas ~~Article 50 of the TEU is silent on several aspects of the procedure that arose dur~~a Member State should be considered a third country as soon as it notifies the EU about its decision to withdraw from the Union, meaning that the withdrawal ~~of the UK from the Union~~procedure should follow the respective rules of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties;

Amendment 180 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

18. Considers that Article 50 of the TEU addresses and allows to solves the procedural aspect of a Member State’s withdrawal, but does not solve the significant political and economic consequences and disruptive effects of the withdrawal of a Member State from the EU;

Amendment 181 #

Danuta Maria HÜBNER, Vladimír BILČÍK, Seán KELLY, Paulo RANGEL, Loránt VINCZE, Brice HORTEFEUX

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)

18a. Emphasises the need to lay down a negotiation period of more than two years, since Brexit has confirmed that the time currently allowed by the provision is not sufficient to achieve the orderly withdrawal of a State from the EU;

Amendment 182 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)

18a. Considers that given the unpredictability of the withdrawal process, citizens should be given stronger guarantees of legal security as regards their status;

Amendment 183 #

Danuta Maria HÜBNER, Vladimír BILČÍK, Seán KELLY, Paulo RANGEL, Loránt VINCZE, Brice HORTEFEUX

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

Amendment 184 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. Reiterates its call for an in-depth reflection on the withdrawal of the UK from the European Union, and on its impact on the future of the EU; believes that such a reflection should ensure an open and broadened dialogue on the reforms that the Union needs in order to reinforce democracy and the capacity to deliver on citizens needs and expectations; recalls in this context that the Union has embarked on an unprecedented process of reflection on its future in the framework on the Conference of the Future of Europe;

Amendment 185 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. Reiterates its call for an in-depth reflection on the withdrawal of the UK from the European Union, and on its impact on the future of the EU and the UK; believes that such a reflection should ensure an open and broadened dialogue on the reforms that the Union needs in order to reinforce democracy and the capacity to deliver on citizens needs and expectations; Emphasises that this reflection exercise should involve civil society and representatives of citizens’ rights organisations;

Amendment 186 #

Gunnar BECK, Laura HUHTASAARI, Gilles LEBRETON, Jaak MADISON, Peter KOFOD

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. Reiterates its call for an in-depth reflection on the withdrawal of the UK from the European Union, and on its impact on the future of the EU; believes that such a reflection should ensure an open and broadened dialogue on the reforms that the Union needs in order to reinforce democracy and the capacity to deliver on citizens needs and expectations; believes that a smaller Union, with less, but more committed Member States, might be better suited in the future;

Amendment 187 #

Laura HUHTASAARI, Gerolf ANNEMANS, Gunnar BECK, Jaak MADISON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. Reiterates its call for an in-depth reflection on the withdrawal of the UK from the European Union, and on its impact on the future of the EU; believes that such a reflection should ensure an open and broadened dialogue on the reforms that the Union needs in order to reinforce democracy and the capacity to deliver on citizens needs and expectations; underlines the importance of the Conference on the Future of Europe in making this reflection;

Amendment 188 #

Alin MITUȚA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 a (new)

19a. Highlights that misleading ads, misuse of official statistics and false claims played a role in the United Kingdom's 2016 referendum to leave the European Union; calls for more pro- active information campaigns to better present and explain EU's functioning and policies in the Member States; encourages the Commission to come up with a new proposal that will allow the funding of European political parties and European political foundations from the general budget of the European Union to be used to finance referenda in Member States, that deals with issues related to the European Union;

Amendment 189 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. Believes that it is the responsibility and role of the Union ~~and its~~to repatriate powers to Member States ~~to prev~~, and to loosent the ~~repetition of a withdrawal from the EU; calls on Member States to consistently provide wide- reaching information to EU citizens on the functioning~~currently prevalent character of the EU as a centrally led political union ofn the European Union, its areas of action and its decision-making processes; considers that for this purpose the Conference on the Future of Europe offers an opportunity for enhanced dialogue with citizens and civil society on the European Union and how it should evolvepath to become a superstate, in order to prevent the repetition of withdrawals from the EU;

Amendment 19 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital C

C. whereas Article 50 of the TEU is ~~silent~~not clear enough on several aspects of the procedure that arose during the withdrawal of the UK from the Union and needs further clarification;

Amendment 190 #

Gunnar BECK, Laura HUHTASAARI, Gilles LEBRETON, Jaak MADISON, Jessica STEGRUD, Peter KOFOD

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. ~~Believes that it is the responsibility and role~~Considers that the Conference on the Future of Europe offers an opportunity for enhanced dialogue with citizens and civil society ofn the European Union and its Member States to prevent the repetition of a withdrawal from the EU; calls on Member States to consistently provide wide-reaching information to EU citizens on the functioning of the European Union, its areas of action and its decision- making processes; considers that for this purpose the Conferenchow it should evolve; regrets that of the 27 citizens´ representatives who took the floor at the Inaugural Plenary of the Conference on the Future of Europe, 15 (55.6%) were representing non-profit organisations or organisations close to government, such as pro-integrationist think tanks, national or international youth organisations, youth parliaments or similar organisations, including 2 Jean Monnet Chairs, a CEO of a government agency, a former MEP who was shortlisted in 2011 for the prize onf the ~~Future of Europe offers~~best Member of the European Parliament, and o~~pportunity for enhanced dialogue with citizens and civil society on the European Union and how it should evolve~~nly 4 citizens employed in the private sector; also regrets that 4 out of 6 representatives from civil society organisations were affiliated to the same organisation, the very pro-integrationist European Movement International; fears that this undermines the credibility of the Conference to establish a real dialogue, and risks to degrade the Conference to an echo-chamber of integrationist ideas;

Amendment 191 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. Believes that it is the responsibility and role of the Union and its Member States to prevent the repetition of a withdrawal from the EU; calls on Member States to consistently provide wide-reaching information to EU citizens on the functioningconsiders that the Conference on the Future of Europe could offer an opportunity for enhanced dialogue and reflection with citizens and civil society ofn the European Union, its areas of action and its decision- making processes; considers that for this purpose the Conference on the Future of Europe offers an opportunity for enhanced dialogue with citizens and civil society on the European Union and how it should evolve and how it should evolve, including with a view to fully understanding all the problems of the European project that led the United Kingdom to withdraw from the European Union;

Amendment 192 #

Danuta Maria HÜBNER, Vladimír BILČÍK, Seán KELLY, Paulo RANGEL, Loránt VINCZE, Brice HORTEFEUX

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. Believes that it is the responsibility and role of the Union and its Member States to prevent the repetition of a withdrawal from the EU; calls on Member States to consistently provide wide- reaching information to EU citizens on the functioning of the European Union, its areas of action and its decision-making processes; considers that ~~for this purpose the Conference on the Future of Europe offers an opportunity for enhanced dialogue with citizens and civil society~~the EU can only bridge the gap to the citizen by achieving results and not by organising expensive conferences that are unrepresentative and mainly reach an elite and the pillarised society; takes the view that citizens expect the EU to demonstrate its added value by protecting them and creating prosperity; stresses that Article 10(1) onf the ~~European Union and how it should evolve~~TEU stipulates that the functioning of the EU shall be founded on representative democracy;

Amendment 193 #

João PIMENTA LOPES

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. ~~Believes that it is the responsibility and role of the Union and its Member States to prevent the repetition of a withdrawal from the EU; c~~Calls on Member States to consistently provide wide- reaching information to EU citizens on the functioning of the European Union, its areas of action and its decision-making processes; considers that for this purpose the Conference on the Future of Europe offers an opportunity for enhanced dialogue with citizens and civil society on the European Union and how it should evolve;

Amendment 194 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. Believes that it is the responsibility and role of the Union and its Member States to pre~~vent the repetition of a withdrawal from the EU~~serve the nature of the European integration through their commitment to the European values and principles, including loyal cooperation principle and to prevent the repetition of a withdrawal from the EU; regrets in this context the restraint and limited engagement of the European Parliament and its committees in the run-up to the UK referendum which did not allow to improve access of the European citizens of UK to the information on the functioning of the EU and implications of withdrawal process; calls on Member States to consistently provide wide- reaching information to EU citizens on the functioning of the European Union, its areas of action and its decision-making processes; considers that for this purpose the Conference on the Future of Europe offers an opportunity for enhanced dialogue with citizens and civil society on the European Union and how it should evolve;

Amendment 195 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. Believes that it is the responsibility and role of the Union and its Member States to prevent the repetition of a withdrawal from the EU; calls on Member States to consistently provide wide- reaching information to EU citizens on the functioning of the European Union, its areas of action and its decision-making processes; considers that for this purpose the Conference on the Future of Europe offers an opportunity for enhanced dialogue with citizens and civil society on the European Union and how it should evolve; underlines the importance of citizenship education in reinforcing the EU and reiterates the calls made for the creation of a specific agency focused on this topic; calls for further cooperation on education about the EU and between EU affairs experts and professors in order to develop new tools to increase citizens information and urges the Commission to finance more activities in this regard;

Amendment 196 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

Amendment 197 #

Alin MITUȚA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 a (new)

20a. Underlines that knowledge of the EU directly influence citizens’ interest and participation in European affairs; believes that the EU should provide support in order to complement educational programmes, notably by supporting the development of a common curriculum on European civic education;

Amendment 198 #

Gunnar BECK, Laura HUHTASAARI, Gilles LEBRETON, Jaak MADISON, Jessica STEGRUD, Peter KOFOD

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 a (new)

20a. Calls for the introduction of an Article 50 (a) TEU, which would make it possible for Member States to leave the euro area without leaving the EU as a whole;

Amendment 199 #

Gunnar BECK, Laura HUHTASAARI, Gilles LEBRETON, Jaak MADISON, Peter KOFOD

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 b (new)

20b. Calls for the introduction of an Article 50 (b) TEU, which would enable the Council to exclude a Member State of the Union from the euro area, be it for non-compliance with fiscal budgetary rules, or for non-compliance with the EU's conception of the rule of law;

Amendment 2 #

Gunnar BECK, Laura HUHTASAARI, Gilles LEBRETON, Jaak MADISON, Peter KOFOD

Motion for a resolution
Citation 3 a (new)

— Having regard to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT);

Amendment 20 #

Danuta Maria HÜBNER, Vladimír BILČÍK, Seán KELLY, Paulo RANGEL, Loránt VINCZE, Brice HORTEFEUX

Motion for a resolution
Recital C

C. whereas Article 50 of the TEU is silent on several aspects of the procedure that arose during the withdrawal of the UK from the Union; whereas many of the political solutions adopted through the negotiations with the United Kingdom would serve as likely precedents in case of a future application of the Article, in particular in terms of deadlines and their extension, the sequencing of negotiations, the recourse of a transition period and the definition of the future relationship of the exiting country with the EU;

Amendment 21 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)

Ca. whereas Article 50 of the TEU does not impose any formal requirements regarding the notification of the intention to leave the Union or its revocation, the extension of the period of two years set out under Article 50(3) of the TEU, and does not explicitly provide for the possibility of transitional arrangements,

Amendment 22 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)

Ca. whereas Article 50 does not specify a time limit between the decision to withdraw and the notification thereof to the European Council; whereas the principle of sincere cooperation should require the handing in of the notification as soon as the decision to leave is taken and the requirement to respect national constitutional requirements is fulfilled;

Amendment 23 #

Danuta Maria HÜBNER, Vladimír BILČÍK, Seán KELLY, Paulo RANGEL, Loránt VINCZE, Brice HORTEFEUX

Motion for a resolution
Recital C b (new)

Cb. whereas Article 50 foresees a two- year period for the parties to reach an agreement, which can be extended with the agreement of both parties; whereas the Article does not mention a specific time-limit for the extension nor the maximum number of times of extensions, thus allowing for useful flexibility in the negotiation process; whereas, nevertheless the repeated recourse to extensions could be seen as going against the logic of Article 50;

Amendment 24 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital C b (new)

Cb. whereas, in its judgment of 10 December 2018, in case C-621/18, the Court of Justice determined the conditions under which the withdrawing Member State may revoke unilaterally the notification of its intention to withdraw from the Union,

Amendment 25 #

Danuta Maria HÜBNER, Vladimír BILČÍK, Seán KELLY, Paulo RANGEL, Loránt VINCZE, Brice HORTEFEUX

Motion for a resolution
Recital C c (new)

Cc. whereas Article 50 of the TEU is not clear as regards the application of parts of Article 218 of the TFEU other than its paragraph 3,

Amendment 26 #

Danuta Maria HÜBNER, Vladimír BILČÍK, Seán KELLY, Paulo RANGEL, Loránt VINCZE, Brice HORTEFEUX

Motion for a resolution
Recital C d (new)

Cd. whereas the application of Article 50 of the TEU underlines that EU membership is voluntary and that a Member State cannot be forced to stay or leave, whereas the decision to withdraw from the Union is made in line with the withdrawing state’s internal constitutional order;

Amendment 27 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital D

D. whereas the decision to leave the EU resulting from the UK referendum, as expressed by ~~UK citizens in a free and democratic process, was enti~~the majority of citizens in England and Wales but by a minority of citizens in Scotland and Northern Irely and ~~fully~~, was respected in line with the values of freedom and democracy, as referred to in Article 2 of the TEU; whereas this referendum was not accompanied by sufficient guidance or awareness-raising campaigns for citizens on the withdrawal process;

Amendment 28 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital D

D. whereas the decision to leave the EU resulting from the UK referendum, as expressed by UK citizens ~~in a free and democratic process,~~ was entirely and fully respected in line with the values of freedom and democracy, as referred to in Article 2 of the TEU; whereas the UK referendum underlines the risks and challenges raised by fake news and misinformation for democratic elections and the European Union;

Amendment 29 #

Danuta Maria HÜBNER, Vladimír BILČÍK, Seán KELLY, Paulo RANGEL, Loránt VINCZE, Brice HORTEFEUX

Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)

Da. whereas, in the judgment in Wightman and others (C-621/18, 10 December 2018), the Court of Justice declared that a Member State can unilaterally revoke the notification of its intention to withdraw, at least before the deadline laid down in Article 50(3) of the TEU expires;

Amendment 3 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 10 a (new)

— having regard to the Commission Declaration for the European Parliament plenary of 16 April 2019;

Amendment 30 #

Danuta Maria HÜBNER, Vladimír BILČÍK, Seán KELLY, Paulo RANGEL, Loránt VINCZE, Brice HORTEFEUX

Motion for a resolution
Recital E

E. whereas Article 50 of the TEU confers on the Union institutions the exceptional horizontal competence to negotiate an agreement covering all matters necessary to arrange the withdrawal of a Member State;

Amendment 31 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital F

F. whereas the role of ~~the~~all EU institutions in the withdrawal procedure was key in the interpretation and implementation of the provisions of Article 50 of the TEU, in minimising institutional disruption, safeguarding the unity of Member States and ensuring an orderly withdrawal;

Amendment 32 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital F a (new)

Fa. whereas the two-phase approach adopted by Michel Barnier, the chief negotiator on behalf of the European Commission, proved to be the correct one;

Amendment 33 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital G

G. whereas under Article 10(1) of the TEU, citizens are directly represented at Union level in the European Parliament; whereas Article 14(2) of the TEU establishes that that representation shall be digressively proportional; whereas Article 10(3) of the TEU stipulates that decisions shall be taken as closely as possible to the citizen;

Amendment 34 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital G

G. whereas under the TEU, citizens are directly represented at Union level in the European Parliament; whereas in order to be able to give its consent to the withdrawal agreement, as foreseen in Article 50, Parliament should be closely involved in the negotiations especially in what regards citizens' rights;

Amendment 35 #

Danuta Maria HÜBNER, Vladimír BILČÍK, Seán KELLY, Paulo RANGEL, Loránt VINCZE

Motion for a resolution
Recital G

G. whereas under the TEU, citizens are directly represented at Union level in the European Parliament; whereas the European Parliament played a crucial role in representing UK and EU citizens during the process;

Amendment 36 #

Gunnar BECK, Laura HUHTASAARI, Gilles LEBRETON, Jaak MADISON, Peter KOFOD

Motion for a resolution
Recital G

G. whereas ~~under the TEU,~~Article 10.2 TEU states that citizens are directly represented at Union level in the European Parliament;

Amendment 37 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital G

G. whereas under the TEU, EU citizens are directly represented at Union level in the European Parliament;

Amendment 38 #

Danuta Maria HÜBNER, Vladimír BILČÍK, Seán KELLY, Paulo RANGEL, Loránt VINCZE, Brice HORTEFEUX

Motion for a resolution
Recital G a (new)

Ga. whereas Parliament is part of the decision-making procedure under Article 50 of the TEU and exercises general political control, as provided for in Article 14 of the TEU;

Amendment 39 #

Danuta Maria HÜBNER, Vladimír BILČÍK, Seán KELLY, Paulo RANGEL, Loránt VINCZE, Brice HORTEFEUX

Motion for a resolution
Recital H

H. whereas, in the procedure provided for in Article 50 of the TEU and as in all cases of international agreements negotiated using the procedure laid down in Article 218(3) of the TFEU, Parliament plays a marginal role that is limited to approving a possible withdrawal agreement; whereas, despite these limitations, Parliament has engaged act~~ively and decis~~ively in the withdrawal process since the very beginning, and has committed to protecting the interests of EU citizens and to safeguarding the integrity of the European Union throughout the whole process;

Amendment 4 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 11 a (new)

— having regard to European Council Decision (EU) 2018/937 of 28 June 2018 establishing the composition of the European Parliament,

Amendment 40 #

Danuta Maria HÜBNER, Vladimír BILČÍK, Seán KELLY, Paulo RANGEL, Loránt VINCZE, Brice HORTEFEUX

Motion for a resolution
Recital H a (new)

Ha. whereas the withdrawal of the UK had an impact on the composition of the European Parliament as provided for in Article3(2) of European Council Decision (EU) 2018/937,

Amendment 41 #

Gunnar BECK, Laura HUHTASAARI, Gilles LEBRETON, Jaak MADISON, Jessica STEGRUD, Peter KOFOD

Motion for a resolution
Recital I

I. whereas the withdrawal process ~~has led to unpredictability and has constituted a challenge not only for~~of the United Kingdom was unprecedented and presented procedural challenges for both the EU ~~and~~, the withdrawing Member State, ~~but also and even more so for~~ the citizens and entities most directly affected;

Amendment 42 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital I

I. whereas the withdrawal process has led to unpredictability and has constituted a challenge not only for the EU and the withdrawing Member State, but also and even more so for the citizens and entities most directly affected; whereas the economic and social costs of this uncertainty have proven to be very high and have also put pressure on the political relations between the EU and the withdrawing Member State; whereas greater certainty could be achieved during the separation process by, amongst other things, demanding that the notification of the decision to withdraw be accompanied by a blueprint of the future relationship that the withdrawing Member State has in mind;

Amendment 43 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital I a (new)

Ia. whereas Article 50 is triggered by a political events preceding it, which have strong influence on the conduct of the withdrawal negotiations; whereas a great flaw of the Brexit process was that the extremely complex and multidimensional problem that is a country's relationship with the EU was presented to people as a binary choice; whereas UK citizens were never given a clear picture of what relationship their country would have with the EU once it left, and often were given misleading claims about the implications of Brexit, especially in what regards the issue of Northern Ireland;

Amendment 44 #

Danuta Maria HÜBNER, Vladimír BILČÍK, Seán KELLY, Paulo RANGEL, Loránt VINCZE, Brice HORTEFEUX

Motion for a resolution
Recital I a (new)

Ia. whereas regions that become independent in a legal and democratic manner should be able to accede to the EU automatically via a simplified and accelerated procedure, with a transition period during which relations between the EU and that region remain unchanged; whereas those regions already subscribe to European values and fundamental rights and apply Union law and their citizens are Union citizens;

Amendment 45 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital I a (new)

Ia. whereas the Union institutions have undertaken all efforts not to politicise the process of withdrawal, but the withdrawal under Article 50 of the TEU is nevertheless inherently political as it stems from and is influenced by fundamental choices regarding membership of the EU and/or the relationship with the EU;

Amendment 46 #

Danuta Maria HÜBNER, Vladimír BILČÍK, Seán KELLY, Paulo RANGEL, Loránt VINCZE, Brice HORTEFEUX

Motion for a resolution
Recital I b (new)

Ib. whereas after the entry into force of the Withdrawal Agreement the only legal path for a re-accession to the EU is on the basis of Article 49 of the TEU;

Amendment 47 #

Danuta Maria HÜBNER, Vladimír BILČÍK, Seán KELLY, Paulo RANGEL, Loránt VINCZE, Brice HORTEFEUX

Motion for a resolution
Recital I c (new)

Ic. whereas Article 8 of the TEU emphasises the special relationship of the EU and its neighbouring countries;

Amendment 48 #

Danuta Maria HÜBNER, Vladimír BILČÍK, Seán KELLY, Paulo RANGEL, Loránt VINCZE, Brice HORTEFEUX

Motion for a resolution
Recital I d (new)

Id. whereas, according to the European Parliament’s rules of procedure, the Committee on Constitutional Affairs is responsible for the institutional consequences of withdrawal from the Union;

Amendment 49 #

Danuta Maria HÜBNER, Vladimír BILČÍK, Seán KELLY, Paulo RANGEL, Loránt VINCZE, Brice HORTEFEUX

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 (new)

-1. Unprecedented process Or. en (This is not a paragraph, but a title before paragraph 1)

Amendment 5 #

Danuta Maria HÜBNER, Vladimír BILČÍK, Seán KELLY, Paulo RANGEL, Loránt VINCZE, Brice HORTEFEUX

Motion for a resolution
Citation 11 b (new)

— having regard to the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 10 December 2018, Andy Wightman and Others v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, case C- 621/18,

Amendment 50 #

Danuta Maria HÜBNER, Vladimír BILČÍK, Seán KELLY, Paulo RANGEL, Loránt VINCZE, Brice HORTEFEUX

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Highlights that the withdrawal of a Member State has been an unprecedented and extremely critical process for the European Union and should remain an exceptional mechanism applied under specific and limited conditions;

Amendment 51 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Highlights that the withdrawal of aone of its Member States has been an unprecedented and extremely critical process for the European Union;

Amendment 52 #

João PIMENTA LOPES

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. The sovereign decision of a Member State and its people to withdraw from the European Union must be respected; considers that the withdrawal process, for which Article 50 lays down a maximum period of two years, must not be used to attempt to go against and pervert the sovereign decision of a people through any form of external interference;

Amendment 53 #

Gunnar BECK, Laura HUHTASAARI, Gilles LEBRETON, Jaak MADISON, Peter KOFOD

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Recognises ~~but nevertheless considers regrettable~~ the withdrawal of the UK from the European Union;

Amendment 54 #

Laura HUHTASAARI, Gerolf ANNEMANS, Gunnar BECK, Jaak MADISON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Recognises ~~but nevertheless considers regrettable~~ the withdrawal of the UK from the European Union;

Amendment 55 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Recognises ~~but nevertheless considers regrettable~~ the withdrawal of the UK from the European Union;

Amendment 56 #

Danuta Maria HÜBNER, Vladimír BILČÍK, Seán KELLY, Paulo RANGEL, Loránt VINCZE, Brice HORTEFEUX

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Recognises but nevertheless considers regrettable the withdrawal of the UK from the European Union and underlines more efforts could have been done to avoid this situation;

Amendment 57 #

João PIMENTA LOPES

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Considers that in the process of a Member State’s withdrawal from the European Union, the necessary initiatives should be promoted to ensure the development of mutually beneficial relations between the Member State in question and the remaining Member States of the European Union, within a framework of respect for the sovereignty, independence and equal rights of each country and for the legitimate rights and aspirations of their peoples;

Amendment 58 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Emphasises that the historical importance for EU membership of the UK’s withdrawal did not and does not deviate the Union from its integration process, as the Article 50 provides guarantees to the EU legal order and protects fundamental goals of the European integration;

Amendment 59 #

Gunnar BECK, Laura HUHTASAARI, Gilles LEBRETON, Jaak MADISON, Peter KOFOD

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Recalls that according to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which is also binding on the EU, every state has the inalienable right to withdraw immediately from any contract and under certain conditions;

Amendment 6 #

Danuta Maria HÜBNER, Vladimír BILČÍK, Seán KELLY, Paulo RANGEL, Loránt VINCZE, Brice HORTEFEUX

Motion for a resolution
Citation 11 c (new)

— having regard to the in-depth analysis of the European Parliamentary Research Service, entitled “Article 50 TEU in practice: How the EU has applied the 'exit' clause”, November 2020,

Amendment 60 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

Amendment 61 #

Danuta Maria HÜBNER, Vladimír BILČÍK, Seán KELLY, Paulo RANGEL, Loránt VINCZE, Brice HORTEFEUX

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Underlines that the provisions of Article 50 of the TEU and the way in which they were interpreted and implemented reflect the common values that are at the foundation of the Union, in particular freedom, democracy and the rule of law; Emphasises that safeguards should be established to ensure that the public debate preceding the triggering of Article 50 by a Member States allowed for informed decision of citizens; Notes with concern the lack of debate in the departing Member state on the definition of leaving the European Union;

Amendment 62 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Underlines that the provisions of Article 50 of the TEU and the way in which they were interpreted and implemented reflect and uphold the common values and the goals that are at the foundation of the Union, in particular freedom, democracy and the rule of law;

Amendment 63 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Believes that Article 50 of the TEU has met its objectives of preserving the sovereign right of a Member State to withdraw from the European Union and of ensuring the orderly withdrawal of the UK from the Union, while allowing for the subsequent building of an enhanced relationship between the EU and the UK as a third countrythe procedure provided for under Article 50 of the TEU has too many loopholes and does not ensure the orderly withdrawal of a Member State from the Union, but exposes the Union and its Member States for an excessively long time to the uncertainty arising from the risk of withdrawal without an agreement; believes that these procedural loopholes have exposed the EU’s institutions to the placing of excessive weight on the primary objective of preserving the sovereign right of a Member State to withdraw from the European Union;

Amendment 64 #

Danuta Maria HÜBNER, Vladimír BILČÍK, Seán KELLY, Paulo RANGEL, Loránt VINCZE, Brice HORTEFEUX

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

Amendment 65 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Believes that Article 50 of the TEU has met its objectives of preserving the sovereign right of a Member State to withdraw from the European Union, thus confirming explicitly the voluntary nature of EU membership, and of ensuring the orderly withdrawal of the UK from the Union, while allowing for the subsequent building of an enhanced relationship between the EU and the UK as a third country;

Amendment 66 #

Danuta Maria HÜBNER, Vladimír BILČÍK, Seán KELLY, Paulo RANGEL, Loránt VINCZE, Brice HORTEFEUX

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. EU priorities Or. en (This is not a paragraph, but a title before paragraph 5)

Amendment 67 #

5. ~~Considers that the aims of Article 50 of the TEU and the withdrawal negotiations with the UK of~~Believes that the withdrawal negotiations and agreement with the UK have made it possible to ensur~~ing~~e disentanglement from the Union~~, providing legal stability and minimising disrupt~~ in an orderly fashion, ~~and~~ providing a clear vision of the future for citizens and legal entities, by ensuring an orderly withdrawal, while protecting the integrity and interests of the European Union, its citizens and its Member States, were generally achievedlegal stability and protecting the integrity and interests of the European Union, its citizens and its Member States; believes, however, that the agreement does not take sufficient account of the possible negative repercussions regarding, in particular, the position of Northern Ireland and respect for the Good Friday Agreement;

Amendment 68 #

Danuta Maria HÜBNER, Vladimír BILČÍK, Seán KELLY, Paulo RANGEL, Loránt VINCZE, Brice HORTEFEUX

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Considers that the aims of Article 50 of the TEU and the withdrawal negotiations with the UK of ensuring disentanglement from the Union, providing legal stability and minimising disruption, and providing a clear vision of the future for citizens and legal entities, by ensuring an orderly withdrawal, while protecting the integrity and interests of the European Union, its citizens and its Member States, were ~~generally achieved;~~ achieved to some extent, in spite of the low level of planning from the departing state; considers that the withdrawal process was complex but that more could have been done to ensure legal certainty, especially for citizens and businesses; considers that the two year period set out in Article 50 is the minimum time period for negotiations, and suggests that this time period could be increased in order to better accommodate the major political and economic changes, including disruptive divergence of regulatory regimes;

Amendment 69 #

Gunnar BECK, Laura HUHTASAARI, Gilles LEBRETON, Jaak MADISON, Peter KOFOD

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

Amendment 7 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 11 d (new)

— having regard to the study commissioned by the European Parliament Policy Department for Citizens' Rights and Constitutional Affairs, entitled ”Interpretation and implementation of Article 50 TEU – Legal and institutional assessment”, March 2021,

Amendment 70 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Considers that the limited timeframe for negotiations should not lead to reduced scrutiny opportunities for national parliaments, including that of the departing Member state; Proposes that procedural guarantees ensure proper parliamentary scrutiny of the agreements reached, both in the European Parliament and in the departing State, notably by enabling enough time before their adoption;

Amendment 71 #

Alin MITUȚA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Reminds of the decision of the European Court of Justice – Case C- 621/18 Wightman and Others - in which the Court ruled that a Member State is free to unilaterally revoke the notification of its intention to withdraw from the EU, while the Treaties still apply to that Member State;

Amendment 72 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Considers that the swift and firm identification of the priorities in the context of the withdrawal of the UK from the Union, and in particular, the protection of the rights of the millions of EU citizens in the UK and UK nationals in the EU affected by the withdrawal, the special circumstances confronting the island of Ireland and a single financial settlement were key in structuring the process and stabilising its impact in the Union; considers, however, that there should have been more clarity during the negotiations regarding the resolution of any disputes that might arise from the application of the withdrawal agreement, particularly in regard to the role of the Court of Justice;

Amendment 73 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Considers that the swift and firm identification of the priorities in the context of the withdrawal of the UK from the Union, and in particular, the protection of the rights of the millions of EU citizens in the UK and UK nationals in the EU affected by the withdrawal, the special circumstances confronting the island of Ireland and a single financial settlement were key in structuring the process and stabilising its impact in the Union; underlines the need to further reinforce the existing mechanisms designed to protect EU citizens across the world and especially in the UK or countries leaving the EU;

Amendment 74 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Considers that the swift and firm identification of the priorities in the context of the withdrawal of the UK from the Union, and in particular, the protection of the rights of the millions of EU citizens in the UK and UK nationals in the EU affected by the withdrawal, the special circumstances confronting the island of Ireland, the mutual access to waters for the fishing industry, and a single financial settlement were key in structuring the process and stabilising its impact in the Union;

Amendment 75 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Is satisfied that the negotiations with the United Kingdom prioritised an agreement on the rights of citizens and that the issue was first in the sequencing of withdrawal agreements;

Amendment 76 #

Danuta Maria HÜBNER, Vladimír BILČÍK, Seán KELLY, Paulo RANGEL, Loránt VINCZE, Brice HORTEFEUX

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Believes that ~~the clear division of tasks among the institutions and the inclusive and transparent approach adopted by the Commission and its Chief Negotiator were paramount in~~, in the event of the withdrawal of a Member State, the conduct of the negotiations, and in particular the clear division of tasks and responsibilities among the institutions, should be based on verticality, centrality, transparency and inclusivity, with the aim of maintaining unity within the EU and in promoting the EU’s priorities and interests in the negotiations;

Amendment 77 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Believes that the clear division of tasks among the institutions and the unprecedented inclusive and transparent approach ~~adopted by~~of the Commission and its Chief Negotiator were paramount in maintaining coherence and unity within the EU ~~and~~ in promoting the EU’s priorities and interests in the negotiations, and safeguarding the integrity of the legal order of the Union;

Amendment 78 #

Danuta Maria HÜBNER, Vladimír BILČÍK, Seán KELLY, Paulo RANGEL, Loránt VINCZE, Brice HORTEFEUX

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Believes that the clear division of tasks among the institutions and the inclusive and transparent approach adopted by the Commission, the Parliament and its Chief Negotiator were paramount in maintaining unity within the EU and in promoting the EU’s priorities and interests in the negotiations;

Amendment 79 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Commends the main institutional actors for having safeguarded the unity among the 27 Member States as well as within and among the Union institutions respecting the nature of the withdrawal as a Union process;

Amendment 8 #

Danuta Maria HÜBNER, Vladimír BILČÍK, Seán KELLY, Paulo RANGEL, Loránt VINCZE, Brice HORTEFEUX

Motion for a resolution
Citation 11 e (new)

— having regard to the Good Friday or Belfast Agreement of 10 April 1998 between the Government of the United Kingdom, the Government of Ireland and the other participants in the multi-party negotiations (the "Good Friday Agreement"),

Amendment 80 #

Danuta Maria HÜBNER, Vladimír BILČÍK, Seán KELLY, Paulo RANGEL, Loránt VINCZE, Brice HORTEFEUX

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 b (new)

7b. Believes that the Union’s interest has prevailed thanks to strategic organisation and conditionality between the different stages of the procedure, in particular through the sequencing of the negotiations, and the conditions linked to the extension, to the transition period, as well to the start of the second phase of talks on a new and close partnership between the EU and the UK on the basis of substantial progress in the negotiations on citizens’ rights, Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland and the financial settlement;

Amendment 81 #

Danuta Maria HÜBNER, Vladimír BILČÍK, Seán KELLY, Paulo RANGEL, Loránt VINCZE, Brice HORTEFEUX

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 c (new)

7c. Appreciates that the chapter on citizens’ rights of the withdrawal arrangements was agreed rather early in the negotiations, and the initial version of the draft Withdrawal Agreement of 19 March 2018 contained an entirely agreed Part Two on citizens’ rights, including on the direct effect of its provisions, and on the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice on the relevant provisions on citizens’ rights;

Amendment 82 #

Danuta Maria HÜBNER, Vladimír BILČÍK, Seán KELLY, Paulo RANGEL, Loránt VINCZE, Brice HORTEFEUX

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 d (new)

7d. Stresses that the Union has clearly identified from the outset as issues of the European Union as a whole the specific circumstances of the island of Ireland and the need to safeguard the Good Friday Agreement and mitigate the effects of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal on the Republic of Ireland;

Amendment 83 #

Danuta Maria HÜBNER, Vladimír BILČÍK, Seán KELLY, Paulo RANGEL, Loránt VINCZE, Brice HORTEFEUX

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 e (new)

7e. Considers that the time-limited transitional period with continued application of existing EU regulatory, budgetary, supervisory, judicial and enforcement instruments and structures following the withdrawal was in the interest of both parties and facilitated the negotiation of and bridging to the future relationship;

Amendment 84 #

Danuta Maria HÜBNER, Vladimír BILČÍK, Seán KELLY, Paulo RANGEL, Loránt VINCZE, Brice HORTEFEUX

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 f (new)

7f. The withdrawing Member State Or. en (This is not a paragraph, but a title before paragraph 8)

Amendment 85 #

Gunnar BECK, Laura HUHTASAARI, Gilles LEBRETON, Jaak MADISON, Peter KOFOD

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

Amendment 86 #

Danuta Maria HÜBNER, Vladimír BILČÍK, Seán KELLY, Paulo RANGEL, Loránt VINCZE, Brice HORTEFEUX

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Believes, nevertheless, that the withdrawal process was also characterised by ~~hesitancy on the part of the UK, leading to~~ protracted uncertainty from the outset, reflected, among other things, in the time gap between the referendum and the withdrawal notification under Article 50 of the TEU, and until the end of the negotiations~~, due to the spectre of a no-deal withdrawal~~; believes, however, in this regard, that the decision concerning when to give formal notification is at the sole discretion of the State; believes, furthermore, that assessing the conformity of the withdrawal decision with the constitutional requirements of the withdrawing State is a matter for that State alone;

Amendment 87 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Believes, nevertheless, that the withdrawal process was characterised by ~~hesitancy~~volatility, on the part of the UK, leading to protracted uncertainty from the outset, reflected in the time gap between the referendum and the withdrawal notification under Article 50 of the TEU, and until the end of the negotiations~~, due to~~; Considers that raising the spectre of a no-deal withdrawal amounted to brinkmanship and gravely endangered the prospects of an orderly withdrawal;

Amendment 88 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Believes, nevertheless, that the withdrawal process was characterised by hesitancy on the part of the UK, leading to protracted uncertainty from the outset, reflected in the time gap between the referendum and the withdrawal notification under Article 50 of the TEU, and until the end of the negotiations, due to the spectre of a no-deal withdrawal; therefore calls for greater clarity as to the process that a withdrawal from the EU should follow; takes the view that the withdrawal notification should be accompanied by an outline of the withdrawing Member State’s ambitions as regards future cooperation;

Amendment 89 #

Danuta Maria HÜBNER, Vladimír BILČÍK, Seán KELLY, Paulo RANGEL, Loránt VINCZE, Brice HORTEFEUX

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Believes, nevertheless, that the withdrawal process was characterised by hesitancy on the part of the UK, leading to protracted uncertainty from the outset, reflected in the time gap between the referendum and the withdrawal notification under Article 50 of the TEU, and until the end of the negotiations, due to the spectre of a no-deal withdrawal; believes that this increased uncertainty for citizens and businesses on the island of Ireland in particular;

Amendment 9 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital -A (new)

-A. Whereas the objective of this report is to analyse the way in which the provisions of Article 50 of the TEU were interpreted and applied, and the way the procedure of withdrawal of the UK from the EU under that Article was organised and conducted, including the lessons drawn for EU law and the functioning of the European Union.

Amendment 90 #

Laura HUHTASAARI, Gerolf ANNEMANS, Gunnar BECK, Jaak MADISON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

Amendment 91 #

Gunnar BECK, Laura HUHTASAARI, Gilles LEBRETON, Jaak MADISON, Jessica STEGRUD, Peter KOFOD

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Considers~~, in this regard,~~ that the political and economic consequences of the decision to leave the Union are ~~significant; believes that these were not genuinely and fully assessed by the UK prior to its decision to withdraw, resulting in a lack of preparation for~~difficult precisely to estimate at the time of the decision to withdraw; believes that this uncertainty warrants ample leniency in the procedure;.

Amendment 92 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Considers, in this regard, that the political and economic consequences of the decision to leave the Union are significant~~; believes~~ and that these were not ~~genuinely and fully assessed by the UK pri~~fully considered because of British citizens’ scant knowledge about the European Union; calls on Member States to do more to ~~its decision to withdraw, resulting~~ ensure that citizens are involved in the EU’s decision-making processes, with a view to increasing understanding a ~~lack of preparation for the procedure~~nd knowledge of the Union and strengthening its democratic legitimacy;

Amendment 93 #

Antonio Maria RINALDI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Considers, in this regard, that the political and economic consequences of the decision to leave the Union are significant; believes ~~that these were not genuinely and~~, therefore, that these could not be fully assessed by the UK prior to its decision to withdraw, ~~resulting in a lack of preparation for~~mainly in view of the fact that this was the first case of a State withdrawing from the European Union and of the application of Article 50 of the TEU, resulting in a state of uncertainty regarding the procedure;

Amendment 94 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Considers, in this regard, that the political and economic consequences of the decision to leave the Union are significant and largely negative both for the UK as for the Union; believes that these were not genuinely and fully assessed by the UK prior to its decision to withdraw, resulting in a lack of preparation for the procedure; Calls therefore for an assessment public report of the EC with regard to the benefits and disadvantages of withdrawing from the EU.

Amendment 95 #