Brexit deal hinges on ‘agreement of EU citizens’ status’
trade deal to be negotiated at the same time as the “divorce deal” extricating the UK from its 44-year membership.
Amid expectations the European Commission plans to present the UK with a £50bn “divorce bill”, Mrs May said she was ready to discuss a “fair settlement” of Britain’s rights and obligations as a departing member, but gave no hint of the amounts she is prepared to contemplate.
She accepted the UK’s rejection of the EU principle of free movement of people meant it could not “cherry-pick” the benefits of the single market.
And she said she was ready to agree an implementation period following the formal date of Brexit in 2019, to allow changes to business arrangements to be phased in gradually, avoiding a “cliff edge”.
In a 2,200-word letter, Mrs May used the word “partnership” 16 times and “co-operation” nine, but did not mention the word “compromise”.
Holding up the Article 50 letter at a Brussels press conference, sombre-faced European Council president Donald Tusk said: “So here it is. Six pages. The notification from Prime Minister Theresa May triggering Article 50 and formally starting the negotiations over the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union.
“There is no reason to pretend that this is a happy day, neither in Brussels nor in London.
“After all, most Europeans – including almost half the British voters – wish that we would stay together, not drift apart.
“For me, I will not pretend that I am happy today. But, paradoxically, there is also something positive in Brexit. Brexit has made us, the community of 27, more determined and more united than before. I am fully confident of this, especially after the Rome declaration. Today, I can say that we will remain determined and united also in the future during the difficult negotiations ahead.
“This means that both I and the Commission have a strong mandate to protect the interests of the 27.”
Mr Tusk said that the EU’s clear goal in negotiations was “to minimise the cost for the EU’s citizens, businesses and member states” resulting from Brexit.
“We will do everything in our power and we have all the tools to achieve this goal,” he said.
The European Council president added: “As for now nothing has changed. Until the United Kingdom leaves the European Union, EU law will continue to apply to and within the UK.”
Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said Mrs May’s Brexit plans were “both reckless and damaging” as he warned his party “will not give this government a free hand to use Brexit to attack rights, protections and cut services”.
Mr Farron said it was not too late for voters to change their mind and reverse the Brexit decision in a second referendum.
“The Prime Minister is twisting the will of the people, leaping into the abyss without any idea of where our country will end up,” said the Liberal Democrat leader.
“Democracy didn’t end on 23rd of June – and it hasn’t ended today either. The people can have their say over what comes next.”
The Scottish National Party accused Mrs May of breaking a promise to forge a “UK-wide approach” to Brexit before triggering Article 50.
SNP leader in Westminster Angus Robertson said: “Last year the Prime Minister promised that before she triggered Article 50 on leaving the EU, she would secure a UK-wide approach, an agreement with the governments of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
“Today the Prime Minister has triggered Article 50, and she has done so without an agreement. There is no agreement. Why has she broken her word and her commitment?”
European Parliament president Antonio Tajani said on Twitter: “Today isn’t a good day. Brexit marks a new chapter in our Union’s history, but we’re ready, we’ll move on, hoping UK remains close partner.”
LEAVING the European Union without a deal on future relations would be a “catastrophe” for the UK, the president of the European Parliament has warned.
And Antonio Tajani said that it would not be possible to secure a deal unless there was an acceptable agreement on the status of EU nationals resident in the UK – and British nationals living on the continent.
Mr Tajani was speaking after leaders of the European Parliament’s major political groups met in Brussels to discuss their response to the Theresa May’s launch of Brexit negotiations under Article 50.
A draft resolution to be voted on by MEPs on April 5 sets out the European Parliament’s demand for any deal on future EU-UK trade arrangements to be delayed until after Britain’s withdrawal and for a transitional period to a new trade deal to last no more than three years after the expected date of Brexit in 2019.
It suggests the UK will be able to revoke its notification of Article 50 with the agreement of the other 27 states, effectively halting the Brexit process and allowing continued EU membership.
But it warns that any attempt by the UK to strike trade deals with countries outside the EU before Brexit would be illegal and states that there can be no special deal offering UK-based firms “preferential access to the single market and/or the customs union”.
As Mrs May has rejected the possibility of single market membership through the European Economic Area, the resolution suggests Britain could be offered “association” status similar to that enjoyed by Ukraine.
Addressing a press conference in Brussels, Mr Tajani said that the European Parliament’s first priority in “tough and complex” Brexit negotiations would be to “safeguard the interests of citizens”, which would require an “orderly” withdrawal.
Any changes to the rights of EU citizens resident in the UK before Brexit would be “contrary to the treaties and therefore illegal”, he warned.
And Mr Tajani said: “Not reaching a deal on the rights of citizens means not reaching a deal at all.”
Amid expectations that the European Commission will soon present the UK with a £50bn “divorce bill”, Mr Tajani said: “The UK will have to honour its financial commitments. But the UK will not be asked to pay for anything that they have not previously agreed to.”
He added: “It is evident that the ‘no deal’ scenario would be a catastrophe for all, but especially for the United Kingdom.
“The UK would be faced by tariffs, uncertainty for the car industry and financial services, increased food prices, high traffic disruptions, long lines of lorries in Dover, just to mention a few.
“This is not what we want. However, we stand ready.”
The European Parliament effectively holds a veto on any exit deal, which must be approved by a majority of MEPs in a vote after having first received the assent of a qualified majority of leaders in the European Council. A trade deal would have to be separately approved by the European Parliament and is likely to also require the support of 27 national parliaments and a number of regional assemblies across the remaining EU.
Asked whether the European Parliament was ready to use its veto if necessary, Mr Tajani replied: “Yes.”
He added: “I hope at the end we can vote yes, but let me be clear – all of us have a priority and that is to protect the interests of our citizens.”
But he rejected the idea that the European Parliament was playing the role of the “baddie” in the Brexit process.
“We don’t have baddies or goodies,” said Mr Tajani. “We are defending the interests of citizens and if that means we have to take a tough stance, we will do so. If we can do so without playing the part of baddies, we will do so.”
The European Parliament’s Brexit negotiator Guy Verhofstadt said the triggering of Article 50 was an “unprecedented and regrettable event”.
He said the rights of EU citizens in the UK and Britons on the continent should be the first item on the agenda in the talks because they must not be used as “bargaining chips” in the negotiations.
He warned the UK against going “behind our back” to seek trade deals with other countries while still a member of the bloc and issued a warning to EU member states who could be “tempted” to do their own deals with Mrs May.
In a reference to the possibility of the UK being required to pay a divorce fee, Mr Verhofstadt said: “We expect from the UK that in this financial settlement they honour all their legal, financial and budgetary obligations.”
Mr Verhofstadt said any deal with the EU could not be better for the UK than full membership.
“That is not a question of revenge, that is not a question of punishment, that is the logic of the European Union, of the European treaties, of the European project,” he said.
He said that it would be possible to draw up a broad picture of the future UK-EU trading relationship prior to Brexit, even if the details of the deal cannot be concluded until after Britain has left.
At the time of Brexit, “you are not going to have the details of the future relationship, but at least a common idea of what will be your future relationship”, he said.
MAJOR constitutional change is required in the UK, not for its own sake, but to kickstart desperately needed social change, a group of senior Labour politicians meeting in Wales has said.
Former Prime Minister Gordon Brown joined First Minister Carwyn Jones, ex-Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott, Scottish Labour leader Kezia Dugdale and Labour’s chairman of campaign and election strategy Jon Trickett at the launch of a party inquiry into whether there should be a federal UK.
At the event, hosted by Cardiff University’s Wales Governance Centre, Mr Brown said: “We have a stand-off between the Scottish Government and the UK government over the future of Scotland and a potential referendum.
“We have the potential for direct rule now in Northern Ireland. We have the different discontents of different regions about what is happening with Brexit and the effect of it on them.
“I’ve been thinking that the only things that have been moving forward this week in Britain are the clocks.”
Mr Brown said he believed Brexit would force the UK perhaps for the first time to face up to the “vast structural inequalities” in income, wealth and power between the regions and nations of the UK.
“I think if Brexit happens in the way the government wants it to happen, there will be a vast concentration of power in Whitehall at the expense of the nations and the regions.
“We have got to start rethinking the British constitution in a way that gives more power to the nations and regions of the UK, and that demands that we think imaginatively, not just about what powers come to the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament, but also what happens in the regions of England.
“I believe that while I did not choose Brexit and would prefer that we were staying with the EU, I think we’ve now got to think imaginatively about how we can make sure that some of these long-term structural inequalities in the UK are dealt with, and that means that there has got to be a big discussion about a more federal, a more decentralised constitution for the country.”
Mr Jones said the triggering of Article 50 raised a number of questions: “First of all, from Wales’ perspective, how will Wales’ voice be heard in those negotiations? How will we be sure that any final deal is in the interests of the four nations of the UK?
“Secondly, what does it mean for the internal workings of the UK? If the UK is to have an internal single market, there must be rules, and those rules must be policed in some way.
“The view of the Welsh Government is that the rules should be agreed as a whole, and that there should be an independent court that resolves any disputes about the single market.”
Mr Jones said it wasn’t just a question of what the UK would look like in terms of its relationship with the EU after Brexit – it was a question of what the UK would look like in terms of its own internal mechanisms when the UK leaves.
He said: “As a party, what we’ve been looking at is bringing together a process for developing our response across the whole of the UK, ensuring of course the voice of England is heard. We understand how future devolution settlements might mesh with each other across the UK and to emphasise this is a partnership of four nations and strong regions working towards a common purpose.”
Mr Trickett said: “It’s clear that Brexit does pose serious issues for us to address. The powers which come back from Brussels must not stay to produce the same old problems in London, but must recognise the regions and nations of the country. I think the Brexit vote itself showed the extent to which there is an alienation from the way in which we do politics in our country. So it’s both a cause of issues which can now be addressed, but it’s also a symptom of a long-term problem.”
He said Labour had come to the view that we needed to review and change the UK constitution: “The economy in parts of the country has become decoupled from the south east [of England], and I think people rightly say, ‘what were the politicians doing when that happened?’
“This underlying quiet alienation, a sense that somehow this is not working any more for our country as a whole, for our nations and regions, is something that we have to address.
“This is a major opportunity for us to rethink how we do our constitution, and pass power down, and also to tackle these issues of unequal wealth and income as well.
“It’s a great moment for us to redefine our nation and rebuild the bonds which somehow have become loosened between how we govern the country and our citizens.”
Ms Dugdale said: “The threat to the future of the UK is very real. Our country is more fragile today than it has ever been, even in the days before the last independence referendum. And that’s not just because of the threat of another referendum in Scotland, but because of the pressures which Brexit has already unleashed across the UK, and which are only going to get worse.
“The solution is definitely not independence, as Nicola Sturgeon suggests. It’s not this union of nations which is unfair or unjust, but the actions of the powerful within it, and this is a unique opportunity to revisit those arguments.
“The constitution isn’t natural territory for the Labour Party.
“We didn’t come into politics to talk about the constitution – we are excited by the means by which to tackle poverty and inequality.
“But what we must accept now is that we have to resolve these constitutional questions in order to keep our economic progress, which will allow us to tackle poverty and inequality.
“The blunt truth is that the constitutional debate will determine how working people will do over the coming years, and whether or not our economy is going to succeed.
“That is why it now has to be central to our thinking on the economy.
“And why moving political power out of Whitehall isn’t just a constitutional convenience, but an economic necessity.”
In response to a question from former Labour MP Gwynoro Jones, Mr Brown said he supported the abolition of the House of Lords and its replacement by a Senate based on representatives from the nations and regions.
The former Prime Minister paid tribute to Mr Jones for leading the “proper” discussion about Brexit: “If Brexit is to happen, it cannot be the concentration of powers in Whitehall,” he said.
“Agriculture and fisheries, environmental protection, state aid, regional policy, competition policy – all these powers could lead to a far more centralised UK – but if used properly in Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and the regions, they could lead to a more decentralised UK. Carwyn, in my view, is the lynchpin in this process of trying to create a more decentralised UK out of what is something I did not want to happen, which is Brexit.”