Proposition 54K3554

Projet de loi relatif au retrait du Royaume-Uni de l'Union européenne.

General information ¶

Submitted by

MR Michel Ⅱ

Submission date

Feb. 19, 2019

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

European Union United Kingdom foreign policy European Union membership

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP DéFI ∉ Open Vld N-VA MR PP VB

Abstained from voting

PVDA | PTB

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

March 28, 2019 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I will submit a verbal report. Mr Pivin also submitted amendments to add Articles 36/1 and 36/2 aimed at clarifying the situation of the Belgians established in the United Kingdom, and read his accountability.

Mr. Eric Thiébaut announces that his group is in favor of this, but the reading of the amendment nevertheless raises the question of how the situation of British nationals registered on the electoral lists in Belgium will be settled in case of a postponement of Brexit. The Deputy Prime Minister replies that two cases must be considered: if Brexit takes place in April and May, it is obvious that these British nationals will not be able to participate in the European elections. On the other hand, if Brexit should be postponed to a later date, they will of course be allowed to vote.

Mr Thiébaut deduces from this answer that, in the second case, these citizens will be able to receive an election call but will not be able to take part in the vote. Will municipalities receive instructions on this? The Minister indicates that, in this case, the Internal SPF would obviously take the necessary measures and the relevant British nationals will be informed through an official communication.

Then the votes take place. Amendments to RN. 1 and 2 are adopted unanimously. The full article is also adopted. Here is the report.

Thank you, Mr Van Peteghem, for the report. I give the floor to Mrs. Bellens.

Mr. Speaker, several initiatives have already been taken by the government of Michel I to address Brexit. For example, Minister Van Overtveldt has brought the large insurance broker Lloyd's to Brussels.

After the fall of the government, everything has been slightly silenced and remained lying. Other countries have been better prepared and exploited the opportunities of Brexit. Just look at Germany, where one has been able to capitalize the existing banking activities. The Netherlands has been much better prepared. The Netherlands can now agree that it has already entered a number of things. Over the past few months, the Netherlands has helped 42 companies to move to the Netherlands and it is currently negotiating with 250 other companies. For the time being, this Netherlands provides a new investment wave of 291 million euros and creates 1,923 jobs.

Flanders invests in Flanders Investment & Trade. That is a completely different attitude. Flanders see Brexit as a growth opportunity.

With Brexit, we actually have the perfect incentive to make some urgent changes to our competitive position. In the Ease of Doing Business Ranking, all our neighboring countries except Luxembourg are doing better than Belgium. Even Belarus has to go ahead.

In short, there are opportunities and our group is pleased that the bill on insurance underwriters was added to this bill. Authorised subscribers are insurers acting on behalf of and on behalf of insurance companies. It is a niche market, but it is important for maritime insurance, among others.

The framework we have proposed increases legal certainty for brokers. Thus we can make a collection movement with respect to the Netherlands, Luxembourg and the United Kingdom.

Due to the imminent Brexit, many British offices will try to get foot on the continent. They often travel to the Netherlands or Luxembourg. Nevertheless, with our ports in Antwerp, Gent and Zeebrugge, it is so ready as a little bit that we can and should also bring those activities to Flanders.

This law makes it more attractive for those offices to establish themselves in our country. We are therefore pleased that the bill is linked to the bill.

Mr. Speaker, ladies ministers, dear colleagues, our assembly has already experienced several debates on the consequences of Brexit on topical issues. These consequences affect the European Union but also our country, Belgium. I have already had the opportunity to repeatedly ask our Prime Minister, Charles Michel, what measures were in preparation to mitigate the negative effects on our economy in the event of a no-deal UK exit from the European Union.

This public session takes place at a time that illustrates ⁇ well one of the main features of the Brexit debate in the United Kingdom. I want to talk about uncertainty. At the time we are debating this bill, we do not know whether or not Brexit will take place before the European elections or what the nature of it will be.

Even last night, the House of Commons has not yet reached an agreement. Eight votes out of eight scenarios were all rejected. Moreover, the announcement of Theresa May’s resignation if the withdrawal agreement was to be adopted tomorrow further enhances the confusion and uncertainty floating beyond the Channel.

What will be the position of the House Speaker to organize this vote? Will we witness a positive vote on the Barnier agreement and the resignation of the prime minister? Will there be an election or just a change of prime minister? We are lost in conjecture.

But let’s not be mistaken: the confusion that reigns beyond the Channel is the daughter of unfulfilled promises made by political leaders who are now caught up by reality and who are faced with the inevitable. The European elections must be an opportunity to return to a true and sincere discourse; our fellow citizens have a right to do so.

One thing is certain: a rejection of the withdrawal agreement is always possible, which would involve a “no deal”, that is, a no-deal exit, a hard Brexit. Such an exit would probably be extremely costly for the UK but would also penalize the European Union and, of course, our country. In order to mitigate these negative consequences, our government has submitted this bill.

I remain convinced that Brexit is basically a bad news. This is clearly a situation where all parties are losers. Certainly, the vote of the British people must be respected, because its decision is unambiguous and it is not our responsibility to challenge it. However, we can regret it. We will all come out weakened, both individually and collectively, both economically and geopolitically.

It is no joy of heart that we see a great European state, an ally, leaving our common home. We continue to think that a good deal with the United Kingdom is possible, which would obviously be the well-understood interest of both parties. In other words, we hope for a positive vote tomorrow in Westminster.

In fact, the Barnier Agreement is complemented by a political declaration that gives our future relations an unprecedented framework in the relations of the European Union with a third country. This framework will include an economic partnership, a security partnership and a research partnership.

The Withdrawal Agreement as well as the Political Declaration specify that a fishing agreement will also have to be concluded by July 2020, that is, well before the end of the transition period.

It must be based, inter alia, on mutual access to the waters of both Parties as well as on the shares of existing fishing quotas. We will be ⁇ attentive to the negotiation and satisfactory conclusion of this agreement. But we must also take care of defending the commercial interests of our maritime infrastructure.

In addition, like the European Council, we will be vigilant to maintain fair conditions between the UK and the European Union, regardless of the form of the future relationship. This is ⁇ the case when it comes to alignment with European environmental standards. This is essential, otherwise we would have no choice but to accept that our companies are subject to unfair competition or to give up, in Europe, our future environmental ambitions.

This is what would happen if the Brexit agreement negotiated by Michel Barnier was ratified.

As we said from the beginning, this ratification depends on a British political situation that we must call uncertain, or even confusing. That is why our government, as well as the European institutions and other Member States such as France, Germany, the Netherlands, has rightly and cautiously concluded that we need to prepare for all scenarios, including that of a no-deal exit. This is what the European Council asked the institutions and Member States exactly a year ago.

A team within the Secretariat-General of the Commission is responsible for identifying measures that should be taken in areas falling within the competence of the Union – including citizens’ rights, financial services, transport, customs and health controls, the protection of personal data, fisheries or climate.

At the national level, it is our collective responsibility, that of the government and that of the Parliament, to prepare seriously for all hypotheses, including that of a no-deal withdrawal.

This is the subject of this bill. It has some flexibility. In particular, we will need to be able to adjust our mechanism to the measures that would be taken by the UK government but also by the European Commission in the area of Community competence (this is, for example, the case of aviation law governed by Community law or fisheries that represent an integrated EU policy, I have just addressed) and by the other Member States, in the case of them.

This bill includes measures aimed at addressing the concerns of many Belgians living in the UK. The government heard them. These measures must be allowed without delay in order to prevent our compatriots from being deprived of their rights tomorrow. On the contrary, we must not forget the situation of the British living on our soil. We want to tell them that they will always be welcome, tomorrow, as they are today. Their right of residence and that of their family members will be ⁇ ined.

We are unambiguously committed to doing everything possible to ensure that British nationals living on our territory are in a situation comparable to the one they would have benefited under the Withdrawal Agreement. We ask the British government to take the same commitments towards our citizens and to give them precise and detailed assurances about the guarantees that will be given to them in the absence of an agreement. Two amendments were unanimously adopted in the committee this afternoon.

Brexit also has consequences for energy in Belgium. Until an agreement is reached, the UK is expected to leave the European natural gas market on March 30. This endangers the security of supply through the Interconnector, which connects the UK with Belgium. This will ensure the security of supply.

As regards the social component and as long as the United Kingdom guarantees reciprocity with respect to the social protection of our nationals, it is appropriate to provide, by 31 December 2020 at the latest, for disability benefits, benefits paid in case of work accident or occupational disease, maternity and paternity benefits, pensions, survival or death pensions and unemployment benefits.

Here is an overview of the various measures included in this bill. You will have understood that it will have all its relevance in the case of no deal, which remains the worst of the scenarios.

In conclusion, my colleagues, this bill should allow the government to limit as much as possible the consequences of a no-deal UK withdrawal. In the face of the uncertainty prevailing today in the UK, we must be prepared for every scenario, to guarantee our fellow citizens, our country, stability in all areas. This is why I ask you to support this bill.