Mr. Guy Verhofstadt:

Again, I will respond to three of four of the points that have been made. With the Ceann Comhairle's permission, I will start with the last point on citizenship because we have talked a lot about borders and economic interests but perhaps not enough about citizenship. The position of the Parliament, which will be reiterated in the new resolution, is that we need to protect fully the EU citizenship that several hundred thousands of Northern Irish citizens who have Irish passports have. We must take this seriously. It concerns all the elements linked to EU citizenship. EU citizenship is not something from which one can pick and choose - consular aid, yes, but voting rights, no. It is a concept that is linked to EU citizenship and the position of the European Parliament is that we must protect it. In the Brexit steering group, one of the priorities is to look into this and be sure that we on the European side defend this concept during the negotiations. It cannot be the case that we say these people are EU citizens but that EU citizenship does not mean anything. That is not possible. It must mean what it is: all the rights that are in fact linked to that concept.

With the Ceann Comhairle's permission, I will respond to another question that has been put forward: what is happening now in this discussion about citizens' rights in general? This also concerns Irish citizens living in Britain. Our concept, our proposal, from the European side and the European Parliament side is that we simply continue collectively the rights that the more than 3 million EU citizens living in the UK have currently. We are very critical - and we will reiterate this in the next resolution - of the UK side's proposal to introduce a new concept of settled status in British immigration legislation that will require each one of these millions of citizens to make an individual request to continue to have his or her rights. Individual means individual, so if there are four family members, four requests need to be initiated. There will be a number of conditions and a need to prove a number of things. This will create an enormous administrative burden on these millions of European citizens, including many Irish citizens in Britain. The same goes for UK citizens living on the Continent but I do not think this is such a big problem because all the remaining EU member states recognise that the best way forward is simply to continue the rights those citizens have now. I am saying this because this is a key issue that must be solved, it is to be hoped as quickly as possible, to end the uncertainty for these millions of people who are today already subject to a number of practices by which they are losing a number of their rights. This is not to mention that some of them received a letter - apparently it was a mistake - stating they had simply to leave the country as quickly as possible. This is completely against the EU treaties because, until withdrawal, the UK continues to be a member of the European Union, needs to apply fully EU law and does not have the right to send such letters.

A question was asked about the customs union and the example of beef was given. Other examples are possible. The problem for the European Union is not that the British side may say tomorrow they want to continue in the customs union. Nobody in the European Union will say that is not possible. However, to be in the customs union also means that the competence to make trade agreements continues to be exercised by the European Union. That is the consequence of a customs union. In a customs union a country does not negotiate tariffs and trade agreements individually; it is the European Union that does that based on the treaties. One cannot say one wants to be in the customs union but will manage trade oneself. That is not the European Union. I think everyone will accept, certainly now that it has already been proposed by some in Britain, that the UK should stay for a transitional period in the customs union, but it cannot pick and choose and say it wants to be in this but not that. One cannot say, "I want to be in the customs union and the Single Market but I do not want to pay, I do not want the oversight of the European Court of Justice, I do not want migrants coming from eastern Europe and I do not want it to be the European Union that negotiates trade deals in the future." That is not possible. Membership comes with positive things but also with obligations. One cannot create a system in which not being a member of the European Union is more favourable than being a member. One would then destroy the European project. I am very open to and positive about what Deputy Donnelly said in his question but, as I said, it is not a question of taking the benefits and putting the burden on the remaining 27 member states. That will not happen and will not be allowed to happen. That is not objective, not serious and certainly not the kind of European Union we all want.