Activities of Terry REINTKE related to 2020/2202(INI)
Plenary speeches (1)
Implementation report on the Agreement on the withdrawal of the UK from the EU - The Windsor Framework (debate)
Shadow opinions (1)
OPINION on the implementation report on the Agreement on the withdrawal of the UK from the EU
Amendments (10)
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Recalls that the UK opted for a ‘constitutive system’ (the EU Settlement Scheme – EUSS), which grants eligible EU citizens resident in the UK either settled status or pre-settled status at the end of the transition period, allowing themn application process under Article 18(1) of the Withdrawal Agreement (WA) confirming the rights of eligible EU citizens resident in the UK and their family members at the end of the transitional period. Recalls that the UK has implemented this process through the EU Settlement Scheme (EUSS) which grants either settled status or pre-settled status in order to reside legally in the UK and enjoy all thethe full suite of rights provided for under the Withdrawal Agreement (WA); rA. Recalls that the WA makes clear that the administrative procedures under a constitutive system must be ‘'smooth, transparent and simple’, simple and non- discriminatory';
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Stresses that theExpresses its concern that there is a misalignment of the EUSS with the WA since the UK authorities do not accept that all EUSS status holders are beneficiaries of the WA and not all beneficiaries of the WA are able to apply to the EUSS. Stresses that this misalignment of the EUSS with the WA creates a risk of legal uncertainty for EU citizens in the UK as to whether their rights are guaranteed under UK immigration law or by the WA, and whether they can use their EUSS status to prove their rights under the WA. Stresses that this misalignment also excludes a cohort (including Lounes dual nationals) from accessing their rights under the WA or having them confirmed;
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Expresses its concern about the difficulties that EU citizens may encounter when applying foproviding their settled or pre-settled status due to the UK’s insistence on a digital-only approach; and thereby accessing their rights under the WA due to the UK implementation of the negotiated digital- only approach. Is concerned that the digital-only approach applications can be discriminatory and have a negative effect on applicants from disadvantaged backgrounds or invulnerable situations. Is further concerned about the numerous delays in the status application and the high number of refusals. Asks the UK authorities to urgently address this situation;
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Urges the UK authorities to ensure the effective, compliant with Article 18(3) of the WA and transparent implementation of temporary protection measures for EU citizens who have pending applications, including those who missed the initial deadline for applications to the EUSS;
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Considers itIs deeply concerned about the inconsistentce with the WA thatregarding pre- settled status holders who do not reapply successfully for settled status risk losing their rights to live, work and access services in the UK. Considers that urgent solutions should be found to ensure compliance with the WA and to prevent that the rights of individuals are undermined;
Amendment 33 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Urges declaratory Member States that opted for an Article 18(4) implementation, which does not require an application process to confirm rights under the WA, to address the UK’s concerns relating to evidencing status and to UK citizens living in the EU accessing benefits and services;
Amendment 39 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7 a. Is concerned that citizens in Northern Ireland enjoy different rights depending on their nationality; urges the UK authorities to ensure there is no diminution of rights for the citizens in Northern Ireland and to fully respect the Good Friday Agreement in all its parts;
Amendment 43 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 b (new)
Paragraph 7 b (new)
7 b. Recalls and condemns again that cooperation in the area of asylum and migration was not included in the WA; is deeply concerned about the situation in the English Channel and the plans from the UK authorities to send asylum seekers to unsafe destinations; urges the need to comply with international law;
Amendment 45 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 c (new)
Paragraph 7 c (new)
Amendment 48 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 d (new)
Paragraph 7 d (new)
7 d. Considers that further particular attention should be paid to the legal framework in place in the UK in the fields of national security and processing of personal data by law enforcement authorities or for migration related matters in order to make sure that all the conditions required by Union data protection law, particularly Regulations 2016/679 and 2018/1725 and Directive 2016/680, and the case-law of the CJEU are fulfilled, and hence ensure that the level of protection is essentially equivalent to that afforded by the European Union. Reminds that mass surveillance programmes such as Tempora are not equivalent with EU data protection rules and reiterates its call to take into consideration case law in this field such as the Schrems cases. Is concerned about the proposal to expand data sharing, including biometric data, under the Prüm regime. Reminds previous calls for respect of the fundamental rights of individuals, including continued adherence and giving effect to the ECHR, adequate protection of personal data, and effective legal safeguards, which are essential prerequisites for allowing police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters.