David Cameron’s suggested reforms demand a less integrated European Union, one that directly contradicts the principals on which it was built.
Last week David Cameron put forward a list of “substantial changes” he wants to make to the UK’s relationship with the 28-nation trade bloc – but what did Donald Tusk, President of the European Council, think of those suggestions? A draft EU deal has finally been published as of February 2nd 2016, but does it incorporate the changes Cameron demanded?
Regarding sovereignty, Britain seeks less political integration in the European Union and argued for a ‘red-card’ mechanism, whereby if at least 55% of national governments are in agreement against a certain political proposal, they can veto, or block the proposal from being put into action. This demand has been included in the draft proposal, which states that “where reasoned opinions on the non-compliance of a draft union legislative act with the principle of subsidiarity, sent within 12 weeks from the transmission of that draft, represent more than 55% of the votes allocated to the national parliaments, the council presidency will include the item on the agenda of the council for a comprehensive discussion.”
Regarding competitiveness, Britain has demanded for an extension of the single market economy, entailing a reduction of trade barriers such as tariffs, and less regulation on business. This means pressurizing those countries with import tariffs and duties to remove them to allow for freer trade and increased competitiveness in the market. Arguably whilst Britain has demanded increased sovereignty, they demand less nationalist measures to be put in place by other EU states. The plea for increased competitiveness was one of the least controversial, and so has also been agreed to in the draft deal.
Regarding migrants, possibly the most controversial topic of Cameron’s proposals, the Prime Minister argues that migrants should not be able to claim tax credits or child benefit until they have lived and contributed to the UK economy for at least four years, referring to this as an ‘emergency brake’ on benefits for migrants. In addition, Cameron wants to scrap the possibility of migrants sending child benefit money back home to their children, insisting that “If an EU migrant’s child is living abroad, then they should receive no child benefit or child tax credit, no matter how long they have worked in the UK and no matter how much tax they have paid.” Despite the argument made by many other EU states, including most recently Poland, that migrants contribute greatly to the UK economy and that cutting their benefits would be discriminatory and undermine the core principal of free movement, Tusk has nevertheless given in to the idea of an ‘emergency brake’. The deal quite vaguely states that if there is excessive pressure from migrants on the welfare system, Britain has the right to freeze in-work benefits for migrants for four years. What justifies an ‘exceptional magnitude’ of migrants and ‘excessive’ pressure on the welfare system, remains unclear however.
Finally, with regards to the Euro, Cameron aims to secure Britain’s financial status within the EU by insisting that countries that do not use the Euro as their currency, should not be disadvantaged. He also argues for less economic union, especially with regards to bailouts saying that the UK should not be obliged to contribute to eurozone bailouts. In response, Tusk again has given in to Britain’s demands by stating that, “measures, the purpose of which is to further deepen the economic and monetary union, will be voluntary for member states whose currency is not the euro.”
So far, the draft EU deal represents all of Britain’s interests, almost entirely, in desperation to keep them in the European Union following the referendum in June. It shows that the leverage the UK has within the EU is so large that the union is willing to compromise on its core principals of free movement and interdependence for the sake of Britain’s self-interest.