Strasbourg, 02/02/2016 (Agence Europe) - To be or not to be together, that is the question. It is in paraphrasing a famous British playwright that European Council President Donald Tusk made his reform proposals public for encouraging the UK to stay in the EU. The referendum promised by British Prime Minister David Cameron on his country's relationship with the EU is being talked about for the end of June.
Trying to satisfy Cameron on four specific demands - integration of the eurozone and economic governance, competitiveness, subsidiarity, and social benefits payments to European migrants who work - Tusk said that these avenues for future work went really “far” in order to remedy all the concerns raised by London. This is especially the case in meeting the demand to activate an “emergency brake” for the free movement of European workers and the associated social benefits. This can be done but by maintaining a key principle - not “crossing the line” beyond which basic European principles would be endangered, Tusk said in the letter presenting the proposals.
“Keeping the unity of the EU is the biggest challenge for us all and the key objective of my term in office”, Tusk wrote. This issue of wanting to stay together or not will have to find a response not only among British citizens asked to give their opinion at the referendum, but also among the other 27 EU member states in the coming “two weeks”, with a view to the European Council meeting on 18-19 February.
In concrete terms, the proposals that have now been unveiled and that were put together in close cooperation with the European Commission and negotiated with the British prime minister, contain several very concrete legislative initiatives that do not involve Treaty changes. In Tusk's order of presentation, these are: - a draft binding decision of the European Council (like the 1992 Edinburgh decision after the Danish referendum for the options of withdrawal) which is 16 pages long, sets the new arrangements for the UK in the EU, and lists most of the suggested amendments; a statement on the governance of the eurozone and banking union; a statement on competitiveness; a statement on a mechanism for implementing subsidiarity and on reducing “the burden”; a statement creating a safeguard mechanism as regards immigration and social benefits; a statement from the Commission on the issue of the abuse of the right to freedom of movement.
The 28 EU member states will focus on this package on Friday 5 February, with a meeting of the sherpas and national ambassadors to the EU - the objective being to reach an agreement for the next European Council.
Possible exclusion of the right to social benefits. Among the most sensitive points for London is the issue of intra-European migration and work-related social benefits which these migrants can claim in the UK. London regards these social benefits as being too heavy a burden, which destabilises its social security system. On this issue, the Commission has therefore committed to table a review of Regulation 492/2011 on the freedom of movement for workers, integrating a safeguard mechanism into it. While the proposal does not detail the criteria triggering the mechanism, the Commission now considers that the current situation in the UK can justify activating such an arrangement, the draft statement says.
This mechanism, which is still virtual, would authorise a member state to limit the access of a new arrival on its labour market to work-related social benefits for a period of four years maximum. This may or may not be done gradually, authorising the payment of certain benefits gradually as the worker is integrated into the labour market of the member state concerned. This is a compromise that waters down Cameron's initial demands.
The Commission is also ready to amend Regulation 883/2004 on coordinating social security systems with regard to the export of family allowance paid to a member state - the idea being to look at the living standard of children remaining in the country who benefit from it. This proposal responds to a criticism made by London of the nationals from Eastern member states, especially Poland, whose citizens working in the UK transfer British social benefits to their children who are still in their member state of origin.
The Commission gives assurances that London's demands have also been heard on the transitional arrangements for entering the EU labour markets of countries that will be an EU member in the future.
In another draft statement, the Commission gives assurances that it wants to address other abuses, such as marriages of convenience with third country nationals. Among other things, the Commission will therefore adopt a proposal completing Directive 2004/38 on Europeans' freedom of movement in order to exclude from certain rights third country nationals who do not have legal residency in the EU before marrying a European. The Commission also proposes that the member states should lodge complaints as regards family reunifications. In Tusk's view, this review of the arrangements on social benefits enables the European Treaties to be clearly respected, and enables the interpretation of the current rules to be clarified, as the Court of Justice of the EU has already done.
The second section, which is equally important for London, focuses on the integration of the eurozone, the rules on banking regulation and the effects that these arrangements can have on non-member countries of the eurozone. Tusk proposes a mechanism intended to enable the UK to contest decisions of the eurozone that it considers go against UK interests. If a certain number (still to be negotiated) of non-member countries of the eurozone contest a decision of the Council “by qualified majority”, the Council will have to put the subject up for discussion in order to reach a “satisfactory solution”.
Based on mutual respect, the solutions proposed aim at bringing it about that member states with the single currency wanting to integrate further do not discriminate - especially on the trade and single market level - against the countries that do not have the single currency. Conversely, the non-member countries of the eurozone will watch that they do not take measures that could create harm to their other European partners.
In order to satisfy Cameron, it is also stated that no emergency measure to help a eurozone member will be able to call for financial contributions from non-member countries of the euro, and a reimbursement mechanism will be set up if the EU budget should be used to contribute for a certain facility (c.f. the case of Greece). The member states outside the euro would also be involved in all the discussions, even if they do not have the right to vote.
No change to goal of “ever closer union”. As regards competitiveness, the draft statement of the heads of state or government merely mentions a commitment to regulate better and to ensure always that the administrative burden of European legislation is limited, as well as its costs for companies, especially SMEs. The member states will do their utmost to strengthen the internal market and to adapt it to the changing environment. The EU will also have to have an ambitious trade policy.
As regards subsidiarity and sovereignty, the draft decision recognises that given the special situation in the UK, this country is not committed to integrating further on the political level in the EU. There is no question, however, of changing the preamble of the Treaty that speaks of “ever closer union” or of Cameron changing and enriching it with the notion of a multi-speed Europe. The text presented by Tusk nevertheless underlines the fact that this notion of an “ever closer union” does not provide the basis for extending all the arrangements of the Treaty or of extending the secondary legislation stemming from it. Nor does it aim to give more competences to the EU or powers to the European institutions, the draft tries to assure.
A change to the EU's competences and powers granted to its institutions by the member states can only be made by amending the Treaties, the statement says. However, the current Treaties already allow exemptions to be given to member states. The references to an “ever closer union” are therefore compatible with the different speeds followed by the member states, the text lays down.
Tusk, however, says that Cameron is right on one point, accepting his demands for a “red card” mechanism for national parliaments. If 55% of them so want, in the 12 weeks following the Commission's presentation (55% of votes given to the national parliaments), a draft of European legislation could be blocked or cancelled by the Council of the EU, or amended. This avenue was furthermore warmly welcomed by the head of the European Parliament's EPP Group, Manfred Weber, who thinks there is not point in pursuing a legislative draft that will never be accepted.
These avenues of compromise were quite well received by Cameron, who tweeted that they showed “real progress” in the four areas of renegotiation, even “if much work remains to be done”. He also committed to campaigning to keep his country in the EU if the Council approved these proposals at its next meeting. Finland's Minister of Finance Alexander Stubb tweeted that he thought the proposals were reasonable. Tusk guaranteed that these decisions would be legally binding and that some of the arrangements proposed could even be written into the Treaties when there is a later revision. (Original version in French by Solenn Paulic)