Brussels, 23/02/2016 (Agence Europe) - On Tuesday 23 February, a number of MEPs of the 'constitutional affairs' committee of the European Parliament expressed a number of doubts about the agreement reached by the European leaders on the terms for the renegotiation of the relationship between the United Kingdom and the EU (see EUROPE 11495).
At a meeting attended by Jonathan Faull, the head of the European Commission's task force on the renegotiation of the British membership, several MEPs, among them György Schöpflin (EPP, Hungary), raised questions about the real impact of this package on the vote of the British citizens, who have been called upon to take position on 23 June, or regarding the legality of the agreement and the terms of its contents.
Italian Social Democrat Mercedes Bresso's concerns relate mainly to the principle of the ever-closer Union, the interpretation of which has been tweaked by the Twenty-Eight so as to reassure the United Kingdom that it will not be bound by any subsequent integration obligation. “We can't understand why there is this reference of the United Kingdom to the ever-closer union, as different levels of integration are already possible under the treaties”, she said. Nor is the Italian MEP a fan of the measures decided upon regarding the freedom of movement and, in particular, the expulsion of people who may constitute a threat to public order or internal security.
Under the agreement, the Commission will clarify the options open to member states to expel a European citizen who represents a threat, even if this person has never been convicted of anything. Bresso believes that this is tantamount to “putting themselves outside the standards of human rights”. “This is serious”, she commented. “We believe that it is important for the UK to stay in the EU, but there are a number of questions that are of concern to us”, the S&D member summed up.
Jo Leinen (S&D, Germany) said that the agreement “has given rise to the permanent conflict about its interpretation”. “I hope that the United Kingdom will stay in the EU. But there will be a cooperation issue, as this generalised status of opt-outs to any integration is a permanent source of conflict”, he said, predicting controversy over the reading of the agreement.
Other MEPs also raised the issue of treaty change. Faull said that there was simply no question of having to revise the treaties. “None of the elements of this agreement amend the current treaties or modify them”, he explained. And if all goes well, in other words the United Kingdom agrees to stay in the EU in its referendum, the agreement “may be included” in a future revision of the treaties.
“We firmly believe that the texts are clear, legal and reflect the commitments taken by the Twenty-Eight”, added the Briton, who “anticipates that it will all be applied as it should be”.
Regarding the expulsion of European nationals, the head of the task force further clarified the intentions of the European Council. “All member states are concerned by these questions, we have discussed the precise wording at length”, Faull stressed, explaining that Court of Justice case-law had been borrowed and that “we sought to clarify the options open to the member states”.
Furthermore, regarding the safeguard clause for social benefit related to work (section D of the agreement), the British official reiterated that the revision to be presented by the Commission in the event that the UK opts to remain in the EU would be legislation for all member states, but that specific criteria, such as the criteria related to the British non-contribution system, would be taken into account. “We will be taking account of the criteria brought to our attention as part of this procedure”, Faull said.
David Cameron sells agreement to British Parliament
Defending the agreement of the European summit before the House of Lords on Monday 22 February, the British Prime Minister, David Cameron, warned that a Brexit would threaten the “economic and national” security of the United Kingdom. With the Commission having stated that there is no 'plan B' at this stage, he confirmed that there would be no second referendum in the event of a 'no' vote and that article 50 of the treaty would be activated “immediately”.
This article marks the start of a two-year period of preparations for the exit of a member state of the EU. If no agreement is reached on the terms of this exit after this period, the country would automatically leave unless other member states were prepared to grant a grace period. Any country which leaves the EU may subsequently reapply, under the normal accession procedure. (Original version in French by Solenn Paulic)