Introduction
PM David Cameron has announced his demands to the EU for reform. The demands highlight one thing: this competition will not be about issues, but who will be the best ballerina?
The demands are spurious at best. British perception of the EU and the reality of it are highly divorced. The Economist makes this point rather nicely - that Britain’s actual problem with the EU is perception - not substance.
Looking at the demands is a good way to judge this.
The demands are spurious at best. British perception of the EU and the reality of it are highly divorced. The Economist makes this point rather nicely - that Britain’s actual problem with the EU is perception - not substance.
Looking at the demands is a good way to judge this.
More Competition
The demand is for greater competition within EU states, as it is uncompetitive and unjust. That’s an issue of lack of enforcement of existing rules; not the fundamental organisation of the EU. The UK is a leader here, so if they leave the group is only more liable to become more protectionist, as a leading light for liberalisation will be gone.
On issues such as privatisation of rail services the UK is the ONLY member to have ended the state subsidy for rail. The rules for topics like this will not be enforced without leading advocates for liberalisation - such as the UK. British members of the EU representation spend their days working to help ensure other members comply. Fail to do this, and there will be less chance of that change happening! Denmark is a close ally on this agenda, but they cannot do it alone.
Consider too though, that this is a straw-man. The left spends its time attacking the EU for being a neo-liberal stitch-up that cares about business over consumers (just look at TTIP). Brussels IS pushing for trade and market liberalisation. So already we can see that this is not an issue on substance but propaganda. The EU is behind more competition, as are the member states by and large; that's why they are backing TTIP!
On issues such as privatisation of rail services the UK is the ONLY member to have ended the state subsidy for rail. The rules for topics like this will not be enforced without leading advocates for liberalisation - such as the UK. British members of the EU representation spend their days working to help ensure other members comply. Fail to do this, and there will be less chance of that change happening! Denmark is a close ally on this agenda, but they cannot do it alone.
Consider too though, that this is a straw-man. The left spends its time attacking the EU for being a neo-liberal stitch-up that cares about business over consumers (just look at TTIP). Brussels IS pushing for trade and market liberalisation. So already we can see that this is not an issue on substance but propaganda. The EU is behind more competition, as are the member states by and large; that's why they are backing TTIP!
Protection of the Single Market for Non-Euro Members
The UK has plenty of allies on this; not a majority, but enough for it to be fine. Germany also feels closer to the UK and Denmark than to say Italy or Greece. Yes *technically* the non-Euro states can be over-ridden in votes, but the UK has already managed to win exemptions from issues such as Greek bailouts. It should also be considered that if the non-Euro members were bullied by voting on this issue, they’d ensure that the Euro countries that had done this to them would suffer retalliation on other issues where they need the votes of countries like the UK, Sweden, Poland, or Denmark.
But, on another consideration, one of the biggest concerns for the UK losing access to markets as a non-euro members is in finance. This is an issue where the UK can (and is encouraged) to lead due to its market position, Commission portfolio, and control of the European Banking Agency, the banking regulator (which it does next to nothing to utilise…). Brussels has actively given the UK the powers to control this issue and shape the market to make it beneficial for it AND all other EU members. The UK is being encouraged to make EU finance markets the best they can be, as Brussels recognises that the UK holds the expertise here.
By remaining in and using the tools given to it by Brussels, the UK can set the rules and make sure that markets don’t get sealed to them. Leaving would make it much more likely that more protectionist-minded members would persuade the remaining states to allow a closure of the market to non-Euro or non-compliant members. ((As an aside - it’s worth noting that the protectionism argument is a bit of a myth; Vince Cable’s then French counterpart was forced out of office after trying to illegally give state subsidy to a steel mill. Protectionism by other member states is an argument that is often made anecdotally, but lacks any real substance)).
But, on another consideration, one of the biggest concerns for the UK losing access to markets as a non-euro members is in finance. This is an issue where the UK can (and is encouraged) to lead due to its market position, Commission portfolio, and control of the European Banking Agency, the banking regulator (which it does next to nothing to utilise…). Brussels has actively given the UK the powers to control this issue and shape the market to make it beneficial for it AND all other EU members. The UK is being encouraged to make EU finance markets the best they can be, as Brussels recognises that the UK holds the expertise here.
By remaining in and using the tools given to it by Brussels, the UK can set the rules and make sure that markets don’t get sealed to them. Leaving would make it much more likely that more protectionist-minded members would persuade the remaining states to allow a closure of the market to non-Euro or non-compliant members. ((As an aside - it’s worth noting that the protectionism argument is a bit of a myth; Vince Cable’s then French counterpart was forced out of office after trying to illegally give state subsidy to a steel mill. Protectionism by other member states is an argument that is often made anecdotally, but lacks any real substance)).
Migrant Benefits Stopped for 4yrs
Presently they have to reside in the UK for 3-months before they can claim benefits. 3-months of unemployment in a foreign country, with no support network and no money. That’s not easy. To fix this doesn’t even require a treaty change or a new-EU law; it simply requires the UK to change the amount of time before someone can begin claiming benefits (e.g. requiring somebody to have been resident for 3-years and paying taxes before being able to claim access to the healthcare system; as countries like Spain do).
And remember, the UK is making the benefits and tax credits offered far less generous, meaning that the amount paid to EU migrants is going to go down anyway.
But even then, Germany and others already making noises about making a change to allow differentiation to migrants ((shockingly, German, French, Italian, Swedish and other tax-payers don’t like paying benefits to foreign nationals either!)). Ok - yes - this will require a treaty reform. But the UK has basically already won that one alongside others.
Ever Closer Union Stopped
This has been “killed off by an EU statement last June recognising that member states want different levels of integration.“ Yes the statement is in a treaty as a desired ambition, but it’s not going to be enforced or pursued; at least not for a very long time.
Conclusion
So that’s the main four issues. Four issues that are already either implemented, or so easily implemented that this referendum cannot be empirically lost. But this debate was never about the issues. It’s about the perception. That means the winner of the argument is based on who is the better ballerina: who can spin faster.