This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/feb/02/eu-renogotiaion-tusk-proposes-migrant-worker-benefit-cap
The article has changed 7 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| EU renegotiation: UK offered partial concession on migrant worker benefits | EU renegotiation: UK offered partial concession on migrant worker benefits |
| (35 minutes later) | |
| Britain would be able to request an “emergency brake” on in-work welfare benefits for EU migrants for up to four years subject to the permission of other member states under proposals from Brussels to address David Cameron’s demands. | Britain would be able to request an “emergency brake” on in-work welfare benefits for EU migrants for up to four years subject to the permission of other member states under proposals from Brussels to address David Cameron’s demands. |
| But the restrictions on in-work benefits will not be an outright ban as originally demanded by Cameron but a “graduated” limitation to “take account of the growing connection of the worker with the labour market of the host member state”. | But the restrictions on in-work benefits will not be an outright ban as originally demanded by Cameron but a “graduated” limitation to “take account of the growing connection of the worker with the labour market of the host member state”. |
| The proposal to restrict in-work benefits with an emergency brake could be requested by any member but would have to be approved by the whole EU council, either by unanimity or a qualified majority vote. | The proposal to restrict in-work benefits with an emergency brake could be requested by any member but would have to be approved by the whole EU council, either by unanimity or a qualified majority vote. |
| The text also does not make explicit how long the emergency brake could apply for. It partially meets Cameron’s demands for limits to benefits but critics are likely to be unhappy with an effective veto by the EU council over the emergency brake. | The text also does not make explicit how long the emergency brake could apply for. It partially meets Cameron’s demands for limits to benefits but critics are likely to be unhappy with an effective veto by the EU council over the emergency brake. |
| There is also a draft declaration stating that the European commission considers that the level of migration into the UK is such that an emergency brake could be applied because the “type of exceptional situation that the proposed safeguard mechanism is intended to cover exists in the UK today”. | There is also a draft declaration stating that the European commission considers that the level of migration into the UK is such that an emergency brake could be applied because the “type of exceptional situation that the proposed safeguard mechanism is intended to cover exists in the UK today”. |
| Accordingly, the UK would be justified in triggering the mechanism in the full expectation of obtaining approval, the document says. UK sources said this means Britain could expect to get approval from the EU council for a four-year ban on in-work benefits. | Accordingly, the UK would be justified in triggering the mechanism in the full expectation of obtaining approval, the document says. UK sources said this means Britain could expect to get approval from the EU council for a four-year ban on in-work benefits. |
| Donald Tusk, the EU council president, announced his proposals for “a new settlement” between the UK and the EU, with a twist on Hamlet’s famous line: | Donald Tusk, the EU council president, announced his proposals for “a new settlement” between the UK and the EU, with a twist on Hamlet’s famous line: |
| In a letter to all 28 EU member states, Tusk said his proposals went “really far” in addressing Cameron’s concerns, but “he could not cross the principles on which the European project is founded”. | In a letter to all 28 EU member states, Tusk said his proposals went “really far” in addressing Cameron’s concerns, but “he could not cross the principles on which the European project is founded”. |
| “This has been a difficult process and there are still challenging negotiations ahead. Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. I am convinced that the proposal is a good basis for a compromise.” | “This has been a difficult process and there are still challenging negotiations ahead. Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. I am convinced that the proposal is a good basis for a compromise.” |
| The text also contains measures relating to all four areas requested by the UK – economic governance, competitiveness, sovereignty and social benefits. | The text also contains measures relating to all four areas requested by the UK – economic governance, competitiveness, sovereignty and social benefits. |
| The key points proposed by Tusk, which will need to be approved by all member states, are: | The key points proposed by Tusk, which will need to be approved by all member states, are: |
| • Social security: an emergency brake on in-work benefits for up to four years if there is pressure on a particular member states, which would have to be approved by the EU council; child benefit would be indexed to the level of member state where the child resides. | • Social security: an emergency brake on in-work benefits for up to four years if there is pressure on a particular member states, which would have to be approved by the EU council; child benefit would be indexed to the level of member state where the child resides. |
| • Child benefit: Cameron’s proposal to stop EU workers being able to claim benefit on behalf of children living abroad was also watered down. Instead, the UK will be able to alter the amount by taking into account the living standards in the country where the child is from. | |
| • Other immigration measures: members states can take further action against sham marriages and fraudulent immigration claims, members states can take action against citizens who represent a serious threat to security. | • Other immigration measures: members states can take further action against sham marriages and fraudulent immigration claims, members states can take action against citizens who represent a serious threat to security. |
| • Economic governance: British taxpayers money can never be liable to support the eurozone; supervision of financial institutions in non eurozone countries will remain a matter for their national governments. | • Economic governance: British taxpayers money can never be liable to support the eurozone; supervision of financial institutions in non eurozone countries will remain a matter for their national governments. |
| • Competitiveness: a clear long-term commitment to increasing competitiveness and taking concrete steps towards better regulation and reducing administrative burdens. | • Competitiveness: a clear long-term commitment to increasing competitiveness and taking concrete steps towards better regulation and reducing administrative burdens. |
| • Sovereignty: a red-card system to allow national parliaments making up more than 55% of votes on the council to be able to veto EU legislation; spells out that “ever closer union” cannot be used to justify more political integration. | • Sovereignty: a red-card system to allow national parliaments making up more than 55% of votes on the council to be able to veto EU legislation; spells out that “ever closer union” cannot be used to justify more political integration. |