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-deal-key-points-what-cameron-wanted-and-what-he-got

The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
EU deal key points: what Cameron wanted and what he got EU deal key points: what Cameron wanted and what he got
(about 1 hour later)
Here are the key points in the EU renegotiation deal offered by European council president, Donald Tusk, on Tuesday. In his letter to the European council president, Donald Tusk, in November last year, David Cameron set out his demands under four headings. As is often the way, he left the most tricky topic, immigration, until last. But we will start with it because it is not just the issue that has generated most interest, but also the one where the gap between what Cameron wanted and what he was likely to get seemed widest.
In-work welfare benefits Immigration
The document offers 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. What Cameron wanted: The prime minister originally demanded that people coming to Britain from the EU should be barred from claiming in-work benefits or social housing for four years. He wanted a ban on people being able to claim child benefit in the UK and send it back to families in other EU states. And he wanted further crackdowns on sham marriages.
The restrictions on in-work benefits do not amount to 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”. What he got: The document offers an “emergency brake” on in-work benefits for up to four years if there is pressure on a particular member state, which would have to be approved by the EU council.
Tusk asserts that current conditions in the UK are already considered “exceptional” enough to justify triggering the controversial emergency brake on paying in-work benefits. Verdict: This is not quite what Cameron wanted. Instead, there is a “graduated” limitation to “take account of the growing connection of the worker with the labour market of the host member state”. That means EU migrants would not face a total ban on in-work benefits for four years. The debate about how long the UK would be allowed to apply its “emergency brake” is unresolved. On child benefit, the Tusk proposal would not “end the practice of sending child benefit overseas”, just limit the amount that is remitted.
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
Member states would be able take further action against sham marriages and fraudulent immigration claims, and member states could take action against citizens who represent a serious threat to security.
Economic governanceEconomic governance
The document asserts that British taxpayers’ money can never be liable to support problems in the eurozone, while supervision of financial institutions in non-eurozone countries would remain a matter for their national governments. What he wanted: The prime minister wanted an explicit statement that the EU had more than one currency, that taxpayers in non-eurozone countries should never be liable for operations to shore up the eurozone, and that any change decided by the eurozone, such as the creation of a banking union, should be voluntary for non-eurozone countries.
What he got: The Tusk document promises a mechanism that would give “necessary reassurances” on the concerns of non-eurozone countries, but these “cannot constitute a veto”. It also states clearly that British taxpayers’ money can never be liable to support the eurozone.
Verdict: In broad terms this has addressed Cameron’s concerns. But he does not seem to have got an explicit declaration that the EU has more than one currency, and it is not clear what impact the “necessary reassurances” will have in terms of enabling the UK to stop eurozone countries “ganging up” to impose financial measures that would disadvantage the City of London.
CompetitivenessCompetitiveness
There is a clear long-term commitment to increasing competitiveness and taking concrete steps towards better regulation and reducing administrative burdens. What he wanted: Cameron said the European commission was already making progress in this area, but he wanted it to “go much further”. In particular, he wanted less regulation and a stronger commitment to the free flow of capital, goods and services.
What he got: There is a clear long-term commitment to increasing competitiveness and taking concrete steps towards better regulation and reducing administrative burdens. “The relevant EU institutions and the member states will make all efforts to strengthen the internal market and to adapt it to keep pace with the changing environment,” the Tusk document says.
Verdict: This is very much in line with what Cameron wanted. There is no explicit target to cut the total regulatory burden on business, as Cameron requested, although arguably the commitment to “lowering administrative burdens and compliance costs” and “a burden reduction implementation mechanism” amounts to the same thing.
SovereigntySovereignty
A red-card system is proposed, which would allow national parliaments making up more than 55% of votes on the council to be able to veto EU legislation. What he wanted: Here Cameron’s proposals were quite specific. He wanted an end to Britain’s obligation to work towards an “ever closer union” – one of the founding principles of the EU – in a “ formal, legally binding and ireversible way”. He wanted an enhanced role for national parliaments, a strengthening of the EU’s commitments to subsidiarity – the idea that EU decisions should only be taken at an EU level where necessary – and a clear statement that national security remained the sole responsibility of member states.
In an attempt to allay Conservative fears about “ever closer union among the peoples of Europe” – one of the founding principles of the EU – Tusk offers a declaration that the UK is “not committed to further political integration into the European Union”. What he got: The Tusk proposal states that treaty references to “ever-closer union” are “not an equivalent to the objective of political integration” and as such do not form a basis for extending the scope of any EU treaties. A “red-card” system is proposed, which would allow national parliaments making up more than 55% of votes on the council to be able to veto EU legislation. The document also contains a strong commitment to the principle of subsidiarity.
Cameron had originally hoped to secure a more explicit opt-out for Britain from ever-closer union. Verdict: There is a debate to be had about whether the red-card mechanism will make much difference in practice, but the Tusk plan closely mirrors what Cameron wanted. And although “ever-closer union” remains in the treaties, the Tusk document makes it clear that Britain has an exemption. Crucially, it says this phrase should not be used by the European court of justice to justify extending the reach of EU law.