tag:theconversation.com,2011:/institutions/centre-for-european-policy-studies-810/articlesCentre for European Policy Studies2015-10-05T22:20:27Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/485382015-10-05T22:20:27Z2015-10-05T22:20:27ZConservatives in Manchester: Cameron presents fruits of his labour to eurosceptic party<p>Since his re-election in May 2015, David Cameron has devoted much of his time to trying to advance his “renegotiations” with the EU. We know that Cameron has been holding <a href="https://theconversation.com/cameron-embarks-on-another-charm-offensive-but-eu-partners-need-substance-47053">one-on-one talks</a> with the leaders of all other EU member states and he is now meeting his party in Manchester to report on his progress.</p>
<p>But we have very little substantive information about the content of these meetings. The reason for this approach is evident enough. Cameron needs to placate his eurosceptic Tory MPs with the argument that he is in delicate negotiations to secure an important new settlement on the terms of the UK’s EU membership ahead of the referendum to be held no later than 2017. </p>
<p>Cameron’s demands are a mixed bag of items, which he presents under much broader labels including sovereignty, social security and economic governance. This is where he currently stands on each:</p>
<h2>Sovereignty</h2>
<p>On “sovereignty”, there seem to be two issues: the <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jun/17/david-cameron-eu-mission-ever-closer-union-doomed-failure-martin-schulz">“ever-closer union of the peoples of Europe”</a> (mentioned in the preamble to the <a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:12007L/TXT">Lisbon Treaty</a>) and the role of national parliaments in EU legislation.</p>
<p>The “ever-closer union” is not a legally precise or operational phrase. It is a broad and sympathetic aspiration and absolutely justified as an antidote to the horrors of Europe’s recent past. But Cameron has chosen to do battle over these three words – and it’s not clear why.</p>
<p>Maybe it is the best textual specimen he could find in the treaty to justify fears that the EU is on some automatic pilot heading towards a federal Europe. Given the political importance that Cameron and his party attach to the phrase, one can imagine that negotiations might lead to more reassuring language being worked out. </p>
<p>The more practical issues – such as the role of national parliaments – may prove more difficult. Radical eurosceptic Tory MPs want Westminster to have the last word on EU legislation and thus for parliament to retain the power to deny the application of “unwanted” EU laws in the UK.</p>
<p>Advocates of this change are essentially asking for secession. There is no sign that Cameron is asking for such a kamikaze option though. The task is therefore to find language to enhance the existing <a href="http://www.cer.org.uk/insights/eus-yellow-card-comes-age-subsidiarity-unbound">“yellow card”</a> treaty provisions that enable national parliaments query EU legislation.</p>
<h2>Social security</h2>
<p>There has been good news for Cameron on this front. Social security discussions are actually about intra-EU migration and his desire to limit the welfare benefits on offer to non-British nationals. The European Court of Justice has recently handed down <a href="https://www.freemovement.org.uk/dano-and-the-exclusion-of-inactive-eu-citizens-from-certain-non-contributory-social-benefits/">two judgements</a> that <a href="http://ecas.org/freedom-movement-workers-alimanovics-case/">help accommodate</a> British concerns. Both confirmed that national authorities, rather than the EU, can decide who qualifies for social welfare benefits. These cases took Cameron by surprise but they mean he can now see that the court has been helping achieve his objectives.</p>
<p>The Commission is also preparing a legislative proposal, expected in December, aimed at amending an existing EU law to tackle welfare abuse by intra-EU migrants. This might go even further to help Cameron, but that remains to be seen. </p>
<p>More broadly there are demands from Tory MPs for opting out of EU labour market regulations. Cameron has not yet made his position clear on this issue.</p>
<p>There has been speculation that if Cameron goes for a renewed opt-out over EU labour market law, there will be pressure from within the Labour party and trade unions to vote for <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/11735368/Brexit-campaigners-to-recruit-trade-unions-as-David-Cameron-takes-axe-to-EU-job-laws.html">Brexit</a> in the referendum. While Corbyn has tried to dispel this concern, the political response within the UK to a renewed opt-out would be bitterly divisive. </p>
<p>There is at least one easy win for Cameron here. He can confidently tell delegates in Manchester that he won’t allow any further expansion of the EU to lead to massive migrations. All member states have to sign off on every aspect of enlargement agreements anyway so if a new country joined, the UK would have had the right with the other member states to negotiate the terms on free movement.</p>
<h2>Dogs that bark no more</h2>
<p>In Cameron’s <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/david-camerons-eu-speech--2">early speeches</a> on Europe, there was talk of repatriating EU powers. Such talk has disappeared from the script since the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/guidance/review-of-the-balance-of-competences">UK government’s own review</a> concluded the actual balance of competences between the EU and member states was about right. </p>
<p>But eurosceptics in the Conservative party want the legal status of judgements from the European Court of Human Rights to be downgraded to being merely advisory. That would leave the British parliament free to decide whether to follow them or not. Apart from being legally impractical, this would cause huge reputational damage for the UK. The subject seems to have dropped off the agenda and we may hear little about it in formal reports of the Manchester conference.</p>
<p>Despite his attempts to gather evidence and seek compromise on some very big subjects, he has not been able to bring the euroscepticism that pervades his party under control.</p>
<p>Now the British opposition is an unknown quantity and headlines continue to flow about the <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/migrant-crisis">migrant crisis</a> and the potential for a <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/grexit">Grexit</a>. Cameron’s ostensible intent to resolve the question democratically is looking more and more like game of Russian roulette. He should have known that this would happen from the start.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/48538/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael Emerson is affiliated with the Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS), Brussels. He is the editor of Britain’s Future in Europe – Repatriation, Renegotiation, Reform or Secession.</span></em></p>The PM has been on tour to try to renegotiate the UK’s place in Europe. Now he faces his party.Michael Emerson, Associate Senior Research Fellow, Centre for European Policy StudiesLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/424272015-05-27T13:07:15Z2015-05-27T13:07:15ZQueen’s speech 2015: the experts respond<p><em>Parliament has officially opened and the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/queens-speech-2015">Queen’s speech</a> has been delivered. The speech – written by prime minister David Cameron – outlined the new government’s ambitious policy agenda for the coming year. From the so-called “snoopers’ charter”, to city deals for a “northern powerhouse”, our experts are on hand to explain what it all means.</em></p>
<h2>Europe</h2>
<p><strong>Michael Emerson, Associate Senior Research Fellow at The Centre for European Policy Studies</strong></p>
<p>The speech contained precious few words on the government’s plans for the UK’s place in Europe, but those words were not totally uninformative. The proposal to hold a referendum before the end of 2017 was not news and the wording leaves room for the option to do it earlier – which is what the government would like if possible.</p>
<p>The most interesting point was about the three Rs – repatriation, renegotiation, and reform. Repatriation was missing entirely from the speech – and quite rightly so, since the government’s own thorough <a href="https://theconversation.com/state-of-the-nation-the-great-european-question-39095">Balance of Competence Review</a> showed no case for handing certain powers from the EU to national governments.</p>
<p>Reform was, on the other hand, highlighted as being something that could benefit all member states. This was more than just diplomacy, but one founded in real opportunities that the UK can promote, ranging from cutting red tape to advancing new agendas for the digital era.</p>
<p>Renegotiation also got a mention. This mostly concerns the migration and so-called benefit tourism. But otherwise there is not much to renegotiate, since the extent of existing British opt-outs is so big (the euro, justice and home affairs), while foreign policy and taxation are covered by <a href="http://europa.eu/scadplus/european_convention/majority_en.htm">unanimity decision making</a>, so nothing can be decided without the UK’s agreement anyway. </p>
<p>All told, even though Cameron has not yet shown his full hand in public when it comes to his plans for Europe, his thinking may be heading in a sensible direction. </p>
<h2>Income tax</h2>
<p><strong>Prem Sikka, Professor of Accounting at University of Essex</strong></p>
<p>The Queen’s speech included promises of legislation to ensure that people working 30 hours a week on the national minimum wage do not pay income tax. It also mentioned new laws to guarantee that there are no rises in income tax rates, value added tax (VAT) or national insurance for the next five years. A related <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/pm-sets-out-his-vision-for-the-country-in-a-one-nation-queens-speech">government press release</a> says that annual income tax personal allowance will increase from the current rate of £10,600 to £12,500 by 2020. </p>
<p>But all is not what it seems. The minimum wage rate from October 2015 is £6.70 per hour for adults. So anyone working a 37 hours a week would earn about £13,000 a year, and would still be liable to income tax.</p>
<p>The higher personal allowances may help the middle-classes, but will do nothing for <a href="http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/7735">44% of adults</a> whose income is already too low to pay any income tax. The poor pay VAT at 20%, the same rate as the very rich. The government statistics show that the <a href="http://www.itv.com/news/update/2014-12-22/poor-households-pay-47-of-income-in-tax/">poorest 10%</a> of households now pay nearly 47% of their gross income in direct and indirect taxes, while the richest 10% pay 35% of their income in taxes. This imbalance is not addressed.</p>
<h2>Devolution</h2>
<p><strong>Peter Lynch, Politics at the University of Stirling</strong></p>
<p>So, this is what a Conservative Queen’s Speech looks like — 26 legislative proposals not watered down by the Liberal Democrats.</p>
<p>Some bills are in keeping with the coalition theme though, such as the various proposals for more devolution to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. These were a consequence of cross-party discussions (and the independence referendum in Scotland’s case).</p>
<p>The Scotland bill already appeared in draft form in January as part of the government’s <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/397079/Scotland_EnduringSettlement_acc.pdf">white paper on Scotland</a>, which contained the proposals from the cross-party <a href="https://www.smith-commission.scot/smith-commission-report/">Smith Commission</a>.</p>
<p>The government plans to pass legislation on these proposals in time for the 2016 Scottish elections — even though they currently seem incoherent. The plans will be subject to criticism and amendment in parliament along the way.</p>
<p>The bill contains plans to increase Scottish control of income tax and public spending, allocate a share of VAT and transfer some welfare powers. The tax powers are important as a measure of fiscal autonomy but also as a political tactic to support the Union through devolution and allow the Scottish Conservatives to present themselves as a <a href="http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/wider-political-news/david-camerons-government-to-fast-track-new-powers-so-tories-can-offer.127220575">low-tax party at the 2016 election</a>. </p>
<h2>Surveillance</h2>
<p><strong>Helen Fenwick, Professor of Law at Durham University</strong> </p>
<p>New powers to collect data were referred to briefly in the Queen’s speech and will arise under the Investigatory Powers Bill. It will cover powers that would have arisen under the Communications and Data Bill, often referred to as the “snoopers’ charter”. Without the Liberal Democrats in government to oppose it, these powers <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/09/theresa-may-revive-snoopers-charter-lib-dem-brakes-off-privacy-election">can now re-emerge</a>. But the new bill goes much further and will increase the security services’ warranted powers for the mass interception of the <em>content</em> of communications.</p>
<p>This legislation will require data communications companies to store the details of messages sent on social media and gaming, voice calls made over the internet, emails and phone calls – known collectively as metadata – for 12 months. </p>
<p>It will probably require that the information is stored in a common format data in vast databases; the security services and police would be able to access this meta-data without the permission of a judge, in the interests of investigating criminal or terrorist-related activity. </p>
<p>The idea behind the new bill is that details and content of communications should not be kept secret, just because they exist in digital form. It aims to address the fact that terrorist and other organised criminal groups are increasingly exploiting available communications technology in a range of sophisticated ways; for instance, by using encryption, and communicating via platforms such as WhatsApp and Snapchat. </p>
<p>The objections likely to be made to the bill are grounded in fears about the state’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-the-right-to-privacy-in-the-uk-15265">invasion of privacy</a>, and the security of the material; those concerns are likely to be echoed by the big communications companies such as Google. </p>
<h2>Health</h2>
<p><strong>Andrew Street, Professor at Centre for Health Economics at University of York</strong></p>
<p>The Queen’s speech reiterates the Conservatives’ promise to implement Simon Steven’s <a href="http://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/5yfv-web.pdf">five-year forward view</a>, which enjoys cross-party support. This includes plans to improve access to mental health service, reconfigure services and better integrate health and social care.</p>
<p>Cameron is committed to a 24/7 NHS, though this <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/healthcare-network/2015/may/21/obesity-diabetes-governments-top-priorities-says-jeremy-hunt?CMP=share_btn_tw">doesn’t appear to be among the priorities</a> of his secretary of state for health, Jeremy Hunt. Operating 24/7 hospital services will be expensive, <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hec.3207/full">estimated to increase annual costs</a> by up to £1.4 billion – arguably too much to justify the hoped-for reduction in higher death rates over the weekend. </p>
<p>It will be challenging to introduce seven-day GP services when there are <a href="http://www.rcgp.org.uk/news/2015/may/rcgp-response-to-prime-minister-speech-on-seven-day-nhs.aspx">insufficient GPs to meet demand</a> during normal hours, hence <a href="https://theconversation.com/manifesto-check-on-health-the-tories-make-vague-promises-and-claims-that-dont-stand-up-40189">the manifesto promise</a> to recruit an additional 5,000 GPs.</p>
<p>There was a reminder that the Conservatives have promised to increase the NHS budget, by £8 billion over the next five years. But an additional £30 billion <a href="http://www.local.gov.uk/documents/10180/5854661/Adult+social+care+funding+2014+state+of+the+nation+report/e32866fa-d512-4e77-9961-8861d2d93238">is required to meet rising NHS demand</a>, with a projected £4 billion funding gap for adult social care. </p>
<p>The government hopes the shortfall in the NHS budget will be filled by annual productivity growth of 2% to 3%, though this would be <a href="http://www.hsj.co.uk/5084013.article#.VWWrOVXBzRZ">unprecedented</a>. Funding will prove the greatest challenge for the NHS over the parliamentary term.</p>
<h2>Human rights</h2>
<p><strong>Arman Sarvarian, Lecturer in Law at the University of Surrey</strong></p>
<p>The government has watered down its plan to put forward a bill on replacing the Human Rights Act with a British bill of rights, bowing to reported disquiet among senior Conservative backbenchers. As the opening of parliament approached, it appeared increasingly unlikely that the bill would survive passage through parliament without the full support of the party.</p>
<p>However, the Queen did announce that the government would “bring forward proposals” on this issue and it is now widely anticipated that a (presumably public) consultation will be held before measures are brought before parliament.</p>
<p>This bill was a key Conservative manifesto pledge in the run-up to the general election. The ostensible aim is to “break the formal link between British courts and the European Court of Human Rights” and to hand greater power to the UK Supreme Court.</p>
<p>Prominent Conservative backbenchers opposed to this ill-advised plan include Dominic Grieve, the former Attorney General, and former justice secretary Kenneth Clarke.</p>
<p>The notion that British judges are constrained by Strasbourg in their influence on human rights law is false. Whatever the avowed purpose of the reforms, their practical effect would be to threaten to subordinate judges, British and European alike, to the whims of ministers and parliamentarians on individual cases. This threatens the principle of qualified judges, not parliamentarians, deciding on individual cases.</p>
<p>Consulting the public is a tactical postponement of legislation. The government and the Conservative Party remain committed in principle to the proposals. The British public must use this consultation as an opportunity to register robust opposition to any change in the status quo. And Conservative Party members must put pressure on the leadership to abandon this policy and thus uphold the great Conservative tradition of robust commitment to the rule of law.</p>
<h2>Welfare</h2>
<p><strong>Roy Sainsbury, Professor of Social Policy at University of York</strong></p>
<p>The 2010 Queen’s speech heralded the biggest shake-up of the benefits system since <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/society-professionals/2014/jul/07/-sp-beveridge-report-revisited-where-now-for-the-welfare-state">Beveridge</a>, including the introduction of Universal Credit, the benefit cap, and the bedroom tax. In contrast, this Queen’s speech is small beer; the big stuff has been done. The speech promises only that the government will “continue to reform welfare” by introducing legislation “encouraging employment by capping benefits and requiring young people to earn or learn.” </p>
<p>These two measures come as no surprise; we knew what to expect from the Conservative manifesto. First, the current benefit cap of £26,000 a year will be reduced to £23,000. Some families will therefore lose around £60 a week. As yet, we do not know how many, or how they will respond. To date nearly 60,000 households in total (overwhelmingly families with children) have had their benefits capped, saving around £100 million a year. Evidence shows that some claimants moved into work either before or after the imposition of the cap. The government has rather <a href="http://www.channel4.com/news/benefit-cap-cameron-stampede-jobcentre-ifs">gilded these findings</a> as a “stampede to the jobcentre” but the majority affected by the cap have somehow adjusted to (sometimes considerable) reductions in household income. </p>
<p>The second policy innovation applies to young people under 25, who will no longer be eligible for Jobseekers Allowance or Housing Benefit – more on this below. In essence, the policy tells young people that they are expected “earn or learn”. Will it work? A pilot in 2013 <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/378308/rr888-day-one-support-for-young-people-trailblzer.pdf">showed no impact</a> on sustained job entries. But that was a pilot. Presumably lessons have been learned and we can only wait to see if “earn or learn” does better.</p>
<p>Which leaves us with the glaring omission from the Queen’s speech: the £12 billion cut in the welfare budget. As we know, repeated attempts before the election to draw the Conservatives on where these cuts will fall were met with silence. We learned nothing, and the Queen’s speech has left us still in ignorance – despite <a href="http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/7762">the best efforts of the IFS</a>. But when the silence is eventually broken, all talk of benefit caps and “earn or learn” will almost certainly be swept aside, as the next big losers from welfare reforms are identified. </p>
<h2>Youth employment</h2>
<p><strong>Benjamin Bowman, PhD candidate in Politics at University of Bath</strong></p>
<p>The speech included a plan to replace the Jobseeker’s Allowance with a Youth Allowance for 18 to 21-year-olds, who will now work 30 hours compulsory labour for a £57.35 per week allowance. That equates to about £1.91 per hour.</p>
<p>The scheme plans to <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29398907">enforce full employment</a> for the young. It will also <a href="http://www.adjacentgovernment.co.uk/education-schools-teaching-news/councils-lose-track-100000-neets/">centralise control</a> over the young workforce, as many MPs feel local government has dropped the ball. Young unemployment is extremely high, with 14.4% of those aged 16-24 out of work: the <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/feb/22/youth-unemployment-jobless-figure">worst gap</a> for 20 years. </p>
<p>Abolishing unemployment with compulsory labour is a radical move. Young citizens were <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/young-people-were-hit-worst-by-the-great-recession-10101672.html">worst hit</a> by the recession, and remain extremely vulnerable to low wages and poor conditions. They are <a href="http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/lmac/contracts-with-no-guaranteed-hours/zero-hour-contracts--2014/analysis-of-employee-contracts-that-do-not-guarantee-a-minimum-number-of-hours.html">three times</a> more likely to work on a zero-hours contract. Critics <a href="https://twitter.com/SkySUBC/status/567585302982557696">warn</a> that the allowance is exploiting vulnerable people already struggling to find work. If so, the Youth Allowance will merely fasten another bolt on the door separating young people from the job market.</p>
<p>There is no point building a bridge to employment unless there are jobs on the other side. If it is to succeed, the Youth Allowance must make good on David Cameron’s pledge to build <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/11416694/David-Cameron-Jobless-teenagers-must-carry-out-community-work-to-get-benefits.html">“a country that rewards work”</a>. For young people, just like everyone else, the reward for work must be a decent, liveable wage and affordable housing. <a href="http://www.demos.co.uk/files/Tune_in_-_web.pdf?1419813387">Research</a> shows young people are supportive of pathways-to-work schemes. Now is the time for government to make sure the pathway leads somewhere.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/83161/original/image-20150527-4831-162zgio.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/83161/original/image-20150527-4831-162zgio.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=456&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/83161/original/image-20150527-4831-162zgio.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=456&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/83161/original/image-20150527-4831-162zgio.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=456&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/83161/original/image-20150527-4831-162zgio.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=573&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/83161/original/image-20150527-4831-162zgio.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=573&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/83161/original/image-20150527-4831-162zgio.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=573&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Suit up or knuckle down.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/alexfrance/3221301604/sizes/l">Alex France/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Immigration</h2>
<p><strong>Katharine Jones, Senior Research Fellow at Coventry University</strong></p>
<p>Having already <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/pm-speech-on-immigration">set out his plans</a> last week, today David Cameron merely required the Queen to assert that his government will “control immigration”. His government proposes to make “illegal working” a criminal offence in a forthcoming Immigration Bill: the tenth piece of such legislation in the past 20 years. In the bill, the wages earned by irregular migrants – that is, migrants without a valid visa – will be defined as the “proceeds of crime”, meaning they can be confiscated by the authorities. </p>
<p>This is to be accompanied by a raft of measures, including informing private sector landlords when their tenants’ visas expire, tracing irregular migrants through the banking system, and removing the right to appeal against deportation from inside the UK. The bill will also introduce a new enforcement agency and a visa levy on businesses seeking to recruit overseas workers. It will prohibit recruitment agencies from advertising jobs overseas, without first advertising in the UK. </p>
<p>Last week, Cameron that these measures will reduce immigration to the UK, prevent UK wages being driven down and stop exploitation of migrants. None of these three arguments holds up.</p>
<p>Having all repeatedly <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31638174">failed to meet their own migration targets</a>, UK governments should accept that immigration controls turn the numbers of migrants arriving in the UK on and off like a tap. A deregulated labour market that fails to prevent exploitation and employers seeking cheap flexible labour <a href="https://www.compas.ox.ac.uk/fileadmin/files/Publications/Research_projects/Labour_markets/Changing_status/Fair%20enough%20findings%20-%201%20May%202006.pdf">are the pull factors</a> for labour migrants coming to this country. <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/257235/analysis-of-the-impacts.pdf">Decades of research</a> have told us that migrants do not have a major negative impact on the UK labour market. And in any case it is employers that set wages, not migrants.</p>
<p>So what of his third argument –- that his proposals will stop the exploitation of migrants? Rather than protecting migrants, the new measures will do the exact opposite. We <a href="http://www.migrantsrights.org.uk/files/publications/papers_please.pdf">already know</a> that the sanctions on employers for hiring irregular workers harm all migrants, while doing nothing to protect the exploited. The new measures will prevent migrants from reporting abusive employers or landlords. Worse, they will criminalise migrants for their own exploitation. </p>
<h2>Education</h2>
<p><strong>Michael Jopling, Professor in Education at Northumbria University</strong></p>
<p>Although education policy <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationopinion/11610551/Nicky-Morgan-We-will-step-up-our-school-reforms-so-every-child-can-thrive.html">has had a high profile</a> since the election, today’s Queen’s speech contained only a passing reference to schools. Free schools did not feature, but the speech contained a vague commitment to giving every child the best start in life, associated with the creation of “new powers to take over failing and coasting schools and create more academies”. </p>
<p>There are two points to note here. First, linking coasting with failure and “takeover” will set alarm bells ringing. This remains a concern despite education secretary Nicky Morgan’s attempts in <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-32763097">recent interviews</a> to distinguish between “failing” and “coasting” schools, and to reassure the profession that coasting schools – <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-a-coasting-school-41993">however they’re defined</a> – will be allowed <a href="http://schoolsweek.co.uk/schools-week-editor-interviews-edcuation-secretary-audio-recording/">to develop their own improvement plans</a>. </p>
<p>Second, it signals Morgan’s desire not only to extend but also to speed up the process of becoming an academy. As the <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmselect/cmeduc/258/258.pdf">Education Committee emphasised in January 2015</a>, and despite the <a href="https://theconversation.com/cameron-forges-on-with-academies-revolution-despite-mounting-concerns-on-oversight-37080">government’s claims to the contrary</a>, we have no evidence yet that converting schools into academies leads to improvement. </p>
<p>So the forthcoming Education Bill risks both further <a href="https://theconversation.com/conservative-victory-means-englands-school-system-will-look-like-few-others-in-the-world-41553">isolating the English school system internationally</a> and alienating headteachers and teachers at a time <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationopinion/11539560/Primary-school-places-more-must-be-done-to-ease-alarming-pressure-on-the-system.html">when rising numbers of primary age children</a> mean we need all the teachers we can get.</p>
<h2>Small businesses</h2>
<p><strong>Stephen Roper, Director of the Enterprise Research Centre at the University of Warwick</strong></p>
<p>Small business owners listening to this speech probably had rather mixed feelings about the next couple of years. </p>
<p>On the positive side the proposed <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-32900673">cuts in red tape</a> will be welcome. The plan to establish a conciliation service to settle late payment and other disputes between small and large businesses will also be applauded.</p>
<p>In other countries such as Australia similar services have developed to become champions for small business interests and sometimes challenge the government on policies that are not small-business friendly. It is not yet clear whether these roles will also be part of the UK service.</p>
<p>The aim to offer 3 million new apprenticeships during this parliament will also be welcomed by many firms struggling to attract skilled employees. As recent debates have suggested, however, the key issue here will be maintaining quality as numbers are expanded. </p>
<p>The biggest negative is the uncertainty caused by the forthcoming European referendum. This may discourage some firms from investing in expanding European sales. Businesses that supply the public sector, outside health and education, may also feel the squeeze of spending cuts and the restructuring of budgets. </p>
<h2>Housing</h2>
<p><strong>Anya Ahmed, Senior Lecturer in Social Policy at University of Salford</strong></p>
<p>In the Queen’s speech today, the Conservative government’s priorities for social housing were announced. The main proposal put forward was to extend the Right to Buy (RTB) scheme to housing association tenants.</p>
<p>Around 2.5 million council tenants across the UK have <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/social-housing-sales-including-right-to-buy-and-transfers">already bought their homes</a> since RTB was introduced by Thatcher’s Conservative government in 1980. </p>
<p>The government claims that these new proposals will increase house building and reduced council house waiting lists, by replacing each social unit sold. However, the National Housing Federation, Shelter and the Institute of Fiscal Studies have expressed doubts about this pledge being met. Shelter <a href="http://blog.shelter.org.uk/2015/03/right-to-buy-one-to-one-replacement-falling-short-in-london/">estimates that</a> only one house per ten houses sold has been built since 2012 when the government extended RTB of council homes.</p>
<p>This raises significant questions about how the proposals will impact on the supply of affordable rented housing in the UK, significant given there are currently 1.8 million households on social housing waiting lists, <a href="http://data.gov.uk/dataset/england-hssa-housing-strategy-statistical-appendix">an increase of 81%</a> since 1997.</p>
<p>There are further important questions which remain unanswered. First, the cost implications of the scheme, <a href="https://www.housing.org.uk/media/blog/right-to-buy-extension-estimated-to-cost-12-billion/">estimated at £11.2 billion</a>, and <a href="http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/7730">considered potentially detrimental</a> to the UK’s economic recovery.</p>
<p>Although the scheme is to be funded by local authority stock sales and government subsidy, it is unclear how the scheme will work in practice or how it will be funded.</p>
<h2>Childcare</h2>
<p><strong>Caitlin McLean, Ailsa McKay Postdoctoral Fellow in Economics at Glasgow Caledonian University</strong></p>
<p>With the <a href="http://www.fct.bigmallet.co.uk/sites/default/files/files/Childcare_cost_survey_2015_Final.pdf#overlay-context=annual-childcare-costs-surveys">rising costs</a> of childcare putting increasing strain on family budgets, it was good to see the government’s childcare proposals feature in the Queen’s speech.</p>
<p>The Conservatives have previously proposed that working parents of three- and four-year-olds be offered free childcare for 30 hours per week – extended from the 15 per week currently on offer for all families.</p>
<p>This is a worthy goal. An inability to afford childcare services can pose a significant <a href="http://www.resolutionfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Careers-and-Carers-FINAL.pdf">barrier</a> to parents – especially mothers – seeking employment.</p>
<p>But questions remain about childcare access for families where both parents aren’t currently in employment. For instance, should these children be excluded from increased childcare hours (especially given that access to high quality early education and care plays a key role in <a href="http://www.crec.co.uk/docs/Access.pdf">reducing inequality</a>)? It is also unclear what will happen in the event that a parent loses his or her job – will the child immediately lose access to those extra funded hours?</p>
<p>And many parents would feel unable to accept an offer of employment unless childcare had already been arranged – childcare access is a prerequisite for undertaking employment, not a reward for doing so.</p>
<p>While targeting eligibility may save some money in the short run, it comes at a cost – increased administrative complexity and further entrenchment of educational inequality among children.</p>
<h2>City deals</h2>
<p><strong>Alex Nurse, Research Associate at University of Liverpool</strong></p>
<p>If there were two major thematic elements to this Queen’s Speech, they would be the economy and devolution. Sat in the middle of the government’s legislative agenda, and neatly tying these themes together, came the proposals for the northern powerhouse, <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-32720462">which will see a raft of powers including those for regeneration, transport and health</a> devolved away from Westminster to the cities – with <a href="https://theconversation.com/is-devo-manc-a-good-model-for-english-devolution-almost-41643">Manchester standing first in line</a>.</p>
<p>This was pitched as a means to deliver a “balanced economic recovery”, fitting neatly within the Government’s “one nation” agenda. It can be seen broadly as an attempt to help the north to catch up to London, and to <a href="http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/were-moving-scotland-manchester-votes-9254231">assuage those with itchy feet</a> as Scotland receives even more powers. </p>
<p>But the explicit mention of metro-mayors gives a clear signal to cities that have yet to sign up: this is not a free ride. They will be expected to deliver, <a href="https://theconversation.com/devolution-plan-could-be-a-poisoned-chalice-for-cities-41848">and be held democratically accountable for</a> their actions under these plans.</p>
<p>The inclusion of high speed rail is no coincidence, reminding us that HS2 has yet to clear the statute books, but also that proposals for HS3 would form part of the glue holding this revamped northern powerhouse together.</p>
<h2>Counter-extremism</h2>
<p><strong>Imran Awan, Senior Lecturer at Birmingham City University</strong></p>
<p>The government <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27777892">defines extremism</a> as “vocal or active opposition to British values”. With that in mind, it is strange that the government’s idea of tackling extremism involves a curtailment of people’s freedom of expression – surely one of Britain’s most proudly-held values. Tackling extremism is important, but this new legislation to monitor – and <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk-government-bids-to-ban-free-speech-in-counter-terrorism-plan-41781">in effect criminalise</a> – free speech, is problematic.</p>
<p>The new government proposes to bring in Banning Orders and Extremism Disruption Orders, and to give Ofcom new powers to take pre-emptive action against programmes that include “extremist content”. According to the government, Banning Orders would allow the state to ban groups who seek to undermine democracy through hate speech, and are considered to be espousing “extreme” views. Meanwhile, Extremism Disruption Orders will be used if there is a “reasonable belief” that a group may be inciting religious or racial hatred, which means the public are at risk of potential violence and people may be at risk of being radicalised.</p>
<p>It is likely that these measures will only exacerbate feelings of insecurity and fear. We know from past experience that efforts to legislate against extremist ideologies can actually win terrorist groups more support. For example, the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1974 ended up <a href="http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/17596591211244157">working as a recruitment tool</a> for IRA terrorists.</p>
<p>The ancient writ of habeas corpus, due process, and the rule of law are being lost in this wave of anti-terror legislation. Accordingly, the government’s new Extremism Bill must ensure that it does not label all Muslims as potential targets, because this will only stigmatise and marginalise them. Indeed, senior figures in the Conservative cabinet <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/21/mays-plan-to-censor-tv-programmes-condemned-by-tory-cabinet-colleague">have already condemned</a> the measures.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/42427/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Andrew Street receives funding from the National Institute of Health Research and the Department of Health's Policy Research Programme but the views expressed are his own.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Arman Sarvarian is a non-practising member of the Bar of England and Wales and a member of the Conservative Party.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Benjamin Bowman receives funding from the ESRC.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Katharine Jones does not work for/consult to/own shares in any organisation which would benefit from this article. She has received funding from ILO, IOM and OSF. She is affiliated with Scottish Refugee Council and Scottish Detainee Visitors.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael Emerson is a former EU ambassador to Moscow, and receives funding from various private foundations and in some cases contracts from governments. CEPS is a politically and financially independent research institute, which receives funding a variety of sources, including membership fees, project research, foundation grants, conferences fees and publication sales.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Prem Sikka is director of the Association for Accountancy and Business Affairs (AABA), a not-for-profit organsation which campaigns for greater corporate accountability.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Roy Sainsbury is Director of the Social Policy Research Unit (SPRU). The SPRU carries out research for a wide range of funders, including the Department for Work and Pensions. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Stephen Roper is Director of the Enterprise Research Centre which is funded by the ESRC, the Department of Business Innovation and Skills, Innovate UK and the major banks.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Alex Nurse, Anya Ahmed, Caitlin McLean, Helen Fenwick, Imran Awan, Michael Jopling, and Peter Lynch do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Academic experts break down the bills in the Queen’s speech and get to grips with the new Conservative government’s agenda.Helen Fenwick, Professor of Law, Durham UniversityAlex Nurse, Lecturer in Planning, University of LiverpoolAndrew Street, Professor, Centre for Health Economics, University of YorkAnya Ahmed, Senior Lecturer in Social Policy, University of SalfordArman Sarvarian, Lecturer in Law, University of SurreyBenjamin Bowman, Teaching Fellow in Comparative Politics, University of BathCaitlin McLean, Ailsa McKay Postdoctoral Fellow in Economics, Glasgow Caledonian UniversityImran Awan, Senior Lecturer and Deputy Director of the Centre for Applied Criminology, Birmingham City UniversityKatharine Jones, Senior Research Fellow, Centre for Trust, Peace and Social Relations, Coventry UniversityMichael Emerson, Associate Senior Research Fellow, Centre for European Policy StudiesMichael Jopling, Professor in Education, Department of Education and Lifelong Learning, Northumbria University, NewcastlePeter Lynch, Senior Lecturer, Politics, University of StirlingPrem Sikka, Professor of Accounting, Essex Business School, University of EssexRoy Sainsbury, Director of Social Policy Research Unit, Professor of Social Policy, University of YorkStephen Roper, Professor of Enterprise and Director of the Enterprise Research Centre, Warwick Business School, Warwick Business School, University of WarwickLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/422862015-05-23T11:26:59Z2015-05-23T11:26:59ZCameron’s EU wish list – what can he get, and when?<p>David Cameron, the UK’s prime minister, <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32840696">says he wants</a> “a reformed EU”. But he has yet to declare his hand with regard to exactly what he wants. Indeed, he probably does not know yet what cards he will play, and will be using the <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32840696">latest round of talks</a> to test various ideas in order to avoid the disastrous tactic of making impossible demands. </p>
<p>He can certainly <a href="https://theconversation.com/fact-check-does-any-country-in-europe-other-than-britain-want-to-renegotiate-the-eu-treaty-40739">get support from other member states</a> to build up a momentum for continuing reforms in many policy areas. But this is an ongoing, never-ending process – not some kind of rabbit that can simply be pulled out of the hat in time for a British referendum on EU membership (which is likely in 2016 or 2017).</p>
<p>So Cameron needs to watch his language here, and get real: different terms will generate different expectations. The term “reform” has to be used in the spirit of a constructive resolution. The other big terms used in the ongoing debate over the EU – “repatriation” and “renegotiation” – do not hold much promise.</p>
<h2>The three R’s</h2>
<p>Consider the many speeches from Tory backbenchers about <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21037590">“repatriating” powers</a> from Brussels. Tories who want a Brexit would delight in requests for repatriation, precisely because they would lead to a failure of negotiations. Any “repatriation” of treaty-level powers would require unanimous agreement from the other EU member states. And since the other states would not agree to such changes, the rhetoric of “repatriation” does not fly.</p>
<p>And besides, a careful look at the government’s <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/35431/eu-balance-of-competences-review.pdf">own review</a> on the balance of powers between the UK and the EU has shown most EU powers to be “shared” with member states, and that the sharing has mostly found a sensible balance. </p>
<p>“Renegotiation” may sound more plausible. But in fact, the scope for this kind of change is very limited for a few key reasons. Much EU law concerns the broad single market area, where the UK wants other member states to do more, not less. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/82741/original/image-20150522-32551-15lgkme.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/82741/original/image-20150522-32551-15lgkme.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82741/original/image-20150522-32551-15lgkme.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82741/original/image-20150522-32551-15lgkme.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82741/original/image-20150522-32551-15lgkme.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82741/original/image-20150522-32551-15lgkme.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82741/original/image-20150522-32551-15lgkme.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">UK already has opt outs – take the euro.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/alfmelin/7035825939/in/photolist-bHJrVM-9VwK58-8ismdA-8ism9f-8ip71R-9VAoaM-a32wnA-a31W2C-8ip6ZZ-bZvVk3-osatMD-9VwRTT-4U7d3S-hE3PsP-95oKe9-4ZAhDS-9Vybdi-pRGjhE-9VDNKh-r5zLtL-9VDXad-9kKVF2-9VBCYh-9VzpgF-9VAZsD-8ip6Yn-7vJzMu-qE4iJK-8ip6YF-rHxoRL-8ip74r-9VwW4V-d8CMkj-5DmuqU-8bc4Ts-nfyCU-9Vyc8k-548Abb-4dAPw3-9VAZSm-dcA9k4-e4f3xc-aXaCq2-2xjkQ4-ov3VLX-cUfnLh-9VCbgo-9VAKgH-9VDpCA-9VBcxe">Alf Melin</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>And the UK already has huge opt-outs from the policies it does not like (such as the euro, the <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/borders-and-visas/index_en.htm">Schengen area</a> and justice and home affairs). Finally, other key areas for “renegotiation”, such as foreign policy and taxation, are also guarded by the unanimity requirement for any important decisions to be made.</p>
<p>Various Tories want treaty changes to get a “better deal”, or a “new settlement” with the EU. But most other member states want a new treaty like a hole in the head: “no thanks”, they’ll say. The best that might be obtained is some form of “promissory note”; essentially, an agreement on things to be included in a future treaty. “Reform” it is, then.</p>
<h2>Red tape – already being cut</h2>
<p>The prime minister is ardent about cutting “Brussels red tape”. No problem: the European Commission has <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/european-commission-moves-to-cut-red-tape-by-overhauling-rulemaking-procedure-10261983.html">a new plan for better regulation</a>, with the vice president entrusted to do just that. So here, Cameron has it in the bag already, even if implementation will be a never-ending task. </p>
<p>The prime minister also wants to cut the “ever closer union” language from the treaty. This is vague rhetoric. The wording is actually about ever closer union of the peoples of Europe, in no way implying a federal super-state. Europe’s people are getting closer together, which is good for peace and the richness of cultural diversity, for instance with an increasing number of mixed marriages.</p>
<h2>The tough issues in migration</h2>
<p>Migration is the big beast. First an easy point: Cameron wants to prevent future EU enlargements causing massive migration. Again, no problem: the UK has a veto hold over any future enlargement. Maybe this will be a real issue in five to ten years time, and in the meantime he has put down a marker. </p>
<p>But the toughest issue is over current conditions for migration within the EU. There are some things Cameron can do without having to negotiate with the EU, like recalibrating the rules for granting residence status for over three months for immigrants who are not employed. This is important, since access to welfare benefits are tied to residence. This gives Cameron a lever to control so-called “benefit tourism” (<a href="http://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/commentary/costs-and-%E2%80%98benefits%E2%80%99-benefits-tourism-what-does-it-mean">the evidence</a> for which, however, is very thin). </p>
<p>He also wants to restrict so-called “in-work” benefits, such as those for social housing, child benefits and tax credits. This will be more tricky, as it could conflict with the principle of non-discrimination (by gender, nationality, faith, and others). This makes it a likely topic for negotiation, which could possibly result in some secondary legislation at the EU level, to change the status quo. </p>
<p>The prime minister would like a guarantee that the eurozone will not adopt regulations in the financial market that discriminate against the City. The UK already has experience of negotiating solutions along these lines, and the British commissioner, Lord Hill, is in charge of this area. So this seems like an area where he could have some success. </p>
<p>Cameron also speaks of giving national parliaments a greater say in EU legislation. This is easier said than done. National parliaments can already call their governments to account for negotiating positions taken in the EU Council of Ministers: the House of Commons and Lords have a scrutiny committee to do this. And there is already a “yellow card” system for national parliaments to work together to call new legislation into question. Some people want a “red card” system, to turn this into a blocking power. But it would be a big constitutional mess if MPs in national parliaments were able to overturn decisions taken by their governments in the European Council or parliament. </p>
<p>The bottom line is that Cameron must build up an “ongoing reform” agenda for policies where the UK has clear interests: areas like energy, climate, services and the digital sector. He must also focus his efforts on areas where the UK can find allies. If he does all this, he may just have something to show for his efforts, by the time the UK’s EU referendum comes round.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/42286/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael Emerson is a former EU ambassador to Moscow, and receives funding from various private foundations and in some cases contracts from governments. CEPS is a politically and financially independent research institute, which receives funding a variety of sources, including membership fees, project research, foundation grants, conferences fees and publication sales. </span></em></p>Renegotiation, reform, repatriation - only one will work.Michael Emerson, Associate Senior Research Fellow, Centre for European Policy StudiesLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/415882015-05-11T05:26:57Z2015-05-11T05:26:57ZBritain’s political earthquake: the aftershocks for UK and Europe<p>So David Cameron confounded the polls and won a thin but absolute majority in the House of Commons, while all his adversaries in England were shattered, as witnessed by the immediate resignation of the leaders of Labour (<a href="https://theconversation.com/milibandism-crushed-at-the-polls-but-ed-doomed-from-the-start-41525">Ed Miliband</a>), the Liberal Democrats (<a href="https://theconversation.com/lib-dem-wipeout-prompts-clegg-to-hint-he-will-step-down-41512">Nick Clegg</a>) and even UKIP (<a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-how-political-parties-choose-their-leaders-41534">Nigel Farage</a>). But Nicola Sturgeon and the Scottish nationalists also <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-aftershocks-of-the-snps-success-will-be-felt-throughout-the-next-parliament-41127">triumphed</a>, sweeping up 56 out of the 59 Scottish constituencies. </p>
<p>The first consequence for the EU will surely be that Cameron will announce legislation to fix the date <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21148282">for the in-or-out referendum</a> scheduled for 2017, with some discussion of whether it could be brought forward into <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/11420472/David-Cameron-plays-down-prospect-of-2016-referendum.html">2016</a>. </p>
<p>This will be the easy part. Much more tricky will be the second step: to set out what Cameron actually wants, going beyond the vague rhetoric about “renegotiating a new settlement or better deal for the UK within a reformed EU” that he has relied on so far. </p>
<p>And so on to negotiations with the EU, and then the referendum itself.</p>
<h2>The UK’s potential demands</h2>
<p>Cameron’s demands to the EU institutions and other member states will most likely fall under the three key words he has been using: repatriation, renegotiation and reform.</p>
<p>Repatriation in any strategic sense means deleting <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/citizens-initiative/public/competences/faq">competences</a> from the <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6901353.stm">Lisbon Treaty</a> for all member states. But Cameron’s own <a href="https://www.gov.uk/review-of-the-balance-of-competences">Balance of Competence Review</a> went into this question thoroughly, and found no instance where there was a sound case for repatriation. </p>
<p>At the level of secondary legislation, unnecessary or obsolete regulations and directives (“red tape”) could be weeded out, precisely what <a href="http://www.politico.eu/person/frans-timmermans/">Frans Timmermans</a>, first vice-president of the European Commission, is now mandated to do. Cameron can certainly champion this appointment as something he has always wanted – and if he wants to call Timmermans’ recommendations repatriation, so be it. </p>
<p>Renegotiation means changing the specific terms of the UK’s membership. Here, Cameron’s scope is limited by three factors: </p>
<ul>
<li><p>A large part of EU policies concern the broad single market area, but the UK has attached the highest priority to more rather than less EU action, and above all to have all EU law for the single market applied by all member states. </p></li>
<li><p>The UK’s existing opt-outs are already huge – the euro, Schengen, justice and home affairs – and there is nothing about them to be renegotiated.</p></li>
<li><p>Decisions in major domains such as foreign and security policy and taxation demand unanimous votes in the EU Council, so nothing can be passed there without the UK’s agreement. This is the biggest reason why Cameron’s renegotiation talk has rung so hollow. </p></li>
</ul>
<p>But aside from these, there are two conspicuous UK complaints outstanding: immigration from the EU and some labour market regulations, for example the <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=706&langId=en&intPageId=205">working time directive</a>, which establishes minimum standards for. </p>
<p>On immigration, Cameron’s first line of action can be to exploit the recent <a href="http://eutopialaw.com/2014/11/13/the-end-of-free-movement-of-persons-the-cjeu-decision-in-dano/">Dano ruling</a> of the European Court of Justice of November 2014, which confirms national powers to decide the criteria for residence by “other” EU nationals, which in turn controls access to many social welfare benefits and so-called “benefit tourism”.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/81119/original/image-20150510-22782-ipppz8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/81119/original/image-20150510-22782-ipppz8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81119/original/image-20150510-22782-ipppz8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81119/original/image-20150510-22782-ipppz8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81119/original/image-20150510-22782-ipppz8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81119/original/image-20150510-22782-ipppz8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81119/original/image-20150510-22782-ipppz8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">EU immigration: a conspicuous complaint.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/malias/223212749/in/photolist-acgFti-8BfDrU-wt7B-4q9Aqs-9Bv4ea-kJ2nF-meS2Ph-pnkgx3-rhLfJL-6kowHu-cJva7j-bbCjPZ-e9KY8A-3ak6EA-s4zJyW-b7RUPa-b7RUSX-b7RUK4-e78Uki-e78Ujv-fo1Noq-yGfxh-acgEQv-87TE1P-a3shAn-zF5wN-7C1WVM-5Ct57z-upSWr-5DbcpX-auxUH4-7goESP-7LodVp-7Lo2Di-7LseA5-7LsacN-7Lo5yv-7Ls5ey-7Lob4K-7Ls9am-7Lo454-7Lsbvy-7Ls28j-7Lo7ik-7Ls76j-7LoeoH-7LoeSn-7Lsc7L-7Ls3yU-7Ls7CL">Gideon</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The UK can re-calibrate these criteria on its own responsibility, without requiring any renegotiation. However several other of the richer member states have similar concerns over “benefit tourism”. Even if the <a href="https://theconversation.com/hard-evidence-does-benefits-tourism-exist-22279">evidence for this phenomenon is quite weak</a>, there might be some new secondary EU legislation in this area forthcoming. On the working time directive, maybe some specific UK opt-out from some provisions, such as for hospital workers, could be agreed.</p>
<p>On reform or policy improvement, by contrast, there’s a very substantial agenda, in many instances corresponding well with what the UK has been driving at. </p>
<p>Cameron wants “a reformed EU”, and could claim success in building up a critical mass or momentum for change in areas such as financial services in particular, energy and climate, and the digital sector. He could also point to recent reform achievements in agriculture and fisheries, and in achieving some <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21379667">cuts in the EU budget</a> for the multi-annual period until 2020. </p>
<p>Looking ahead the EU is engaged in many trade opening negotiations, including with the US, India and Japan, which corresponds to a key UK priority. </p>
<h2>Would this fly?</h2>
<p>Many member states are adamantly against the idea of treaty change these days for any purpose, let alone just for the UK. The above package could be broadly acceptable to Brussels and other member states without treaty change.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/81115/original/image-20150510-22743-slqmsv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/81115/original/image-20150510-22743-slqmsv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81115/original/image-20150510-22743-slqmsv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81115/original/image-20150510-22743-slqmsv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81115/original/image-20150510-22743-slqmsv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81115/original/image-20150510-22743-slqmsv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81115/original/image-20150510-22743-slqmsv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Will the wind now blow in a different direction?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/gertcha/2067915187/in/photolist-49JB98-RYp2E-6KnpEc-e1ENG-ozZ4pu-dKyJ8Y-eic3gf-ei69Yg-ac336f-4vVgzm-98ugn3-eTgFHk-5DkU-7ZPTci-tgow6-eibWeE-ei6d6Z-ei6jeF-ei6iHP-ei6ksx-eibUpE-eic6ns-eibWBC-eibUHJ-ei6kXZ-eibUXs-eic3Lh-eic6aq-ei6dqi-eic4FC-ei6c5H-ei6e8D-eibU4s-ei6kdk-ei6jxx-eibVwW-ovhKbD-5xtMS8-atCrmF-bXofqs-4TffqD-7M67Mh-dNX1ua-dpGQHq-fqrKiA-8rXnop-aJiueP-dP3JKQ-7uhdkL-nGb7MK">Stuart Chalmers</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But would this fly at home for Cameron? The above agenda is certainly short of what many Tory MPs say they want. Without the restraining presence of the Liberal Democrats in coalition, the all-Conservative government might be tempted to switch into making far more radical demands, such as abolishing EU powers and returning them to the national level, which would require treaty change.</p>
<p>Of course, various europhobic Tory MPs would approve of a radical agenda that was sure to fail and thus lead to a no vote in the referendum.</p>
<p>How strong will the temptation to give in be? This is where the new Scottish reality comes into play. SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon has so far said quite clearly that she would not favour returning to the independence question with a new referendum except in materially new circumstances, or a “new situation”. </p>
<p>That clearly extends to a hypothetical “Brexit”. If Cameron’s negotiations with the EU started going badly wrong, this hypothesis would liven up – and he would then be facing his ultimate nightmare scenario, simultaneously presiding over the secession of the UK from the EU and of Scotland from the UK. </p>
<p>Cameron could, however, become a leading proponent of a more effective European foreign, security and defence policy. That would perfectly complement the UK’s role in pushing a progressive agenda in the single market and external trade domains. On foreign policy, Cameron’s first government has done the reverse on a most alarming scale: there used to be a “big three” in EU foreign policy, but now there is only a “big two” – France and Germany, who took the lead on Europe’s response to the Ukraine crisis. </p>
<p>There is still room for a fresh initiative to contribute in a very significant way to the enhancement of the EU’s foreign, security and defence policy. If Cameron wants to include some things that would require the active support goodwill of his partners in his agenda for a new settlement with the EU, it might be a good place to start.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/41588/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael Emerson receives funding from various foundations and governments.</span></em></p>Now that he commands a majority government, what might Cameron’s demands to the EU be and what’s his worst nightmare?Michael Emerson, Associate Senior Research Fellow, Centre for European Policy StudiesLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/390952015-03-31T05:32:01Z2015-03-31T05:32:01ZState of the Nation: the great European question<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/75977/original/image-20150325-14488-13fqx8l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Is it really the end of the affair?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/notarim/5570987182/in/photolist-9uhLp9-7ZT7io-5rfKpk-4uiE8q-b7T2L-9cWdt-bVjE9Y-3cFZyU-km5rRy-9vyYNJ-8GDLUy-8GDLRh-7y3GEX-ozZmhh-7ZPTci-6KnpEc-7ZPVED-RYp2E-4vVgzm-7uhdkL-q3T2W-7ZT5Ko-4Wd2aK-ozZ4pu-7ZPV4T-yd8uK-iaC3aH-7uhcYm-cCh9bw-6KnrKT-dWboHh-dW5LrX-bXofqs-tgow6-5xtMS8-4Vx8gi-nGb7MK-apHf2m-aJiueP-8rXnop-f2Sktp-6prwNb-RYoQ1-RYoUE-S1ncg-6KFk4A-dmN9fy-67Gy3p-5GQanw-dW9Suq">mark notari</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>Welcome to our <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/state-of-the-nation">State of the Nation</a> series, which looks at the coalition government’s progress over the past five years, across a range of key policy areas.</em></p>
<p>The UK’s place in Europe is one of the most divisive issues in the 2015 general election campaign. The Conservative Party and UKIP want an in/out referendum, Labour does not and the Liberal Democrats certainly recognise it as an important matter, even if leader <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/mar/30/nick-clegg-liberal-democrats-conservatives-eu-referendum-backing">Nick Clegg</a> is refusing to come down on either side of the debate.</p>
<p>But when it comes to the detail, there is very little clarity from any party, even though the coalition government has been thinking about this issue for five years. There is a good reason for that.</p>
<p>Shortly after coming to power, the coalition government agreed to undertake what became the most comprehensive assessment ever to take place of the workings of the European Union. This was called the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/review-of-the-balance-of-competences">Balance of Competences Review</a>. The idea was to allow evidence-based deliberations over the government’s European policy.</p>
<p>Of course, the two coalition parties differed drastically about Europe from the outset. The Conservatives were largely eurosceptic, if not europhobic, and the Liberal Democrats firmly pro-European. Many Conservative MPs saw the review as an opportunity to gather information to back up their broad desires to repatriate various (unidentified) competences from the EU back to national governments.</p>
<p>At least the coalition partners could agree on this exercise to collect information. An open invitation was extended to any interested people or organisations to make submissions and the plan was to analyse and publish that evidence. It was agreed that the publications would not attempt to draw policy conclusions, obviously because the coalition partners did not want to face the prospect of negotiating these with each other. “Let the evidence speak for itself”, one or other of the party leaders may have said, and the other concurred. </p>
<p>In the end, 1,500 pieces of written evidence were submitted. These were distilled into 32 volumes of analysis, looking at individual sectors such as agriculture, energy and taxation. All in, it amounted to 3,000 carefully drafted pages.</p>
<p>For scholars of European affairs it was like manna from heaven. Her Majesty’s government had kindly undertaken a huge policy research effort, paid for entirely by the state. It had delivered the primary findings free of charge to anyone who wanted to get their hands on it and the field was wide open for whatever conclusions should be drawn.</p>
<p>The publication of the 32 volumes was completed in January 2015. Since then, there has been complete silence. The dog did not bark. The government was saying absolutely nothing about the implications of its own remarkable work.</p>
<p>Confused, the House of Lords set an inquiry into action via its <a href="http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/lords-select/eu-select-committee-/inquiries/parliament-2010/review-of-the-balance-of-competences/">EU Select Committee</a>. On March 10, the committee asked David Lidington, minister for Europe at the Foreign Office, if it was really worth the expense of launching the project if no conclusions were to be drawn. His reply came straight out of Yes Minister:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The government felt it would not be right to draw conclusions that could not possibly do justice to the diversity of opinions expressed.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The readers of the 32 volumes of evidence can do better than that. The central question for the review was whether the legal powers of the European Union are excessive and should be handed back to individual countries. In not one of the 32 volumes did the evidence support the repatriation of any of these powers.</p>
<p>Most of these powers, such as for the single market and related policies including energy, are legally shared with member states. The detail of the balances can be adjusted over time in light of experience. It can either be further centralised or decentralised.</p>
<p>The actual sharing of competences between the EU and member states has mostly been refined through years of negotiation and experience to the point of reaching plausible balances. “About right” is the summary term used in many of the 32 review volumes to describe the current balance of competences.</p>
<h2>On the road to reform</h2>
<p>There are two other approaches for seeking a new settlement with the EU. These are encapsulated in the words “reform” and “renegotiation”. While the prime minister uses these two words rather loosely and even interchangeably, we can be more precise.</p>
<p>Reform is about improving the EU as a whole. Renegotiation is about getting special conditions for the UK on its own.</p>
<p>In 2013 Lord Nigel Lawson, announcing his move into the Brexit camp, said that the EU was <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/10040506/Lord-Lawson-David-Cameron-must-lead-Britain-out-of-the-EU.html">unreformable</a>. The evidence from the government’s review shows this to be simplistic and untrue. On the contrary, reform has been happening for a long time and continues to happen in almost every domain.</p>
<p>The UK attaches the highest priority to the single market, and has played a major role in its reform since the late 1980s. It is currently seen to be working as a promoter of more effective and enhanced (not diluted) EU policies in key single market sectors where there is important work in progress. That notably includes the single market for services, financial markets, energy and climate change, and the digital sector.</p>
<p>Two much-criticised sectors have undergone major reform too. Fisheries underwent key <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22717796">changes in 2013</a> which have enabled individual countries to have more control over fishing quotas in order to combat overfishing.</p>
<p>And agriculture has undergone significant change in <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/common-agricultural-policy-reform">reforms</a> that started in the 1990s and went right up until 2013. There has been a consistent push to switch support for farmers from market intervention to income support. In the past market intervention lead to huge stockpiles of unwanted produce (the so-called <a href="http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/81314/EU-s-butter-mountain-costs-taxpayers-236m">“butter mountains”</a>), but this is now a thing of the past.</p>
<p>The EU now gives increasing priority to getting rid of unnecessary red tape. A new <a href="https://euobserver.com/tickers/126991">top-level appointment</a> has been made at the European Commission to oversee this, which corresponds to a key British demand. The era of Brussels banning bent bananas is over, if it ever existed beyond the headlines of the tabloid press. </p>
<h2>Special relationship</h2>
<p>The UK has already negotiated opt-outs or special arrangements for the EU policies that it does not want for itself. It has stayed out of the eurozone and is not part of the <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/borders-and-visas/schengen/index_en.htm">Schengen area</a>, so it remains in control of its own borders.</p>
<p>A wider <a href="http://www.parliament.uk/2014opt-out">opt-out</a> from the entire domain of justice and home affairs is accompanied by the legally entrenched right to pick and choose which elements the UK wants to opt back into at any time. This shows remarkable flexibility on the part of the other European member states. If everyone was allowed to choose which policies they did and didn’t want, the EU simply couldn’t function.</p>
<p>The UK has also <a href="http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2011/03/01/the-eu-charter-are-we-in-or-out/">opted out</a> and then back in to the social charter which sets labour market norms.</p>
<h2>The deal breaker?</h2>
<p>Of all the issues that circulate in any discussion about Europe, immigration is the most high profile in the run up to the 2015 election. The Conservatives want to negotiate curbs on immigration from the rest of the EU and Labour has <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25678829">hinted</a> that it might too.</p>
<p>But there are moderate ways of doing this that do not contradict the right to the freedom of movement – which states that European citizens are allowed to travel freely to live and work in other member states.</p>
<p>It was recently <a href="http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2014-11/cp140146en.pdf">ruled</a> in the European Court of Justice that it is member states, not Europe, who decide whether unemployed immigrants can stay in a country and whether they get benefits. The so-called problem of benefits tourism can be managed by member states without calling into question the red lines of freedom of movement or employment.</p>
<p>So even on immigration which is being presented as a deal-breaker issue that could leave the next UK government with no choice but to leave the union, there is plenty of room for manoeuvre. In this, like so many other areas, the UK has safeguards in place to protect its sovereign powers. These include, notably foreign and security policy and taxation. There is nothing to repatriate or renegotiate here.</p>
<h2>Empty threats</h2>
<p>Cameron made a <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/eu-speech-at-bloomberg">vague and rhetorical</a> speech about Europe in January 2013, suggesting that, from the outset, he didn’t really know what he wanted in operational terms.</p>
<p>The review was meant to inform him. It was supposed to show which areas could or should be reformed and which powers he should seek to repatriate. His silence since then seems to reflect the fact that the evidence did not correspond to the rhetorical demands of many Conservative Party MPs.</p>
<p>Overall, the evidence supports a common-sense view that British interests are best served by continuing membership of the European Union, combined with pushing ahead with reform processes, while retaining its important opt-outs. </p>
<p>If the Tories win, Cameron may be expected to lay out his objectives in operational terms soon after the May election if he is to have a referendum by 2017 at the latest.</p>
<p>By now it should be clear that he could point to a meaningful reform agenda that could have a good chance of winning considerable support from the rest of the EU, but that there is little room for renegotiation and none for repatriation of treaty-level competences.</p>
<p>Even if Cameron pretends to ignore the findings of his own review, because they do not correspond to the preconceptions of many Tory MPS, his negotiating position will have become informed by these findings which are published for all his EU partners to see. He will have the chance to fashion a progressive reform agenda, as long as he recognises that policy reform and improvement is a continuing process, not something that is a one-off job done just-in-time for a UK referendum.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/39095/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael Emerson is a former EU ambassador to Moscow. CEPS is a politically and financially independent research institute.</span></em></p>After the 2010 election, the coalition promptly ordered a huge review of the EU. Then it spent years ignoring the findings.Michael Emerson, Associate Senior Research Fellow, Centre for European Policy StudiesLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/319142014-09-19T10:53:35Z2014-09-19T10:53:35ZEU breathes a sigh of relief as the Scottish nightmare fails to come true<p>For the European Union, the prospect of Scottish secession from the UK was a key component of the nightmare scenario of everything falling apart, inside and outside. After all, let’s not forget that there is another UK referendum on the cards – an EU membership vote, currently <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/11/david-cameron-european-union-referendum-pledge">pencilled in for 2017</a>.</p>
<p>The darkest fear was that a Scottish Yes vote would <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-scottish-referendum-could-push-english-politics-to-the-right-31651">tee up a British exit from the EU</a>, then spark a grave escalation of political conflict in Spain over Catalonia – and eventually leave Europe dominated by the likes of <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-french-front-national-is-still-an-extreme-right-wing-party-20983">Marine Le Pen</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/voters-havent-called-time-on-ukip-despite-some-poor-polls-16280">Nigel Farage</a> and a broad church of <a href="https://theconversation.com/hard-evidence-how-much-power-can-the-far-right-wield-in-european-parliament-27142">far-right populists</a>.</p>
<p>Various nightmares are already well underway just outside the EU, from Putin’s war in <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/ukraine">Ukraine</a> to <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/islamic-state">Islamic State</a> beheading hostages in the Levant. </p>
<p>The propagandists of the Kremlin would have relished the Schadenfreude of the British empire’s final humiliating collapse, alongside the renaissance of Putin’s Russian one, completing the revenge for the Crimean war. In short, to many in the EU, a Yes vote almost threatened to begin the end of what they consider “civilised” Europe. </p>
<p>And even at the most practical level of politics, if Cameron had lost Scotland, his premiership would have been over (despite his own insistence he <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/video/2014/sep/17/scottish-independence-david-cameron-won-t-resign-pm-scotland-votes-yes-video">wouldn’t resign</a>). The Conservative party, with its overall Eurosceptic bent, would have elected a successor hellbent on drastic repatriation of powers, or even further opt-outs on a grand scale. Negotiations with the EU would have been unworkable and a referendum on Britain’s EU membership would have ended with a big majority voting to leave.</p>
<p>But in the end, the nightmares did not become real. The majority stuck to the UK with a bigger margin than anyone had dared expect: <a href="https://theconversation.com/map-how-scotland-voted-in-the-independence-referendum-31907">55.4% to 44.6%</a>.</p>
<h2>Making the case</h2>
<p>Brussels’ next thoughts are about how this will affect the UK’s relationship with the EU. The key tension is between emotion and calculation, heart and head. Across the EU, the worry remains that populist emotions will outvote the objective calculations of accountants and economists. </p>
<p>The Scottish vote will give heart to those who just want to keep up the work of getting EU policies right, or at least sorting out their major problems. And there’s plenty of cause for optimism: Britain’s ongoing <a href="https://www.gov.uk/review-of-the-balance-of-competences">balance of competence review</a> is increasingly showing that most EU policies are doing what they should do – and that the case for repatriation or secession does not hold water. </p>
<p>Whether that message will filter into the common sense of the British people by time of the speculative 2017 referendum remains to be seen. But hope springs eternal, and Scotland’s decision will have given EU supporters’ hopes a much-needed shot in the arm.</p>
<p>But on the emotional level too, the Scottish experience should help. The English got the shock of their lives when a poll <a href="https://theconversation.com/poll-says-yes-to-scottish-independence-or-does-it-17759">suggested a Yes majority for the first time</a>. Maybe the experience of nearly losing Scotland, and having to grapple with the potential emotional consequences, will make them think twice about leaping back into the unknown with another potentially explosive yes/no vote.</p>
<h2>How to do it</h2>
<p>Viewed from the continent, there were plenty of reasons to worry about the simplistic and inept management of the referendum, surprising coming from the mother of democracies. </p>
<p>By comparison, Belgium’s handling of its own separatist tendencies in Flanders has been much sounder: a continuing process of constitutional adjustment to the powers of the centre versus the regions, refining the system in a spirit of compromise, rather than forcing it into a binary choice of yes or no, in or out. </p>
<p>If you have to have a referendum, avoid bias in the question, offering alternative 1 versus alternative 2, rather than risking than the Yes that sounds so positive versus the very negative No. Or have three options, independence versus enhanced autonomy versus status quo, and then two rounds if necessary to find the majority. Or do as many democracies that have “constitutional majority” requirements do and demand a “super-majority” of, say, two-thirds for major constitutional change. </p>
<p>But Europe’s concern over all this is no longer warranted. The nightmare did not come true, and Brussels can return to its business – with its own <a href="https://theconversation.com/juncker-commission-line-up-shows-hes-a-man-with-a-plan-31590">renewed leadership</a> maybe even a bit encouraged to go about its burdensome and unpopular agenda with a bit more confidence.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/31914/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael Emerson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>For the European Union, the prospect of Scottish secession from the UK was a key component of the nightmare scenario of everything falling apart, inside and outside. After all, let’s not forget that there…Michael Emerson, Associate Senior Research Fellow, Centre for European Policy StudiesLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/294392014-07-18T20:20:05Z2014-07-18T20:20:05ZAfter MH17, the EU must act against Putin and stop importing Russian gas<p>Writing from Kiev, the city is boiling with rage. And now all Europeans too may boil with rage as 189 Dutch and smaller numbers of Belgians, British, French and Germans perished, when their <a href="https://theconversation.com/topics/flight-mh17">Malaysian Airlines flight</a> was shot down over a separatist-controlled location near Donetsk city. The next step must be for hard-headed EU politicians to make some hard-nosed decisions.</p>
<p>To whom should their anger be addressed? EU officials may await official answers, but they should be preparing a robust riposte for the most likely explanation. That would involve measures to quickly rob Russia of crucial gas revenue.</p>
<p>Minutes after the aircraft crashed to the ground Ukrainian intelligence services <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/07/18/smoking-gun-intercepted-calls-point-finger-in-jet-downing-at-russian/">intercepted phone calls from separatist forces</a>. “We just shot down an aircraft”. Earlier in the week a leader of the separatists had been boasting of their competence to shoot down military aircraft at high altitudes, <a href="http://news.msn.com/world/ukraine-military-plane-shot-down-by-rocket">having done just this to two Ukrainian military aircraft a few days before</a>. And how does one shoot down an aircraft flying at 10,000 metres, as in the case of the Malaysian Airlines plane? </p>
<p>Expert commentators are unanimous in their missile of choice, the Soviet/Russian <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2696847/They-shouldnt-f-g-flying-There-war-going-Ukraine-intelligence-officials-release-phone-calls-claim-PROVES-Russia-shot-Flight-MH17.html">BUK ground-to-air missile</a> that has the adequate range. So it seems the separatists have these BUKs, which also need sophisticated radar-guidance systems. And where did all this come from, and who is in the chain of command?</p>
<h2>Putin propaganda</h2>
<p>The political and military leadership of the Donetsk separatists are Russians from Russia. In Putin’s “vertical of power” regime it is not credible that the Kremlin has no responsibility. It is well documented that <a href="http://www.rferl.org/content/ukraine-united-states-russia-/25456999.html">arms as well as fighters have been flowing</a> across the frontier from Russia into the Luhansk and Donetsk regions. Putin’s most recent comment since the crash is: “The responsibility for this tragedy has to be with the state on whose territory the plane fell”. The appalling truth here is that the president of a self-styled Great Power can talk such cynical lies. <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-27713847">Months of propaganda</a> have polluted the mind-set of the Russian population to believe that Kiev is run by “fascists”.</p>
<p>As it stands is seems likely that the ill disciplined separatist thugs made a “mistake”, thinking it was a military plane. But commander-in-chief Putin has apparently been giving no instructions for his compatriots in Donetsk to return home with their weapons in order to do their part in consolidating the <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/30/ukraine-president-petro-poroshenko-ceasefire-over">ceasefires that President Petro Poroshenko tried</a>.</p>
<p>Back now on what to do. This mass murder has to be the game-changer. The EU’s leaders have to come together on smart sanctions that will have real impact. It’s time for the soft end of the European political spectrum to get real. In particular the new charismatic Italian leader, Matteo Renzi, whose country currently presides over the EU Council, and who <em>ad personam</em> is <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-07-18/eu-divisions-over-russia-sanctions-fester-after-downing-of-plane.html">currently leader of the “softies”</a> on Russia, has now to show that he has political guts. Let’s assume an emergency meeting of EU foreign ministers, and/or of prime ministers and presidents, decides to act seriously. What should they do?</p>
<h2>Gas giant</h2>
<p>The main thing that would really matter for Russia would be for its gas earnings from the EU to decline precipitously. That should be feasible, without damaging European industry. Russia supplies only about <a href="https://theconversation.com/russias-back-door-route-to-stifle-european-gas-supplies-24550">one third of the EU’s gas imports</a>. The first move would be for all EU gas importers to maximise imports from Norway, Algeria, Azerbaijan and LNG suppliers and fill up every storage site, while minimising or stopping imports from Russia. At this point comes the question of contractual obligations, and in particular <a href="http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/03/17/uk-ukraine-crisis-gazprom-idUKBREA2G0BD20140317">Gazprom’s “take-or-pay” clauses</a>, which oblige the buyer to pay for any shortfall taken in the contracted volumes. This however can <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-05/gazprom-complaint-said-to-be-reviewed-by-eu-amid-ukraine-crisis.html">fit perfectly into the antitrust case</a> going on between the commission’s competition department and Gazprom.</p>
<p>The take-or-pay clauses are manifestly constraining competition, and are believed to be considered illegal by the commission as breaches of competition policy law. Let the commission now accelerate its handling of this case, and order that Gazprom’s take-or-pay clauses be deleted from all contract with EU buyers. And then various importers will be even freer to stop imports from Russia. Finally the EU can do everything to accelerate the completion of gas pipeline network linkages, and of various new LNG reception facilities (as for example in Lithuania, which will soon allow the Baltic states to escape the Russian monopoly supply). </p>
<p>Actually, the EU does not have to stop importing <a href="https://theconversation.com/russia-ukraine-and-europe-are-tied-by-gas-dependency-25719">Russian gas</a> forever. The point has to be for Russia to understand that it is vulnerable to crippling economic damage unless it becomes a decently cooperative partner for its European neighbours, including Ukraine as well as the EU itself. For the present the above plan should go ahead at full speed, with Russian export earnings to be seen also to be declining at full speed. This should go on at least until Putin gets the Russians among the separatists to go home with their weapons. The idea that Russia cannot influence the separatists is bogus – the Kremlin has all kinds of instruments for enforcement.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/29439/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael Emerson was previously EU ambassador to Moscow. CEPS is a politically and financially independent research institute.</span></em></p>Writing from Kiev, the city is boiling with rage. And now all Europeans too may boil with rage as 189 Dutch and smaller numbers of Belgians, British, French and Germans perished, when their Malaysian Airlines…Michael Emerson, Associate Senior Research Fellow, Centre for European Policy StudiesLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/262802014-05-04T21:35:35Z2014-05-04T21:35:35ZHow the EU could help save Ukraine at the eleventh hour<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/47706/original/9cqmhg56-1399236121.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Perhaps the Quad can do a better job.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/streetwrk/">streetwrk.com</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Ukraine is disintegrating before our eyes, with escalating anarchy, civil war and proxy war with Russia, and <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-27274028">dozens killed in Odessa</a> on Friday. Acting President Alexander Turchinov officially declared that Kiev is powerless to resume control of Donetsk and Lugansk, but then the day after launched a major assault on Slaviansk. The Geneva Quad agreement of 17 April is ignored. The viability of the presidential election scheduled for 25 May is threatened by boycotts in the east.</p>
<p>With the political dynamics out of control, political leaders have now together to decide how to stop this insanity of Ukrainians killing each other. The Geneva agreement had promising content and, crucially, quadripartite support. It has now to be built upon, but this time with decisive effectiveness. Even if Russia is to be criticised, it will not be crippled by the sanctions, certainly not in the short-run, and meanwhile the growing anarchy and violence in the eastern regions brings increasing calls for Russian protection, ie. a “peacekeeping” invasion.</p>
<h2>Call new Geneva meeting</h2>
<p>The EU should call immediately for a second Geneva meeting of the Quad. This time the agenda should be decisive reinforcement of the OSCE mission, or its replacement by a new tripartite peace and order enforcement mission, but in either case led jointly by Ukrainian, European and Russian uniformed and flagged troops and police. Each armoured personnel carrier, whether Ukrainian, Russian, or European, should carry three large flags.</p>
<p>Recall Berlin 1945, with the patrol jeeps manned by that quad, of British, French, Soviet and US troops, for a little inspiration while of course not a model.</p>
<p>This tripartite operation would represent a huge act of political choice and reconciliation to change course, from one of virtual war between Ukraine and Russia, and of overt political confrontation between Russia and the EU over their common neighbourhood. Given the divided loyalties and identities of Ukraine, this country should have good relations with both its neighbours, who should work together constructively to this end.</p>
<p>The operation can be simply described. First dismantle and clean up the Maidan in Kiev. It would suffice there for just a few armoured personnel carriers, crucially carrying three big Ukrainian, EU and Russian flags to move in alongside a bulldozer and with trucks to carry away the debris.</p>
<p>Then move on into eastern Ukraine, especially Donetsk and Lugansk, which will require much larger contingents, but the same formula. Kiev would end its military operations. Light military vehicles, jointly manned and flagged with Ukrainians, Europeans and Russians, would escort bulldozers to demolish road blocks and barricades, and demand evacuation of the public buildings. While <a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5eed1d4e-d380-11e3-b0be-00144feabdc0.html#axzz30maMOxJ7">Donetsk</a> and Lugansk will be the toughest part of the operation, the other eastern regions, from Kharkiv to Odessa, should see lighter patrol and stand-by contingents to prevent further contagion of the violence. The deployment of the triple-flagged contingents should be preceded by a massive information campaign from the leaderships of all Quad parties to explain that together they had resolved to go for this peaceful, strategic solution.</p>
<h2>No US or NATO presence</h2>
<p>For the EU this would be a regular but vital security and defence policy mission. The resources required are available. There is no lack of European military or policing capabilities for this kind of operation, and thanks to the EU’s enlargement ten years ago, no shortage nowadays of Russian-speaking EU peacekeepers. For Russia this is the only way a temporary military presence in Ukraine could avoid the stigma of invasion. The failing Ukraine state would be rescued by the huge political symbolism and reality of the three flags working together. </p>
<p>While the Quad would sponsor this reinforced operation, neither US nor NATO presence in the joint operation is necessary technically nor plausible politically. The proving of the tripartite operation would be grounds for suspension of the US as well as European sanctions against Russia.</p>
<p>Should the new tripartite brigade be authorised to use lethal force if there is resistance? Better not get into who would give the orders to fire. If there were refusal to cooperate and a stand-off the matter should be taken to the highest political level, for Russia with the EU and Ukraine together to order evacuation of the buildings explicitly both on the spot and with leaders taking their case to the TV channels. If there is still no cooperation the Quad would concert together on further steps.</p>
<p>This tripartite process should also lead on to further political understandings. The <a href="https://www.kyivpost.com/hot/may-25-presidential-election/">May 25 presidential election</a> would go ahead correctly in the whole of Ukraine, but could be accompanied by referendums is some eastern regions with the question: “Would you prefer for your region to remain part of Ukraine alongside a process of constitutional reform to guarantee adequate regional safeguards on matters of languages and decentralised competences; or would you prefer separating from Ukraine and joining Russia?” Opinion polls consistently say that simple majorities would support the first alternative, even in Donetsk.</p>
<p>If the new post-May 25 authorities in Kiev wish to go ahead and sign the Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement (DCFTA) with the EU, there should be completion of the process initiated at the June 2013 EU-Russia summit to examine any possible unintended harmful consequences of the DCFTA for Ukraine-Russian economic relations.</p>
<p>The EU should now make such proposals with the utmost urgency. The US would be glad to see the EU, whose flags have been flying in Kiev like the Russian ones in Donetsk, take up its responsibilities. Russia has already advocated trilateral solutions. The chances are that the overwhelming majority of Ukrainians would be mightily relieved. This short-term action should also have long-term strategic consequences for the European order, if it initiated a switch by the EU and Russia into cooperative mode over their common neighbourhood.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/26280/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael Emerson is a former EU ambassador to Moscow. CEPS is a politically and financially independent research institute.</span></em></p>Ukraine is disintegrating before our eyes, with escalating anarchy, civil war and proxy war with Russia, and dozens killed in Odessa on Friday. Acting President Alexander Turchinov officially declared…Michael Emerson, Associate Senior Research Fellow, Centre for European Policy StudiesLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/239332014-03-03T12:30:34Z2014-03-03T12:30:34ZUkraine faces a nerve-jangling week of ‘red lines’<p>Having given himself the authority to invade Ukraine, Russian president <a href="http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/03/01/uk-ukraine-idUKBREA1H0EM20140301">Vladimir Putin</a> is now pushing right up against the red lines, if he has not already overstepped them. This is the point at which regular diplomacy becomes inoperative, and the action becomes coercive, either through sanctions in the least bad case, or in the worst, war.</p>
<p>Where exactly are the red lines? That may only be really revealed by events. But we have some clear markers. If Russia invaded the East Ukraine mainland, around Kharkiv or Donetsk for example, that would be the red line for Kiev and the West. If sizeable armed groups of Ukrainian extremist nationalists invaded Kharkiv or Donetsk and entered into a real fight with local people there being killed, that would be crossing Putin’s red line. That would also be the case if the Ukrainian military attempted to push all Russian troops back into their barracks in Sevastapol.</p>
<p>For many people Russia has already crossed the red line in these <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26414600">last few days in Crimea</a>. While criticising the EU for interference in Kiev, and forgetting that its mediation during the last days of Yanukovych stopped the killing in Kiev, Russia deployed troops to take over government buildings and airports. Well-armed, uniformed and equipped troops did their work with all identification badges removed and even the number plates of their military vehicles removed, and at first they refused to say who they were - “nobody knows”. Like a story for small children. This last weekend Russian troops have openly surrounded and blockaded Ukrainian military bases in Crimea, humiliating Kiev.</p>
<p>US president <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/02/obama-putin-phone-call-ukraine-russia-crimea">Barack Obama calls for the Russian troops to get back into their barracks</a>, but Putin ignores this.</p>
<p>What happens when the red lines are crossed? As between Russia and Ukraine it would mean war, a real war, with incalculable consequences. Ukraine’s prime minister, Arseny Yatseniuk, has already described Putin’s announcement as a <a href="http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/03/02/uk-ukraine-idUKBREA1H0EM20140302">declaration of war</a>. The Ukrainian armed forces have received a general mobilisation order. The idea of Russians and Ukrainians really killing each other is mercifully still “unthinkable”, yet on this centennial anniversary of the first world war, we are reminded that big wars can be triggered “accidentally” by small incidents. Putin’s presumed calculation is that his self-authorisation to go to war is intended to deter Kiev from challenging him in Crimea, or to deter extremists from West Ukraine from attacking in the East. But there is no lack of small incidents ready and waiting to happen in Crimea and East Ukraine.</p>
<h2>Diplomatic measures</h2>
<p>For the EU and US it would mean cold war, with progressive actions to make of Putin an international pariah and to build up sanctions against Russian economic interests. This has already begun, with Western withdrawals from preparatory meetings for the G8 summit in June. The G8 could easily be discontinued in favour of returning to the old G7. To which could be added scrapping the EU-Russia summit in Sochi also in June, and resolutions condemning Russia put to the OSCE and Council of Europe, or proposals to suspend Russia’s membership. </p>
<p>US secretary of state, John Kerry, has already <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-02/kerry-says-u-s-weighing-sanctions-on-russia-over-ukraine.html">sketched the sanctions toolkit</a>: visa bans, asset freezes, trade and investment measures. The EU could do the same with greater impact and develop cooperatively with the US steps to substitute increasing amounts of US for Russian gas, the latter having declined to about a third of the EU’s total gas imports. Russia’s economy is already weak, and a further weakening would endanger Putin’s political base.</p>
<p>There is still a small margin of possibility for cool heads to arrange de-escalation. There is a group of reasonable people now assembled as the government of Ukraine. But they do not yet have the street under control, and would need somehow to get the extremist militias off the street and into the democratic political process – let there be early parliamentary elections and let them try to get a few seats in the Rada. </p>
<p>The EU for its part has to make it clear that its support for the new leadership in Kiev is absolutely not a winner-takes-all challenge to Russia’s economic interests. The origin of the conflict was Yanukovych’s refusal to sign with the EU under pressure from Putin to join his customs union. Even Putin must now see that Ukraine will not join his customs union. But Ukraine could have high-quality free trade with both the EU and Russia, and with goodwill these arrangements could perfectly well avoid be designed technically to avoid conflict. How much pain does there have to be before there can be a return to such mundane and peaceful normality?</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/23933/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael Emerson was previously EU ambassador to Moscow. CEPS is a politically and financially independent research institute.</span></em></p>Having given himself the authority to invade Ukraine, Russian president Vladimir Putin is now pushing right up against the red lines, if he has not already overstepped them. This is the point at which…Michael Emerson, Associate Senior Research Fellow, Centre for European Policy StudiesLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/237942014-02-28T10:06:50Z2014-02-28T10:06:50ZUkraine highlights a crisis in British foreign policy created by its retreat from an EU role<p>Events in Ukraine mark not only the start of a momentous shift in the region, but serve to chart the disturbing erosion of Britain’s global clout. If only the UK government would take its lead from the approach taken by its embassy in the heart of Kiev.</p>
<p>Foreign Secretary William Hague began his term in office by issuing instructions to his entire diplomatic core to resist by all legal means any attempts to increase the “actorness” of the EU in foreign and security policy. This led to a year of obscure diplomatic blockages, where common positions by the EU in various international forums could not be adopted, because the UK in a minority of one was contesting the legal basis for EU representatives to speak on behalf of the EU and its member states. At one point no less than 100 common positions were held up. That particular episode was brought to a close by the <a href="http://register.consilium.europa.eu/doc/srv?l=EN&t=PDF&gc=true&sc=false&f=ST+15901+2011+INIT">adoption of an agreement stating the obvious</a> by the council of foreign ministers in October 2011.</p>
<p>While this must go down as one of the most boring and non-substantive wastes of diplomatic time in the history of Europe, it was not without serious reputational consequences for the UK.</p>
<p>The UK, with its privileged seat as one of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, has been now for decades sitting on its reputation as one of the “big three” of EU foreign policy, alongside France and Germany – although the latter still lacks status at the UN Security Council.</p>
<p>This reputation has been wasting away, and the episode I’ve mentioned is just one reason why. Further evidence of it surfaced during recent weeks in Ukraine in two ways.</p>
<h2>Out of the picture</h2>
<p>Institutionally, the Ukraine crisis was tackled with the aid of mediation by three EU foreign ministers, from France, Germany and Poland, <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/20/ukraine-eu-foreign-ministers-agree-sanctions-officials">co-signing the agreement</a> that preceded the end of the Yanukovych regime. This was a new “big three” in action on behalf of the EU. Why was the UK not there, since in the past it would automatically have been invited in these informal self-selection process to be part of the leading action? Answer: some combination of Poland’s successful diplomatic activism by foreign minister Radoslav Sikorsky, and the UK having vacated its seat through persistenly wanting to minimise the “actorness” of the EU.</p>
<p>On a substantive point, what does Ukraine want? In the most profound sense Ukraine wants Europe. As one citizen on the <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/02/27/what-does-ukraines-euromaidan-teach-us-about-protest/">Euromaidan</a> put it last week, “we do not want to go to Europe, we want Europe here”. Ukraine as a society does not “want” the UK, or France, or Germany individually. And of course these countries are seen to be part of Europe. But where should the action come from? It is absolutely clear that Ukraine is not strategically interested in any specifically UK action, unless it forms part of EU action. There is no sense in any distinctly UK bilateral policy of political significance there.</p>
<p>Curiously, while the top-level speeches and attitudes of the Conservative Party ministers of the Coalition government have been vacating the UK’s effective seat on the international stage, the competent staff work of the Foreign Office has been doing some excellent things, including in Ukraine. An example is a low-cost project to map out how an enhanced EU communications strategy in Ukraine could be designed. This has turned out to be an <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/190112/Scoping_Study_Final_Report_Web_En.pdf">excellent piece of professionalism</a>, in which the UK embassy in Kyiv has been doing an impeccable job of acting itself with and on behalf of the EU.</p>
<p>But back now to the big picture for the UK in the world. The UK needs now to decide pretty fast on its strategic orientation for its European and foreign policy. The Ukraine episode is a warning. The UK’s perceived position on the world stage is on the slide. Let’s relate this more broadly to the UK’s standing in the world at large, for example its permanent seat in the UN Security Council, the jewel in the crown of the Foreign office. This may be tactically secure through the veto powers of permanent members. But the process whereby the rest of the world considers the UK’s position to be an increasing anomaly is ongoing. As US president Barack Obama has said with clarity, the UK as a vigorous part of a strong EU is what the US wants; the UK as a seceding or semi-detached, minimalist member state is not of interest.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/23794/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael Emerson was previously EU ambassador to Moscow. CEPS is a politically and financially independent research institute.</span></em></p>Events in Ukraine mark not only the start of a momentous shift in the region, but serve to chart the disturbing erosion of Britain’s global clout. If only the UK government would take its lead from the…Michael Emerson, Associate Senior Research Fellow, Centre for European Policy StudiesLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/234512014-02-20T05:57:09Z2014-02-20T05:57:09ZHow could the EU do more for Ukraine?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/41980/original/93ykqb8p-1392830286.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=11%2C11%2C3988%2C2784&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A protester plays the piano atop a burned-out bus in Kiev.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Protestant_plays_on_the_roof_burned_%22Berkut%22_bus._The_barricade_across_Hrushevskoho_str._Kiev,_10.02.2014..JPG">Ввласенко</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>When in Kiev recently I asked many Ukrainians how they thought the raging political and now violent conflict would end. All said they had no idea, but one of them said he had eight scenarios, which included the nightmare cases of civil war and territorial disintegration of the state. The past 24 hours have seen poor Ukraine and the beautiful city of Kiev slide into these <a href="http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/02/19/us-ukraine-idUKBREA1G0OU20140219">worst case scenarios</a>. </p>
<p>In addition to the big fight going on right now in the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maidan_Nezalezhnosti">Maidan</a>, we should take note of what is happening elsewhere in the country. The governor of Lviv has been booted out of office, and the regional authorities there say they take no further instructions from president Viktor Yanukovych, and his Party of the Regions is banned locally. The prime minister of Crimea says he has 15,000 Ukrainian Russians ready to intervene as a well prepared militia force. </p>
<p>Those at the barricades in Kiev believe they fight for a revolution. But the overwhelming lesson from the history of revolutionary situations, from Paris 1789 to Cairo 2011, via Russia 1917, China 1911 and Iran 1979, is that unless strong and sound fresh governance structures are immediately put into place, the political dynamics lead to catastrophic radicalisation, chaos and conflict. This model of revolution is already on the move in Ukraine. To paraphrase George Santayana, European leaders from Brussels to Moscow as well as Kiev must now “remember history before seeing it repeated”, since Ukraine itself seems incapable of disarming. </p>
<p>The tragedy is that this was a conflict that did not have to happen. Of course Yanukovych has been an utterly incompetent, undemocratic and corrupt leader, and he has to go in a year’s time if not before. His presidency began by agreeing a 25-year extension for Russia’s lease on the Sevastopol naval base in exchange for a supposed gas price discount, which left Ukraine soon after paying even more than Germany. He has brought the Ukrainian economy to the brink of bankruptcy, and a few weeks ago passed into law sweeping repressive measures against the EuroMaidan, as the protests have become known. </p>
<p>This so infuriated the people that he had to repeal them a week later. But the whole uprising was triggered by Moscow’s pressuring Kiev to drop the Association Agreement with the EU in favour of the <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/22/russia-ukraine-eu-pact-lithuania">Russian-led customs union</a>. This was a huge miscalculation by Russian president Vladimir Putin, to suppose he could perform a quiet repeat of his <a href="http://www.europeanvoice.com/article/2013/september/armenia-chooses-russia-over-eu/78090.aspx">Armenian operation</a> of last September.</p>
<p>Regardless of when or how Yanukovych cedes effective power, his legacy will present huge and urgent problems for his successors, who would presumably consist of some configuration of the present opposition leadership. The new government will be immediately confronted with the consequences of the financial and economic deals done by Yanukovych with Putin. Ukraine owes a lot of money to both Gazprom and the Russian state, and the current gas-price discount of one-third and continued Russian funding are vulnerable to being discontinued at Moscow’s discretion.</p>
<h2>EU to step in?</h2>
<p>The EU, elected by the Ukrainian street as honorary sponsor of the EuroMaidan, has to prepare for this contingency. Emergency situations require emergency measures, which EU institutions and member states are advised to formulate now. The measures should be strong, immediate and comprehensible to Ukrainian citizens, and based on the steps outlined below.</p>
<p>First the EU should help the Ukrainian economy offset the new punitive Russian trade sanctions, which could well be intensified, by immediately implementing of key elements in the not-yet-signed <a href="http://www.eeas.europa.eu/ukraine/">Association Agreement</a> (incorporating the Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement). The latter would consist of the suppression of EU import duties on Ukrainian products on day one, whereas Ukrainian duties would only be gradually phased out. This would give an immediate stimulus for Ukrainian industries to make a new push to export to European markets. </p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/41978/original/k3mv3hzs-1392827289.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/41978/original/k3mv3hzs-1392827289.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/41978/original/k3mv3hzs-1392827289.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/41978/original/k3mv3hzs-1392827289.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/41978/original/k3mv3hzs-1392827289.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/41978/original/k3mv3hzs-1392827289.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/41978/original/k3mv3hzs-1392827289.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/41978/original/k3mv3hzs-1392827289.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Money will talk.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/59937401@N07/5857327932/in/photolist-9VAkwC-9VxrpV-9VxpBK-9VzaEB-9Vxho8-9VxqtB-9VB3aw-9VzFb5-9VxmHK-9VDpCA-9Vybdi-9VBDFb-9Vzq68-9VCdNY-9VDXad-9VAdfS-9Vxt3Z-9VwW4V-9VwRTT-9Vyc8k-a2YEtp-9VzqVZ-95oKe9-9VwK58-9Vy9Hr-e9fVin-9VxkLg-9VAKgH-9VAZsD-9Vxsin-9VAHAi-9VDyUU-9VE3uW-8GDLRh-9VBCYh-9VAESL-9VxR7X-9VCcWs-a31XZW-9VBEto-9VBcxe-9gRqPK-a32wnA-9VDGEN-9VAjvG-9VARkM-f3uQZy">Images Money</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The new Ukrainian leaders would sign the Association Agreement without delay. There would be also an understanding that the two parties would negotiate over those provisions in the Agreement that most worry the Ukrainian side with a view to working out remedial or compensatory measures where justified. </p>
<p>Second, the EU should signal to the IMF its willingness to increase its co-financing for a bail-out operation to the extent of 50%, rather than the token sum of some $600 million offered so far; or to contribute comparable sums to an international coalition including the US, which has been discussed.</p>
<h2>Lisbon-Kiev-Vladivostok</h2>
<p>Finally, the EU should signal to Russia its interest in pursuing without further delay the proposition of free trade with the customs union of Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan – to which Putin expressed openness at the EU-Russia summit in Brussels on January 28th – on the understanding that Ukraine would be free to enter into a free trade agreement with the EU as well as the Russia-led customs union. </p>
<p>The legal/technical problems due to Belarus and Kazakhstan not yet being members of the WTO can be sorted out in due course, since the negotiations would take considerable time. Nevertheless, the start of these negotiations would be a strategically important political opening towards Russia, picking up on <a href="http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/from-lisbon-to-vladivostok-putin-envisions-a-russia-eu-free-trade-zone-a-731109.html">Putin’s slogan of “Lisbon to Vladivostok”</a>, but converting it now into a “Lisbon-Kiev-Vladivostok”.</p>
<p>There is even a chance that the Kremlin is sufficiently worried about Ukraine spinning out of control that it would welcome a move from confrontation to cooperation in its relations with the EU over their common neighbourhood.</p>
<p>The critical factor then would be the response of Russia, which has presumably already given up on Yanukovych being able to resume effective control. He would thus go in any case at some point. The key question for the Kremlin is which scenario they would like least, an escalating civil war and chaotically disintegrating Ukraine, or a single, democratic Ukrainian state. If the former scenario continues to develop, where would the political dynamics lead, for Ukraine, Europe, Russia, and especially for Russia’s place in the world, with the ‘law of unintended consequences’ set to have a field-day?</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/23451/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael Emerson was previously EU ambassador to Moscow. CEPS is a politically and financially independent research institute.</span></em></p>When in Kiev recently I asked many Ukrainians how they thought the raging political and now violent conflict would end. All said they had no idea, but one of them said he had eight scenarios, which included…Michael Emerson, Associate Senior Research Fellow, Centre for European Policy StudiesLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.