tag:theconversation.com,2011:/us/topics/donald-tusk-24460/articlesDonald Tusk – The Conversation2023-10-17T13:26:53Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2156182023-10-17T13:26:53Z2023-10-17T13:26:53ZPoland votes for change after nearly a decade spent sliding towards autocracy – but tricky coalition talks lie ahead for Donald Tusk<p>People were seen queuing in long lines outside polling stations in what appears to have been an election with record-breaking turnout (74.31%) in Poland. Now it seems the right-wing Law and Justice party (PiS) is on the way out of government. Although PiS came away with the highest percentage of votes (35.38%), a coalition of opposition parties looks more likely to end up in power.</p>
<p>The Civic Coalition (KO), an alliance of centre-right parties led by former European Council president Donald Tusk, has secured <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/50198396-4ea0-41cd-b7db-67bb0df700b2">157 seats in parliament</a>. This itself is shy of the 231 needed to form a majority but combining with Third Way, a centrist alliance which took 65 seats, and the New Left, which took 26 seats, a government is possible. </p>
<p>PiS took 194 seats by itself but this is not enough to form a government alone or in cooperation with the far-right Confederation (KON), which took just 18 seats. Even in an election <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/polish-public-broadcaster-faces-accusations-bias-election-looms-2023-10-13/">not considered entirely fair</a>, the party that has ruled Poland since 2015 could no longer cling to power. </p>
<h2>The return of Donald Tusk</h2>
<p>Since coming to power in 2015, PiS has acted with <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-polish-people-support-the-eu-its-their-government-that-continues-to-antagonise-brussels-170324">antagonism towards the European Union</a>. This would appear to be out of step with public opinion given that support for the EU stands at 85% (and overt opposition just 10%) in Poland.</p>
<p>Even though Poland is a net financial beneficiary of the union, PiS has clashed with Brussels for failing to uphold European democratic values and human rights for women and LGBTQ+ people. </p>
<p>Tusk has vowed to turn back towards European Union partners and for Poland to keep pace with them on social issues, such as by introducing same-sex marriage. Women, who have seen their rights to abortion care ultimately vanish under PiS, can be hopeful of a shift back towards liberalisation under a Tusk administration. Tusk has said PiS has “dehumanised” too many people during its time in power. Ever since his first stint as prime minister between 2007 and 2014 (when he was appointed president of the European Council) Tusk has always been seen as a pro-European force.</p>
<p>Relations with the EU over Ukraine should also become less tense. PiS recently acted unilaterally and against the EU’s wishes by banning grain imports from war-torn Ukraine because it would hurt national farming interests. Tusk can be expected to be more prepared to align with European allies.</p>
<p>A Tusk-led government is expected to liberalise abortion (up to 12 weeks) and introduce the right for same-sex couples to form legally recognised civil partnerships. It is also expected to undertake reforms to bring back judicial and media freedom. The goal appears to be nothing short of bringing Poland back into the group of European liberal democracies. As Tusk himself put it: “It’s the end of the evil times”.</p>
<h2>The demise of PiS</h2>
<p>The PiS years have been characterised by a gradual dismantling of Poland’s liberal democratic order. Checks and balances on the government have disappeared and the separation of powers undermined by the deliberate erosion of judicial independence. V-DEM, the Varieties of Democracy project, based at the University of Gothenburg in Sweden, considers Poland a case of <a href="https://www.v-dem.net/documents/29/V-dem_democracyreport2023_lowres.pdf">“engulfed in autocratization”</a>, making it a place where democracy is threatened. The end of communism brought democracy and European Union membership but the year 2015 marked a turning point. Donald Tusk and KO have won because Poles did not want to become an electoral autocracy, as forecast in the event of an unprecedented third term for PiS. The electoral results constitute a real “victory for democracy” (as Tusk said).</p>
<p>With time, and the fatigue of governing, PiS has clearly lost support. Economic challenges and increases to the cost of living have evidently taken a toll, with the economy <a href="https://www.euronews.com/2023/10/16/five-things-we-know-so-far-about-poland-election-results">cited</a> as the the most important issue for voters. PiS attempted to <a href="https://notesfrompoland.com/2023/10/11/wife-of-border-guard-criticises-opposition-in-new-polish-ruling-party-campaign-ad/">push immigration up the agenda</a> during the campaign rather than tackling these issues head on. But these were not convincing, particularly when combined with accusations that the government was issuing significant numbers of visas to Russians and that consular officials were offering visas to people coming from Asia and Africa <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2023/09/21/europe/eu-poland-visa-fraud-allegations-intl/index.html">in return for kickbacks</a>.</p>
<h2>Not quite a done deal…</h2>
<p>While Poland looks set to have a pro-European government in office soon, that result is not yet guaranteed. A new government might not be appointed until mid-December as PiS will try to attract support from some of the Third Way members and Tusk will need some time to accommodate the demands from the six parties that are expected to have a ministerial presence.</p>
<p>Andrzej Duda, president of the Polish Republic (and a PiS member), needs to decide who should form a government. Following established tradition, his first choice will be PiS because it was the most voted for party, even if it doesn’t have a majority. If the opposition parties together are able to form a majority, they may have a chance; if recent years tell us anything, it’s that PiS is willing to manoeuvre to stay in power.</p>
<p>And even if the opposition coalition does land in government, their alliance will not be an easy one. There are many parties involved and ideological differences aplenty. The talks will involve liberals, Christian-democrats, agrarians, social democrats and the radical left, so negotiations could be lengthy. If Duda fails to find a government after three attempts, he will have to dissolve parliament and call fresh elections.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/215618/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors 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>Law and Justice emerges as the biggest party but without a majority, leaving the door open for a large coalition led by the former president of the European Council.Simona Guerra, Senior Lecturer in Comparative Politics, University of SurreyFernando Casal Bértoa, Associate Professor (Politics), University of NottinghamLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1115482019-02-12T10:44:46Z2019-02-12T10:44:46ZBrexit poll: British public thinks the EU has been harsh in negotiations<p>Nearly two thirds of British people think that the EU has been a harsh negotiator over Brexit, according to the <a href="https://www.qmul.ac.uk/media/news/2019/hss/nearly-two-thirds-of-brits-think-the-eu-has-been-harsh-towards-the-uk-during-brexit-negotiations-and-believe-it-is-going-to-be-weaker-once-the-uk-has-left-.html">latest survey</a> by the <a href="http://www.cer.qmul.ac.uk/">Center for European Research</a> at Queen Mary University of London.</p>
<p>Donald Tusk recently caused anger by <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/video/2019/feb/06/special-place-in-hell-donald-tusk-derides-brexiters-without-a-plan-video">suggesting</a> that there is a “special place in hell” for campaigners who promoted Brexit without having a plan in place. But even before his remarks, voters on the UK side felt the EU was playing hardball. </p>
<p>Overall, 58% of the UK public believe the EU has been harsh towards the UK during Brexit negotiations – although that varies according to age and, of course, on how how people voted in the referendum. Conservative voters (83%) and Leavers (84%) overwhelmingly reckoned the EU had been harsh.</p>
<p>And while three quarters (78%) of over 65s felt the EU has been either fairly or very harsh towards the UK during the negotiations, just 37% of 18- to 24-year-olds and 48% of 25- to 49-year-olds felt the same.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1093112742293266435"}"></div></p>
<p>This stands in stark contrast to European politicians’ views about the British domestic political situation. Although Michel Barnier, the chief negotiator for the EU, has been a good communicator in leading the negotiations, insisting frequently that what unites the two sides is <a href="http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-18-3785_en.htm">“much stronger than what divides us”</a>, other European politicians are now showing signs of impatience with the British quid pro quo.</p>
<p>In a speech after May’s deal was voted down in January 2019 in the UK parliament, French president Emmanuel Macron said: “Good luck to the representatives of the nation who have to implement a thing which doesn’t exist and explain to the people: ‘You have voted on a thing, we lied to you’.”</p>
<p>Similarly, European Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker declared that the British <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/video/2018/dec/14/jean-claude-juncker-our-british-friends-need-to-say-what-they-want-video">“need to say what they want, instead of asking us what we want”</a>.</p>
<p>Interestingly, though, even a majority of young people think the EU will be weakened by the UK’s departure. That said, only a minority of Brits think Europeans will be sorry to see the UK go.</p>
<p>And at a moment when Theresa May is going back to Brussels to ask to re-open the negotiations on the <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/irish-backstop-62530">Irish backstop</a>, the survey suggests that a third of Brits (32%) think the EU should agree to a deal without a Northern Ireland backstop. That said, only just under a quarter think it shouldn’t. Some 45% of Brits don’t know, suggesting that neither side of that particular debate has so far put a convincing case for its exclusion or inclusion.</p>
<h2>Young people sad to lose freedom of movement</h2>
<p>We also found that the prospect of not being able to <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-the-eus-rules-on-free-movement-allow-all-its-citizens-to-do-62186">move freely across Europe</a> to live, work and study is a big deal for young people. Nearly two thirds (63%) of 18- to 24-year-olds think that losing mobility rights is a serious loss for British people – a view shared by 67% of Labour voters and 82% of Remain voters across all age groups. Only a third (34%) of people over 65 were concerned about it. Nearly half (47%) of Leave voters think mobility is a loss but a price worth paying to leave the EU, while nearly a quarter of them (24%) aren’t really worried about losing such rights.</p>
<p>It seems that the people who, at least theoretically, stand to lose most in the future from Brexit, at least in terms of their rights to live, work and study in the EU, are far more bothered about the loss. This is yet more evidence of a continuing generation gap that the EU referendum exposed and opened up.</p>
<p>Despite the view that the EU has been harsh during negotiations, some 54% of British people think that the remainder of the EU will be weaker after Britain has left the bloc. The survey shows that again there is a generation gap, with almost 70% of people aged 65 and over thinking the EU will be weaker. And again the gap between Leavers and Remainers is high: 66% of Leavers think the EU will be weaker, compared to 55% of those who voted Remain – although it’s worth noting that that’s still a majority of them.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/111548/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Sarah Wolff receives funding from Queen Mary University of London. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Javier Sajuria and Tim Bale 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>Majority thinks Brussels is playing hardball – but a generational divide is apparent, as so often in the Brexit debate.Sarah Wolff, Director Centre for European Research and Senior Lecturer, School of Politics and International Relations, Queen Mary University of LondonJavier Sajuria, Lecturer in Politics, Queen Mary University of LondonTim Bale, Professor of Politics, Queen Mary University of LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/994292018-07-11T09:03:45Z2018-07-11T09:03:45ZThe EU wants to avoid a ‘no deal’ Brexit – here’s how it could achieve that<p>Before the Brexit negotiations had officially started, back in June 2017, the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/c9ee16d2-4f8a-11e7-bfb8-997009366969">told journalists</a> what he needed on the other side of the table: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>A head of the British delegation that is stable, accountable and that has a mandate. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Less than a year before Brexit day, scheduled for March 29, 2019, Barnier may feel he is still waiting for those conditions to be met, especially as the EU now finds itself with a new head of the British delegation, <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/c9ee16d2-4f8a-11e7-bfb8-997009366969">Dominic Raab</a>. Raab’s negotiating position for the next round of talks, starting on July 16, results from Theresa May’s attempt to <a href="https://theconversation.com/brexiteers-outmanoeuvred-at-chequers-after-theresa-may-corrals-cabinet-before-brexit-secretary-resigns-99405">hold her cabinet</a> and the Conservative Party together at a meeting at Chequers. In doing so, <a href="https://theconversation.com/whos-to-blame-for-theresa-mays-meltdown-and-where-will-it-end-99613">the prime minister provoked</a> yet another domestic Brexit crisis with a spate of resignations, including those of the Brexit secretary, David Davis – who Raab has replaced – and foreign secretary, Boris Johnson.</p>
<p>In the face of such uncertainty, the reaction of the 27 remaining EU member states (EU27) to the UK’s <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/government-statement-following-cabinet-away-day-at-chequers">new vision</a> for a future UK-EU relationship has been cautious but unenthusiastic. European leaders from Barnier to German chancellor <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44719576">Angela Merkel</a>, and from <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-44753265">Irish premier Leo Varadkar</a> to Sebastian Kurz, the Austrian chancellor whose country holds the <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/austrian-chancellor-sebastian-kurz-the-eus-new-power-broker/a-44466137">EU Council presidency</a>, have spoken with one voice. They have all welcomed the British government’s attempt to define a negotiating position on the framework for the future UK-EU relationship, but have asked for further detail. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-brexit-plan-that-could-bring-down-the-british-government-explained-99607">The Brexit plan that could bring down the British government – explained</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>As one <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jul/07/eu-diplomats-theresa-may-brexit-compromise">EU diplomat</a> recently put it: “We will try to receive it as well as possible but from what we understand it is still a carve-out of the single market.” The diplomat added that May’s proposed single market for goods is, “A lot of fudge with a cherry on top.”</p>
<h2>The final stretch</h2>
<p>European leaders are also concerned that time is running out for a deal to be finalised – even as <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2018/jul/10/theresa-may-new-cabinet-boris-johnson-resignation-brexit-live">Barnier indicated</a>: “After 12 months of negotiations we have agreed on 80% of the negotiations.” This may be read as a reminder to the UK government not to divert too much from what has been achieved at the negotiating table so far – and an expectation of more clarity, soon. </p>
<p>Some have seen a recent <a href="https://twitter.com/eucopresident/status/1016327348919193601">tweet</a> from Donald Tusk, president of the European Council, in the wake of the UK cabinet resignations, as an opportunity to reverse Brexit altogether. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1016327348919193601"}"></div></p>
<p>The EU’s reaction to the detail of the British position will be shaped by the challenge of having to negotiate with an increasingly unstable British government while trying to avoid a “no deal” scenario. Even though European Commission president, Jean-Claude Juncker, has confirmed that the EU has <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jun/21/eu-is-getting-ready-for-no-deal-brexit-says-jean-claude-juncker">started preparations</a> for this eventuality, the EU is committed to an orderly British withdrawal that avoids uncertainty and protects citizens and businesses. </p>
<p>And while the EU27 will not do this at any price, it’s in this commitment to a final Withdrawal Agreement that the member states may find the political will to work constructively with the UK’s current vision for a future relationship even if there are fears that May’s government could fall at any point. </p>
<h2>Extend the Article 50 deadline</h2>
<p>So how might the EU do this? First, it can agree to extend the Brexit negotiation process. This might not have been a preferred outcome at the start of the negotiations, but if extending the negotiation period ensures that there is an agreed solution that avoids a hard border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland and thus UK agreement on the <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/draft_agreement_coloured.pdf">Withdrawal Agreement</a>, the EU27 are perfectly justified in drawing on this flexibility tool. The terms of <a href="http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the-lisbon-treaty/treaty-on-European-union-and-comments/title-6-final-provisions/137-article-50.html">Article 50</a>, which govern the procedural requirements for a member state to be able to exercise its right to leave the EU, allow for the deadline to be extended beyond the initial two years.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/what-is-article-50-the-law-that-governs-exiting-the-eu-and-how-does-it-work-60262">What is Article 50 – the law that governs exiting the EU – and how does it work?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The UK and all EU member states must agree to the extension. Given its internal crisis, the UK government might welcome a softening of the ticking Brexit clock pressure. Even though Brexit day is enshrined in the <a href="https://services.parliament.uk/bills/2017-19/europeanunionwithdrawal.html">EU Withdrawal Act</a>, ministers can change it if necessary. May <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42424997">confirmed</a> that this would only happen in “exceptional circumstances” and “for the shortest possible time”. </p>
<p>For their part, the EU27 need to unanimously agree to the extension. The experience of other highly politicised negotiations such as the accession of new countries, has shown that the member states are able to leave aside their egoistic national preferences to pursue the collective EU interest – namely avoiding a disorderly Brexit.</p>
<h2>Softening red lines</h2>
<p>Second, the EU may decide to soften some of its red lines for the purpose of finalising a Withdrawal Agreement. Barnier hinted at this in <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jul/06/michel-barnier-eu-willing-to-compromise-if-uk-softens-brexit-red-lines">a speech on July 6</a>, stating “I am ready to adapt our offer should the UK red lines change”, but making it clear that the integrity of the single market had to be protected.</p>
<p>If the forthcoming white paper can offer sufficient detail and some realistic substance for the EU negotiating team to work with, and if the UK and EU can find sufficient common ground on such detail, this might afford some leeway to get the negotiations over the hurdle of completing a Withdrawal Agreement. As Franklin Dehousse, a former judge at the EU General Court <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/chaotic-deal-brexit-threatening-why-european-union-must-dehousse">has put it</a>: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>There are no serious legal reasons to exclude a Brexit deal with single market on goods and partial free movement of people (but with the proper institutional guarantees). Obstacles are political, and if people want to create them, they should justify them as such. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>The Brexit challenge is no longer an existential threat to the EU but rather to the Conservative government. However, the future of the EU depends on the success of the Brexit process and this requires a degree of ingenuity and political will that allows it to consider Brexit scenarios that protect the integrity of the bloc and its member states, without marginalising the UK.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/99429/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nieves Perez-Solorzano has received funding from the British Academy, the Economic and Social Research Council and the European Commission. </span></em></p>Despite the problems that lie ahead with the Brexit plan Theresa May hammered out at Chequers, the EU prefers a Brexit deal rather than a ‘no deal’.Nieves Perez-Solorzano, Senior Lecturer in European Politics, University of BristolLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/708652017-03-30T02:19:44Z2017-03-30T02:19:44ZIs Brexit the beginning of the end for international cooperation?<p>It’s official: Britain is done with Europe.</p>
<p>Prime Minister Theresa May has <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-brexit-divorce-bill-explained-74466">formally triggered</a> the process for withdrawing from the European Union, ensuring that the United Kingdom, one of the largest and most prosperous countries in the EU, will soon leave the 28-member bloc. </p>
<p>While the process could drag on for two years or more, the Brexit decision serves as a historic and stinging rebuke to proponents of a unified Europe. Perhaps more importantly, it calls into question the very future of the EU. </p>
<p>Pro-Europe commentators, on both sides of the Atlantic, have argued that Brexit is a historical blip, a rash decision made by an uninformed electorate after a vicious and one-sided campaign. But to dismiss Britain’s decision as an anomaly is to ignore the facts. We may be witnessing the twilight of the multilateral era.</p>
<h2>A not-so-perpetual peace</h2>
<p>The history of civilization has been one of peoples coming together in larger and larger collectives – from villages to city-states, from city-states to nations and from nations to international organizations. Today, we live in an era typified by the proliferation of global bodies like the United Nations, the World Trade Organization and the European Union. </p>
<p>People have created these greater communities for a number of reasons, but the overriding one has always been the most basic: security. As German philosopher Immanuel Kant wrote in 1795 <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=AFRgKZySxi8C&pg=PA530&lpg=PA530&dq=%22establish+a+nation+of+peoples%22&source=bl&ots=3ASHMzwJsG&sig=4eUvcjDneWbsxWCY36EvUxuziVY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwidt8q-kvzSAhUPHGMKHeRXCMEQ6AEIHzAB#v=onepage&q=%22establish%20a%20nation%20of%20peoples%22&f=false">in his essay “Perpetual Peace,”</a> the only means for nations to emerge from a state of constant war was to “give up their savage, lawless freedom… and, by accommodating themselves to the constraints of common law, establish a nation of peoples that (continually growing) will finally include all the people of the earth.”</p>
<p>The European Union is arguably the greatest example of this ideal. An organization <a href="https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/history_en">forged</a> from the desolation of two world wars, the EU brought the states of Europe together in a continent-wide commitment to cooperation and integration. Its ultimate aim was to draw nations together so closely that war would become unimaginable.</p>
<p>An impeccable aspiration, to be sure. But Britain’s vote last year to leave the EU illustrates the costs associated with that aspiration, and with multilateralism more generally. Governments have become increasingly <a href="https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/754118/MEP-European-Parliament-lazy-detached-Martin-Schulz?video=">detached</a> from the people they govern. Local communities have <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/05/AR2005060501026.html">surrendered</a> control over an ever-growing array of matters to distant bureaucrats. And people increasingly perceive that their own groups and beliefs are under siege by outsiders.</p>
<p>This sentiment is not isolated to the United Kingdom. Disillusionment with multilateral agreements is widespread today. Just look at President Donald Trump.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/163218/original/image-20170329-8593-v7pdmm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/163218/original/image-20170329-8593-v7pdmm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=363&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/163218/original/image-20170329-8593-v7pdmm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=363&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/163218/original/image-20170329-8593-v7pdmm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=363&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/163218/original/image-20170329-8593-v7pdmm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=456&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/163218/original/image-20170329-8593-v7pdmm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=456&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/163218/original/image-20170329-8593-v7pdmm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=456&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">President Donald Trump signs an Energy Independence Executive Order.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>During and after the presidential campaign, Trump has repeatedly denounced America’s international agreements. The targets of his ire have ranged from free trade deals (think <a href="http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/28/nafta-and-trump-president-plans-two-new-executive-orders.html">NAFTA</a> and the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/23/us/politics/tpp-trump-trade-nafta.html">Trans-Pacific Partnership</a>) to defense pacts (e.g., <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03/27/trump-handed-merkel-374b-nato-bill-during-talks.html">NATO</a>) to environmental accords (see the <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-36401174">Paris climate deal</a>). In January, The New York Times even <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/25/us/politics/united-nations-trump-administration.html">reported</a> that the Trump administration was preparing an executive order entitled “Auditing and Reducing U.S. Funding of International Organizations.” This rhetoric has struck a chord with many Americans who fear that international agreements have destroyed American industry and cost Americans jobs. </p>
<p>But to say that we are disillusioned with multilateralism does not provide an answer to the more difficult question: If not multilateralism, then what? </p>
<h2>Going it alone</h2>
<p>The answer, it appears, is aggressive unilateralism. Instead of working through multilateral institutions to solve their problems, countries are increasingly <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2826708">going it alone</a>. </p>
<p>The United States, for example, has responded to the failure of international negotiations on a range of topics by imposing its domestic laws abroad. The U.S. forces foreign banks to abide by its <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-law-that-makes-u-s-expats-toxic-1444330827">financial regulations</a>, foreign businesses to comply with its <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2636921">corruption laws</a> and foreign producers to adopt its climate change-related emissions <a href="https://www.epa.gov/importing-vehicles-and-engines">standards</a>. All of these laws were made and enforced without international agreement. </p>
<p>In many ways, the rise of unilateralism may be a great boon for societies. The outpouring of activism and political engagement in the U.K. both before and after the Brexit vote signals a certain optimism about the ability of Britons to govern themselves. With any luck, this optimism will lead to a rejuvenation of democracy in the country, a welcome contrast to the deep cynicism more typical of politics today. Similarly, U.S. action to regulate foreign companies may help provide solutions to problems that have been stubbornly resistant to global agreement and treaty-making.</p>
<p>But the disillusionment with multilateralism also comes with a dark side. It is one thing when countries like the U.S. and Britain decide to start taking action in the face of stalled negotiations over climate change and corruption. It is another when countries with very different concepts of the rule of law and democratic processes start imposing their own rules, unilaterally, on American companies. </p>
<p>Just look at Russia’s recent prosecution of Google for <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/12/business/international/google-fine-russia-antitrust-android.html">anti-trust violations</a> or China’s <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/beijing-regulator-orders-apple-to-stop-sales-of-two-iphone-models-1466166711">injunction against the sale of iPhones</a> as examples.</p>
<p>Multilateralism has been a great engine of peace over the course of human civilization, and we should tread carefully in rejecting it. As Kant warned, the alternative is for us to “find perpetual peace in the vast grave that swallows both atrocities and their perpetrators.”</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/70865/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>William Magnuson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Trump’s agenda to pull America from key global alliances is more evidence that suggests it is. A law professor probes the unknown of what a world without such cooperation might look like.William Magnuson, Associate Professor of Law, Texas A&M UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/754362017-03-29T16:38:20Z2017-03-29T16:38:20ZA linguist’s guide to the Theresa May Article 50 letter<p>With the delivery of Theresa May’s <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/604079/Prime_Ministers_letter_to_European_Council_President_Donald_Tusk.pdf">letter</a> to Donald Tusk, the European Council president, the UK gave official notification of its intention to leave the EU. The letter not only signalled the legal start of the Brexit process, but also gave the British prime minister the chance to frame the tone of the negotiations. The letter was her opportunity to communicate a vision for how she would like to see Brexit talks proceed.</p>
<p>The language used to discuss Brexit over the past nine months has often been rancorous and divisive, and has generated a whole new vocabulary of Brexiteers and Remoaners. The rhetoric in the letter is far more measured, though not without a certain steeliness – and the occasional veiled threat.</p>
<p>“Continuity” and “certainty” are two recurring themes in the letter. Both words are restated several times. In this respect, one of the letter’s principal aims seems to be reassurance, especially around economic issues. What’s being triggered, the letter would like to suggest, is an orderly and controlled process, and certainly not an uncoordinated scramble.</p>
<h2>Setting the tone</h2>
<p>The tone is polite but forceful, indicating that May intends to engage fully with the negotiations while also underlining her authority as the spokesperson for the citizens of the UK. The reference to restoring “national self-determination” in the opening paragraph reads like a direct, if rather formal, echo of the “take back control” refrain which was so much a part of the referendum debate.</p>
<p>A letter of this sort is always addressed to multiple audiences at the same time. Although ostensibly written to Tusk, the prime minister is aware that it will be read – and read into – by many other interested parties. Part of her job is to find a balance that speaks to all of them.</p>
<p>At the same time, the choice of words to address European citizens is purposefully inclusive. May talks of “fellow Europeans”, “friends across the continent”, and “our” continent. But when the letter talks of the importance of the process working to ensure the rights and interests of “all our citizens”, it implicitly acknowledges the divisions that will likely come into play for EU nationals living in the UK, and UK nationals living on the continent.</p>
<h2>Divided Kingdom</h2>
<p>The letter also indirectly references the troubled relationship between the nations of the UK. The prime minister makes a point of stressing that England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will be negotiating as “one United Kingdom” – which also serves to remind anyone reading the letter that there is considerable disagreement on the UK’s collective negotiating position, given that the devolved nations have <a href="https://theconversation.com/scotland-heads-towards-a-second-independence-referendum-74491">different priorities</a>.</p>
<p>May does however offer the possibility of further consolations for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland by implying that Brexit could lead to greater devolution:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>When it comes to the return of powers back to the United Kingdom, we will consult fully on which powers should reside in Westminster and which should be devolved to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. But it is the expectation of the Government that the outcome of this process will be a significant increase in the decision-making power of each devolved administration.</p>
</blockquote>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/163193/original/image-20170329-8560-r0wafm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/163193/original/image-20170329-8560-r0wafm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=446&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/163193/original/image-20170329-8560-r0wafm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=446&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/163193/original/image-20170329-8560-r0wafm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=446&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/163193/original/image-20170329-8560-r0wafm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=561&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/163193/original/image-20170329-8560-r0wafm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=561&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/163193/original/image-20170329-8560-r0wafm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=561&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Dear Donald, where do I begin?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/604079/Prime_Ministers_letter_to_European_Council_President_Donald_Tusk.pdf">Gov.uk</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Again, the aim here seems to be to try and placate and reassure as many people at the same time as possible. And even as May is addressing an audience at home, she’s also talking to a global one. </p>
<p>Another phrase repeated throughout the letter is the “special partnership”. May apparently envisages between the UK and the EU – clearly echoing the “special relationship” between the UK and the US, while at the same time being noticeably different. Perhaps May is trying to signal that the UK does in fact have allies beyond the EU, and that it could perhaps act as a bridge across the Atlantic.</p>
<h2>The veiled threat</h2>
<p>The statement May delivered to the House of Commons while this letter was being delivered was an interesting contrast. Throughout that speech she repeatedly used the word “together” to address the audience, trying to portray the process as being inclusive for all those living in the UK. As a BBC’s political journalist tweeted, this was a “Conciliatory tone towards EU. Theresa the Dealmaker”.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"847051476866416645"}"></div></p>
<p>But while the language of the letter certainly strikes a conciliatory tone at times, it still has a forceful edge. Amid all the talk of stability, continuity and joint values are several warnings about security. May reminds Tusk that “Europe’s security is more fragile today than at any time since the end of the Cold War” and stresses her desire to make sure Europe remains safe.</p>
<p>Several of these references to security concerns are made alongside discussion of the trade deal negotiations ahead. In repeatedly pairing the UK’s area of strength (security) with its area of <a href="https://theconversation.com/brexit-britain-and-trade-this-is-where-it-gets-tricky-74481">potential weakness</a> (the trade deal), the underlying message can easily be taken as a veiled threat: were the EU to lose the support of the UK in security, it would be detrimental to everyone’s future safety – so let’s play nicely on the trade deal.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/75436/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Philip Seargeant 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>What the British prime minister said in her letter to the EU – and what she meant.Philip Seargeant, Senior Lecturer in Applied Linguistics, The Open UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/685972016-11-11T12:42:21Z2016-11-11T12:42:21ZThe view from Marrakech: climate talks are battling through a Trump tsunami<p>Stunned. Shocked. Speechless. Devastated. Political tsunami. These were the key words rising to the surface of the babble of conversations that took place in the corridors of the climate negotiations in Marrakech on Wednesday 9 November – the day Donald Trump won the US presidency.</p>
<p>A climate denier, Trump has vowed to tear up the historic <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-paris-climate-agreement-at-a-glance-50465">Paris Agreement</a> along with the Obama administration’s <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/president-obama-climate-action-plan#section-clean-power-plan">Clean Power Plan</a>, which seeks to slash greenhouse emissions from power plants. He has also given the green light to renewed fossil fuel exploitation in the United States. </p>
<p>Oil and gas stocks unsurprisingly <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/us-global-oil-idUSKBN134024">rose</a>, and coal stocks <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-climatechange-idUSKBN1342E0">soared</a>, on his victory day. If implemented, Trump’s promises would make it impossible for the United States to reach its national pledge under the Paris Agreement to reduce emissions by 26-28% relative to 2005 by 2025.</p>
<p>At the moment, Trump’s previous declaration of climate change as a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese to undermine US industry looks particularly poignant.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"265895292191248385"}"></div></p>
<p>His election is a dramatic turnaround from the years of constructive bilateral climate diplomacy by the Obama administration with China, which culminated in the joint <a href="https://theconversation.com/us-china-climate-deal-at-last-a-real-game-changer-on-emissions-34148">US-China statement on climate change</a> in November 2014. This joint announcement of the headline national action plans by the world’s two biggest emitters (together covering 40% of global emissions) injected significant momentum into the negotiations leading to the Paris Agreement in 2015.</p>
<p>But now the US elections have delivered not just a presidential victory against action on climate change, but made it much easier for Trump to deliver on his plans than it was for Obama. The Republican Party is now set to control all four branches of government: the House of Representatives, the Senate, the Presidency and soon the Supreme Court (once Trump nominates a new judge following the death of Justice Scalia, bringing the number of judges back to nine, with a conservative majority). This leaves only the media and civil society to speak up for a safe climate in the face of the national government’s agenda.</p>
<h2>Turning back time</h2>
<p>Seasoned negotiators and observers at Marrakech with long memories recalled the moment in 2001 when former president George W. Bush declared that the United States would withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol, the predecessor to the Paris Agreement. This withdrawal cast a long shadow over the negotiations, which was finally lifted with the Obama administration’s re-engagement with climate change that made the Paris breakthrough possible.</p>
<p>Yet the world today is very different to what it was in 2001. The Paris Agreement is <a href="https://theconversation.com/paris-climate-agreement-enters-into-force-international-experts-respond-68124">now in force</a> after a speedy ratification, the US share of global emissions has declined, and renewable energy is now much cheaper. Many US states, cities and businesses will continue to work towards reducing emissions, and many Republican politicians have let go of their aversion to renewable energy in response to public and business pressure. </p>
<p>In short, much of America and the rest of the world will continue to build momentum under the Paris Agreement, despite the changing of the guard in Washington DC.</p>
<p>Given Trump’s record of policy flip-flopping, it also remains an open question as to how far he will actually go to undo the diplomatic climate legacy of the Obama administration. Much will depend on who takes over as Secretary of State, and how the State Department assesses the broader diplomatic consequences of withdrawing from the Paris treaty, particularly in terms of transatlantic relationships. European Council president Donald Tusk has already <a href="http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-election-eu-invitation-idUKKBN1341GW">invited Trump to attend a US-EU summit</a>. We might therefore see some easing of Trump’s hard anti-climate talk, much as his social rhetoric <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/10/us/politics/trump-speech-transcript.html">softened on election night</a>. Trump the President may not be quite the same as Trump the candidate.</p>
<p>Moreover, under Article 28 of the Paris Agreement it will take a total of four years for any formal withdrawal by the United States to take effect. If the US were to turn its back on these legal niceties and abandon its obligations during this period, it would be widely regarded as a climate pariah state. In contrast, China will enjoy its rising status as a climate leader.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, after the initial pause to digest the shock of Trump’s victory, the negotiators at Marrakech have got back down to their business, which is to fill in the implementation details of the Paris Agreement.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/68597/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Robyn Eckersley receives funding from the Australian Research Council to research a project called 'What makes a climate leader?'</span></em></p>The halls of the Marrakech climate summit have been filled with fearful talk about Donald Trump’s presidency. But there is hope that the Paris climate treaty can weather the political storm.Robyn Eckersley, Professor of Political Science, School of Social and Political Sciences, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/549322016-02-19T17:21:18Z2016-02-19T17:21:18ZIs it really so terrible for Britain to have a different vision for Europe?<p>In May 1950, at the height of the Cold War, Robert Schuman, one of the founding fathers of the European Union, offered his <a href="http://europa.eu/about-eu/basic-information/symbols/europe-day/schuman-declaration/index_en.htm">vision for the future</a>. Following the devastation of the World War II, he said the future of Europe “cannot be safeguarded without … creative efforts proportionate to the dangers which threaten it”.</p>
<p>However, he also famously warned: “Europe will not be made all at once, or according to a single plan”.</p>
<p>What happened to those aspirations? Today, the EU lacks leadership. Frustration is growing within the union and the group is failing to make a positive impact beyond its own borders. Brexit, Grexit, economic stagnation, youth unemployment and uncontrolled migration – all are threatening this partnership.</p>
<p>At the core of this problem is the fundamentally dangerous belief that the EU can become some kind of a promised land. In fact, too few people are actually questioning the EU integration project as an end in itself – its aims, its intentions and, above all, the impact on those “creative efforts” that Schuman argued had to be at the heart of European integration.</p>
<p>Instead, the EU has become a victim of its own agenda. The people who spent decades arguing that the enlightened European project will solve problems beyond the reach of sovereign states now see no other future but the “ever closer union” enshrined in the EU treaties. In this logic, alternatives have no place in Europe. It must now be built all at once and according to a single plan.</p>
<p>When the <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7453560.stm">Irish rejected the Lisbon Treaty in 2008</a>, they were merely asked to vote again. When the <a href="http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/07/early-results-shows-campaign-leads-greek-vote-150705162957783.html">Greeks overwhelmingly rejected the terms of the bailout</a> in 2015, prime minister Alexis Tsipras was merely summoned to Brussels and forced to sign the terms anyway, and when the Visegrad countries (the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia) complained that the <a href="http://www.loc.gov/law/help/citizenship-pathways/euschengen.php">Schengen rules on border protection</a> were being ignored by other member states, they were portrayed as xenophobic wall-builders.</p>
<p>The Brexit debate is another good example. It is not that I believe the UK should leave the EU – it’s that the arguments for staying in (including my own) do need to be questioned. But instead of having a real debate, exit is perceived as a lunacy, or even British bullying of the “good” Europeans. How could anyone possibly want to willingly live outside this great project? No state could possibly want to be, like Norway, on the outskirts of Europe.</p>
<p>The consequences could indeed be dire if the British people do vote to leave but what concerns me more is the belief that more integration is the only rational remedy to the crises threatening the world. More EU on the external borders, more EU in monetary affairs, more EU in defence. </p>
<p>I do not believe that the UK’s leave campaign has the right answers, but at least it is raising questions. </p>
<p>It makes perfect sense that members of the European Union should submit to certain conditions, such as democratic governance. If you wish to join any club, whether it involves your weekly game of squash or a monetary union, you have to abide by the rules. But clubs generally provide different membership options, and those options generally depend more on members’ willingness than the club’s expectations. </p>
<h2>Crushing dissent</h2>
<p>Unfortunately, a union set on simply promoting a singular vision of the future (however bright) merely breeds intolerance to alternative visions, despite the fact that the <a href="http://europa.eu/about-eu/basic-information/symbols/motto/index_en.htm">EU’s very motto</a> stresses “united in diversity”. </p>
<p>A UK membership re-negotiation is a symbol of this intolerance. It is all too easy to accuse London of being the <a href="https://theconversation.com/britains-demands-of-the-eu-a-view-from-france-54964">awkward partner</a>, but there are plenty of those in Brussels who appreciate the constructive role British representatives play in day-to-day decision-making. On issues of security and defence, for example, Britain never shies away from responsibility, including the EU’s successful <a href="http://eunavfor.eu/">anti-piracy operation off the Somali coast</a>.</p>
<p>However, it is true that the UK has been historically uneasy about the “ever-closer union”. In fact, it has resisted it on a number of occasions (the euro being a particular case).</p>
<p>Resisting does not mean striking down the Brussels leviathan. It just means imagining different visions of Europe, playing closer attention to the needs, interests and, indeed, different understandings of how Europe ought to be achieved. Economists these days seem to be in consensus that fitting German or Greek economies under the same monetary policy was a historically symbolic move, but an economic catastrophe. Similarly, that the UK is more interested in <a href="http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-boe-eu-bailey-idUKKCN0VE1CK">deepening the single market</a> instead of promoting the vague European citizenship does not make it an awkward partner, but rather one with a different vision of where a more effective Europe can be built.</p>
<p>It’s time to recognise that the future of the EU is not threatened by allowing divergent voices to contribute to the debate but in seeking conformity. Each club needs rules, but these rules are important only as long as they stimulate productivity or creativity. As soon as they seek to control, they become a hindrance and a threat to the system they are trying to uphold.</p>
<p>As history has taught us, a singular vision of the future can have dangerous consequences. Let’s forget the quest for obedience. The aim, instead, must be to stop touting the ever-closer union as the only option. That’s how to revive our thinking about what Europe is and what it can and should become.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/54932/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Igor Merheim-Eyre 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>Maybe a bit of dissent is just what the doctor ordered for the EU.Igor Merheim-Eyre, Doctoral Researcher, University of KentLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/540632016-02-02T17:14:00Z2016-02-02T17:14:00ZA deal half sealed: EU plan waters down some of Britain’s demands<p>After months of touring European capitals and several long days holed up in Downing Street, David Cameron, the UK prime minister, can finally reveal the fruits of his labour. Donald Tusk, president of the European Council, has published a <a>draft plan</a> on renegotiating the UK’s place in the EU.</p>
<p>This much-anticipated document, which makes it more likely that the UK referendum on EU membership will go ahead in June, delivers for Cameron on a number of negotiating points, including competitiveness, cutting red tape, protecting non-eurozone members from economic stresses, and on the UK’s stance regarding <a href="http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7230#fullreport">further integration</a>.</p>
<p>The plan offers precious little detail on the most contentious issue at hand – restricting benefits for EU migrants. That said, the fact that the EU has agreed that the UK could at least potentially apply an “emergency brake” on these payments is a major breakthrough. </p>
<h2>Putting the brakes on the emergency brake?</h2>
<p>There has been much talk of allowing the UK to apply the <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-the-eu-emergency-brake-54076">emergency brake</a> mechanism to exempt it from having to pay in-work benefits to EU migrants. The document does indeed open up the possibility of this happening, which signals great progress in the UK-EU negotiation, but it is by no means plain sailing from here.</p>
<p>We learn that the president of the European Council, Donald Tusk, has agreed that a member state could, in theory, ask to apply an emergency brake to limit social security benefits but that the decision on whether to apply it is ultimately down to the European Council – the body that brings together the leaders of all member states. That includes Poland and the clutch of eastern European countries who are opposed to allowing the UK to take this step.</p>
<p>The brake can be used on EU migrants for the first four years of their employment but while the British government can completely withhold payments at first, it has to start letting them access benefits on a graduated scale as the four year period progresses. This is to “take account of the growing connection of the worker with the labour market of the host Member State”. This serves to minimise criticisms that the UK is discriminating against nationals from other EU member states. </p>
<p>What also remains unclear is how long the UK would be allowed to apply the brake for. In fact, this is exactly what the document says on that matter: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>The Council implementing act would have a limited duration and apply to EU workers newly entering its labour market during a period of [X] years, extendable for two successive periods of [Y] years and [Z] years.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The duration of the application of this mechanism is to be further discussed, which suggests that Tusk and Cameron were not able to reach an agreement on this issue. </p>
<p>Nevertheless, even this is a major concession by the EU. If the European Council approves the move, it would indicate that key figures feel the UK is indispensable to the union.</p>
<h2>Making it stick</h2>
<p>Cameron has to persuade three extremely diverse groups that this deal will benefit both the UK and the EU. And there are serious questions about whether it will be possible to please all the other 27 heads of state, Cameron’s own MPs and the British public with any solution. Each group has deeply contrasting demands. </p>
<p>Cameron’s 27 European counterparts need to be convinced that this is a deal that they want to ratify at their next meeting on February 18.</p>
<p>The document makes it clear that no member state has the right to discriminate against EU citizens based on their nationality. But it seems that Poland and a group of other eastern European countries may think that what the UK has in mind does indeed look like discrimination. These countries may feel that these measures are specifically aimed at their own nationals living in the UK. </p>
<p>Cameron also needs to please the “reluctant inners” within his party – these are the Conservatives who could be convinced to support remaining in the EU if the UK’s position in the partnership has been sufficiently reformed. They need to feel that this document truly represents that reform. This group is likely to be pleased by the deal on competitiveness and economic governance but continue to have reservations about EU migration. </p>
<p>Cameron may face opposition from the home secretary, Theresa May, who has demanded <a href="http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article4680230.ece">tougher measures</a> than those set out in this document. May wants more stringent rules on who is even allowed to enter the country at all, let alone who can claim state support. To win the referendum, Cameron would need all the support he can get from his party. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Ljlu8Jd0D-8?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>And once the prime minister has passed these first two obstacles, he will have to face the British public. Those who oppose EU migration are unlikely to be reassured by this document. Freedom of movement is the fundamental issue here.</p>
<p>Immigration appears to be at the top of the British public’s EU negotiation wish list – <a href="https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/12/10/eu-polling-soft-leave/">52% of people</a> include greater control of borders and immigration from the EU in their top three issues. And 46% list limits on EU migrant benefits in their top three negotiation issues.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"694484267015995393"}"></div></p>
<p>Securing agreement in the next European Council meeting is important in order to set the motions for the referendum in June. Cameron’s rationale is that it would be better to hold this referendum while the government is still popular rather than waiting any further into the electoral cycle.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"694484167753613312"}"></div></p>
<p>The Tusk deal represents a good compromise and demonstrates that the EU is willing to work hard to keep Britain in the union. It is up to Cameron to persuade all three key groups that this deal represents substantive reform of the UK’s EU membership to the benefit of the UK – but more broadly to the benefit of the EU too.</p>
<p><em>This article is also published on the <a href="http://ukandeu.ac.uk/a-deal-half-sealed-eu-plan-waters-down-some-of-britains-demands/">UK in a Changing Europe</a> blog</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/54063/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Sofia Vasilopoulou receives funding from the ESRC Future leaders scheme and the UK in a Changing
Europe Commissioning Fund.</span></em></p>Heavy on warm wishes, light on concrete action is the outcome of negotiations that could determine the future of Europe.Sofia Vasilopoulou, Lecturer, Department of Politics, University of YorkLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.