Renegotiating Britain's EU membership could be trickier than expected | The Economist
Page 1 sur 2
Brexit war games
All latest updates
Renegotiating Britain's EU membership could be
trickier than expected
A mock-up suggests it may be hard for David Cameron to do a deal in Brussels
Jan 26th 2016 | Britain
THE recent messages from Downing Street have been
optimistic. Careful diplomacy is paving the way for David
Cameron to renegotiate Britain’s European Union membership
at a summit in Brussels on February 18th-19th. That should
enable the prime minister to call (and win) his EU referendum
in late June. Yet the outcome of mock “war games” staged on
January 25th by Open Europe, a London-based Eurosceptic
think-tank, was less reassuring.
The games brought together former EU leaders to test what deal Britain might secure. Sir Malcolm Rifkind, a
former Tory foreign secretary representing the British side, noted that nobody wanted Brexit. Yet even
reforms that had seemed uncontroversial proved less so in debate. Responding to Sir Malcolm’s demand for
legal safeguards for countries not in the euro, several ministers said it would be absurd to give Britain a veto
over euro-zone countries’ policies. Others called such concerns hypothetical: Aart Jan de Geus, a former Dutch
employment minister, said Sir Malcolm was seeking an umbrella when there was no rain. Even Britain’s desire
for an exemption from the EU’s goal of “ever closer union” caused some resentment.
Yet this was mild compared with the response to Sir Malcolm’s demand, echoing Mr Cameron’s, for the right
to block in-work welfare benefits for EU migrants for four years. Such discrimination was contrary to the
treaty principle of free movement of labour, fumed Karel de Gucht, a former trade commissioner representing
the EU institutions. It would require treaty change that France was not ready for, said Noelle Lenoir, a former
French EU minister. There was little hint of compromise, even though Sir Malcolm suggested that up to 9% of
British voters would switch from In to Out without a deal limiting benefits.
The audience’s conclusion was that it may be tougher to complete the negotiations in Brussels than Mr
Cameron hopes. Many thought his prospective deal could therefore slip beyond February, with the referendum
taking place in September or later. Enrico Letta, a former prime minister representing Italy, warned that
http://www.economist.com/node/21689235/print
26/01/2016
Renegotiating Britain's EU membership could be trickier than expected | The Economist
Page 2 sur 2
holding a referendum during the summer, when Europe’s migration crisis will be at its most acute, would help
the Out side.
If this was bad enough, the second part of the war games, a mock-up of how the EU would respond to a vote
for Brexit, was worse. Lord Lamont, a former Tory chancellor of the exchequer representing Britain, argued
that an “amicable divorce” was in everybody’s interests. Britain could negotiate a trade deal similar to
Canada’s, liberating it from EU rules, including free movement of people. He even volunteered to pay
something into the EU budget.
Yet other countries were unimpressed. John Bruton, a former prime minister representing Ireland, said Brexit
would be seen as an “unfriendly act” and would threaten the peace process in Northern Ireland (Enda Kenny,
Ireland’s real prime minister, made a similar point after meeting Mr Cameron on the same day). Steffen
Kampeter, a former deputy finance minister representing Germany, said Britain would not be allowed to
cherry-pick the benefits of membership without the costs. Mr de Gucht noted that a new trade deal would be
negotiated by the European Commission and national governments with minimal British input. He and others
added that they would try to shift Europe’s financial centre from London.
The starkest warning came from Leszek Balcerowicz, a former deputy prime minister representing Poland. He
said the priority would be to deter populists in other countries who wanted to copy Brexit. For this reason
Britain would be punished by its partners even if that seemed to be against their interests. Mr Cameron’s
negotiations may be hard, but they are a picnic compared with what he would face were he to lose his
referendum.
http://www.economist.com/node/21689235/print
26/01/2016