EU Referendum : The Deal

(Pic : Reuters via BBC)

As you're probably all more than aware, last Saturday the Prime Minister, EU Commission and heads of government of other EU member states (EU Council) reached agreement on a renegotiated UK membership of the EU – you can read the text of the agreement here (pdf).

In addition, the date for the In-Out Referendum has been set for Thursday 23^rd June, seven weeks after the National Assembly and Police & Crime Commissioner elections. There'll inevitably be concerns - like those expressed by Peter Black AM (Lib Dem, South Wales West) - that the referendum campaign will overshadow the devolved elections.

What was agreed?

Economic Governance – Measures to deepen economic and monetary union will be voluntary to non-eurozone members (like the UK, Sweden and Denmark) and, in turn, non-eurozone members won't place any obstacles on deepening monetary union. "Discrimination" based on currency or whether a company/business is within the eurozone will be prohibited. EU laws relating to banking or the euro will also only be applicable to eurozone members, while non-eurozone members won't have to "bail out" eurozone members either in an emergency. This provides a measure of protection to London's financial service sector.

Competitiveness – There's a commitment to lower the administrative burden imposed by the EU on businesses in order to strengthen the internal market. Unnecessary legislation will be repealed (something the EU are already doing), while the EU will commit to an "active and ambitious trade policy".

Sovereignty – The UK will no longer be bound by the EU's commitment to "ever closer union"/political integration and this will be incorporated into any future treaties/treaty changes. However, no changes to the EU's areas of competence, or re-patriation of areas of competence to member states, is proposed. The EU Council will also be forced to discuss and refine new EU laws if 55% of member state parliaments reject them.

Benefit restrictions for EU migrants – EU rules will be changed to introduce restrictions on new child benefits claims being exported to a member state other than where a worker resides. Member states will also have the power to restrict free movement and taper access to in-work benefits for EU migrants if there's an influx of workers "of an exceptional magnitude over an extended period of time" - but it's limited to seven years.

Free movement restrictions - Citizens of new EU member states following any future enlargement may not have automatic right to freedom of movement, and transitional arrangments may be introduced. Member states will also be able to block free movement of people from outside the EU if they marry an EU citizen ("in a sham marriage") and will also be able to "protect themselves against individuals whose personal conduct is likely to represent a genuine or serious threat to public policy or security".

What does this mean?

It's an agreement/decision not a treaty, so it's not 100% legally-binding as far as I know - though the EU Commission have agreed to change EU regulations and laws where applicable. A "two-speed Europe" is now an entrenched fact of life : an increasingly political, as well as fiscal, union between eurozone members, with a detached membership who want to be "in the EU, but not run by it".

Some of the main bugbears of soft-eurosceptics – such as "ever closer union" and restrictions on benefits for EU migrants - have made it into the deal; but it's unlikely this agreement will satisfy harder-eurosceptics within the Conservatives in particular, and I doubt this will make much difference to public attitudes. Aside from the benefit restrictions, I don't believe the public at large will understand what the deal means. I barely do.

Although trade is one of the more important aspects of the EU, the UK's membership is about much more than economics. There are issues of sovereignty and national identity, which were partly addressed in the agreement, but there are also social and cultural ties – ranging from minor examples such as the Erasmus+, more significant and impactful ones like tourism and living full-time abroad, while there are also more abstract ones like political stability and peace.

For Wales, the key parts of the agreement are provisions relating to "discrimination" against non-eurozone members. The EU is one of our single largest export markets, and having some assurances that Wales won't miss out because we're not in the eurozone – not that we were missing out anyway – should go some way to easing fears about being theoretically sidelined in a "two-speed Europe".

I doubt we're going to see where AMs, particularly Tory AMs (spoke too soon), stand on the issue until the Fifth Assembly; but with the predicted influx of UKIP AMs in May, the debates they'll inevitably have on this promise to be more interesting than previous ones.

The major change put forward in this referendum is, obviously, the possibility of an EU withdrawal. Claims that the UK would sink into the abyss following any out vote don't have much to stand on, though there would be a short to medium-term hit and some moderate disruption while the dust settles – exactly the same position Wales would be in if we became independent of the UK.

At its crux, the UK can thrive outside the EU or thrive within it. Which choice we make depends on how we view the UK's role in the world.

Will the UK (and Wales) remains part of the world's largest trading bloc and closest thing the world has to a stable pan-national system of government - despite the crap that comes with it like the skull-crushing bureaucracy and policy let downs?

Or does the UK attempt to become a fully-sovereign, but relatively minor, global financial power that has the freedom to chart its own course - a course dominated and shaped by primarily English interests?