Despite reports earlier this month in The Guardian and elsewhere that the much hoped-for deal in February would be off the cards, it seems there is gathering optimism that a deal at the special February summit will be met. Despite the remaining challenges in the negotiations, there is much support from both sides to find a deal. Meanwhile, in Britain Tory Ministers begin to take sides as the referendum looks ever more likely to take place in June.

The FT made a report on Friday last week, with Jean-Claude Juncker expressly stating that he had confidence a deal would be reached by the February summit of the European Heads of State meeting (the European Council), which would be “not a compromise, a solution; a permanent solution in February”. With a deal successfully reached in February, it will be possible for Prime Minister David Cameron to hold the referendum on a British exit from the Union in June, as opposed to the less preferable September date, by which time it is feared that another refugee crisis will be in full-swing and British uncertainty over membership will have increased again. It was also reported in The Guardian even if a deal is not reached at the February summit, another emergency summit could be called by Council President Donald Tusk, considering he has the powers to call a summit at any time, and it appears that Prime Minister Cameron has earned enough political capital across Europe to warrant their support over the issue. Should PM Cameron have to wait until the March summit, there will not be sufficient time to announce and plan the referendum before the end of June, and with July written off and politics closed for business in August, September will be the next possible date.

By all accounts there certainly has been a significant boost in optimism to win a deal by the next summit; EU capitals have been told to expect a negotiating text by early February, which whilst not resulting in immediate treaty-changes, will be legally binding, and satisfy PM Cameron’s demands, according to European Commission representative Jonathon Faull. The deal, having been agreed at a forum such as the European Council, will thus be international law and thus legally binding, a manoeuvre that the Danish and Irish have also employed in the past. The FT reports that Faull spoke to the European Parliament on Thursday, telling them “there’s a very good prospect that agreement will be reached rather soon”, elaborating that there was a strong political will to resolve the issues before them. According to the Guardian who spoke to some British diplomats engaged in the negotiations, the strong will is linked to the 45-minute speech given by the British Prime Minister at the Council summit in December, which they believe left many European leaders believing in the Prime Minister’s good-will and desire to maintain positive relationship between the Union and Britain. It’s interesting to note that the European Parliament invited David Cameron to speak before them in the chamber, and argue his case for the reforms he seeks; so far, unlike Polish Prime Minister Beata Szydło, he has declined to acquiesce to their request – a further sign of the British politician’s distaste for European politics.

Despite the good will, there are still many reported issues which are holding up a final agreement, central to them is the conflict over the curbing of migration flows to Britain. The migration issue is the subject of intense discussions between Whitehall, Brussels and other European capitals. However with PM Cameron’s statement in Budapest earlier in January that he is open to other options (by all accounts after Viktor Orbán gave him a stern talking to), which has allowed British and EU diplomats to begin searching for other resolutions. The Guardian reports that an emergency brake on all immigration from other member-states is being considered; the activation of the mechanism would require the Commission’s approval and all the states in the EU would be able to activate it. Another suggestion has been made by German Chancellor Angela Merkel at a press conference in Bucharest on 7th Jan, calling for an instead 1-year ban; this has the support of the German political establishment and was considered alongside German Minister for Employment, Andrea Nahles, and the Mayor of Hamburg Olaf Scholz. British diplomats are concerned that this would be considered a significant climb-down from the 4-year proposal, and are thus sceptical – all the same, there is significant desire to be able to send David Cameron home with a legitimate message that he has achieved his objective on migration.

There is some disagreement over the rest of the proposals; the FT reported on Friday that the remaining proposals are certainly more easily solved, citing the competitiveness demand and striking of Britain’s name from the “ever-closer-union” clause in the Treaty of Lisbon as easy to deal with. On the other hand, the Guardian reported on the same day that despite these other issues being easier than migration, should by no means be considered easy negotiations. This comes after both British Ministers and President Juncker stating that these other areas of discussion are by no means simple. With the constant reiterations that the deal is close, I am a little sceptical. Of course everyone wants a deal to be reached, that’s usually the end goal of any negotiation, and both parties have an interest in seeing this reach a positive end. However, that is mainly what people involved in the negotiations have been saying – “everyone is optimistic and wants to see a positive end to the negotiations” “everyone wants everyone to be happy”. Well, when considering that there is still significant disagreement on the major issue of migration, and there hasn’t been a speck of text in the media over whether the eurozone-non-eurozone relationship has been cleared up, or the powers of national parliaments, it seems a little strange, don’t you think? Sure, people seem to be saying that an agreement will be found by next month, but there doesn’t seem to be much sign of one, beyond the two fairly meaningless demands over “ever-closer-union” and competition. Despite Chancellor Merkel’s backing, even a 1-year ban on in-work benefits for migrants attracted some negative noises from 2 eurozone nations, according to inside sources. And even with the Commission’s already-existing proposal to alter the access of migrant workers to in-work benefits, which are likely to be proposed in March, I still feel like all this is a façade, a ploy by those involved to convince observers that the negotiations are proceeding smoothly, after fears arose a couple of weeks ago that the referendum would in fact be pushed back to September.

Chancellor backs Britain in Europe

Meanwhile, back in Britain, Chancellor George Osborne made his clearest signal that he supports Britain in Europe; this news comes and the Telegraph reports major Conservative Ministers still remaining on the fence and refusing to declare for either side. On Thursday, George Osborne told Newsnight that he believes most Britons would want to remain in a reformed Europe, saying “if we achieve that [a reformed relationship with the Union], then we will finally have put at ease that often fractious relationship between Britain and Europe”. Nevertheless, in true Tory style, he in the same breath insisted that he was a eurosceptic and would not rule out campaigning for Britain to leave, should the negotiations go poorly. Now to me there are a few points to be made here; first of all, anyone who thinks the negotiations could still end ‘negatively’ is deceiving themselves into thinking anything major is being negotiated. Sure, there are things that may well require treaty change, but the PM will walk away from Brussels with something – something that is enough for him to say he has achieved his aims and can now in good conscious give a glowing recommendation that Britain remains in the Union. And of course George Osborne will cling to his coattails and follow him. There’s been too much stock put into these reforms for either side to pull away from a vaguely positive outcome without being badly singed. It’s a damn shame really because if the PM hadn’t put a bloody time-limit on it and had been serious about getting genuine reforms, something meaningful really could have come out of this. I remember reading an article in the Guardian recently, asking me to imagine if the Prime Minister had actually attempted to tackle the real problems in Europe – lack of democracy, unnecessary law-making and an oversized and inefficient bureaucracy. Alas, whatever Prime Minister Cameron comes away from Brussels with will mean little to the average European, and will probably stall the European project as opposed to enhance it. And another thing to notice is that the Chancellor is desperate not to be associated with those crazy europhile-types. “I am a eurosceptic, I promise, I am, there’s no way I’d see the obvious benefits of the EU”.

I was going to admit that perhaps there is a genuine fault-line between the British people’s thinking on Europe and other Europeans. I mean look at the Chancellor’s statement. And the Prime Minister has been doing this strange dance to tame both wings of the Tory party since things really got underway at the end of last year. The FAZ said in a recent article that Britain is the least integrated countries into the Union, in the context of its opt-outs, special laws, and everything else that Britain has managed to negotiate to give is an utterly unique place in the Union. However, I’m still of the mind that in fact it is Britain’s elites – its major businessmen to some degree, but mainly its politicians, bureaucrats and statesmen who really bear some grudge against the EU, as it being a symbol of Britain’s decline in the world. Perhaps Osborne’s statement was directed more at Tory parliamentarians than voters. On the other hand, perhaps the chasm in thought between Britons and Europeans is true, but has been manufactured by those selfsame elites. With major Tory cabinet ministers (Sajid Javid, Boris Johnson or Theresa May for example) still refusing to show any sympathy for one side of the debate or the other, it seems that all top conservatives are still playing at conservative party management. Meanwhile, Chris Grayling, holding the more minor post of Leader of the House of Commons, recently published an article in The Telegraph advocating a break with Europe, in the first sign of clear Tory hostility to the institution of Europe. Even allies of David Cameron have stressed that a major incident, such as a clear deterioration in the refugee crisis, could sway Tory opinion away from the EU once more. It has proven for many that the whole foray into European reform has been a poor effort to manage outliers in Cameron’s “One-Nation” Toryism, which could cost him the previous stability of his party.

Sources: The Guardian, The Telegraph, FT, FAZ