was it the one about Cameron or about Orban?
Let's talk about Cameron case first. The root problem was not just Margaret Thatcher but John Major and Tony Blair too, wanting to enlarge the EU. At that time, all members had the veto power to protect its national interest. The reason that Major got the opt-out clauses was because he would have exercised his veto. After enlargment, we lost the veto power. We went into Maastricht with our eyes open. I didn't see much protestations then.
If it were Merkel instead of Cameron asking for the same concessions, what would Cameron have said? It wasn't the fault of Donald Tusk or Jean-Claude Junker, it was the decision of all heads of 27 countries.
You can read more what would have happened if remain won the referendum:
link:
2015–2016 United Kingdom renegotiation of European Union membership - Wikipedia
The so-called "emergency brake mechanism" would have allowed member countries to limit access to in-work benefits for new EU immigrants. This would have needed the agreement of the European Parliament and the UK would need the agreement of a majority of other governments through approval in the Foreign Affairs Council (of Member States).[6]
Under existing rules, other EU citizens could ultimately claim most of the same benefits as a UK national. Some of the benefits were subject to a test on "Right to Reside"[7] for which EU citizens would almost certainly qualify. Most benefits also required Habitual Residence[8] which means that for the most EU Citizens they will have to wait three months before claiming Jobseeker's Allowance, Child benefit or Child tax credit.[9][10]
Under the emergency brake (which needed first to be established in EU law),[6] the European Council (of national Heads of Government) could have authorised a country that is experiencing migrant flows of "exceptional magnitude" to restrict benefits for new migrants for four years (with migrants starting with no entitlement then gradually gaining rights to benefits).[6] These restrictions could be kept in place for up to seven years but could be used only once.[6][3] In this case "established in EU law" means the EU Commission proposing draft legislation for approval by the European Parliament. Subsequently, member states [but specifically the UK] could have requested and applied it to migrants reasonably quickly, with the Commission already expressing that they believed the UK would be justified in doing so.[3]
The "Red Card"
[edit]
The "red card" would have allowed a member of the Council of the European Union with the support of 15 other members to return a recommendation to the European Parliament for further changes. This is not a veto as EU politicians could still go ahead if they judge that they have addressed the concerns raised by the "red card",[11] which is named after the penalty card used in football.
Cameron backed the "red card" as a means to support the EU's principle of subsidiarity, which he believed was not fully realised.[12] In this way the "red card" is intended for groups of countries to block or reform EU rules where they think it is their job, rather than that of the EU, to make laws on a particular subject. The "red card" would have joined the existing "yellow card" (which has been triggered twice) and the "orange card" (which has never been used).[13] The use of the "red card" would have required the backing of 55% of governments at the council, which is slightly less than is required to approve directives – which is 55% of all countries and votes representing 65% of the EU's population.[14]
Deporting EU migrants
[edit]
Free movement of people is an important tenet of the European Union and enshrined in primary law in treaties.[15] The EU deal would have subtly changed the free movement rules to make it easier for countries to deport migrants from other EU countries. This would have been achieved by "beefing up" the exceptions to the general rule that EU citizens can live and work where they choose in the EU.[16]
National governments have a carefully restricted ability to restrict the free movement of people about the EU.[17] Once a citizen lives in another EU country the threshold of reason for the local government to remove them becomes progressively higher.[16] The changes planned in the EU-deal were subtle changes of wording to permit governments to take in to account where migrants' behaviour is "likely" to represent a threat, rather than that it "does",[3] and would have allowed governments to take in to more account a person's past behaviour rather than just their present behaviour.
The consensus from the EU leadership is that the planned changes would have given nations more power to deport criminals and prevent their return[18] but not necessarily restrict movement for other reasons.
Child benefit
[edit]
The deal would have made no changes to the principle that child benefit should be paid to citizens no matter where their children reside. However following the deal governments would have been able to adjust the payment they make to reflect the standard of living in the country the child lives and the amount of child benefit that would normally be paid in that country.[19]
Although many people have questioned the idea of paying child benefit for children living in other countries,[20] it is a logical consequence of the EU's principal of non-discrimination – as migrants are more likely to have children in another country and would therefore be discriminated against by restricting those benefits.[19] If the changes to law had been passed to reflect this agreed change it would have been up to the Court of Justice to clarify if it is legal or there are any unintended consequences if it was subsequently challenged.
"Ever closer union"
In the EU deal, there was a statement specifically exempting the UK from "ever closer union". The precise phrasing of the aspiration, which was in the preamble of the EU's founding treaty[21] and every treaty since is "ever closer union of the peoples [of Europe]". The phrase has symbolic political status but it has little or no legal effect in any of the treaties and thus UK's exemption from it is equally symbolic.[22] The deal explicitly said that the presence of the "ever closer union" phrase in the treaties does not of itself grant the EU any specific competences or powers.
www.archives.gov
