Open Europe report on reforming EU free movement: Make it fair to keep it free

Open Europe this morning published in full the already much cited report on how Cameron can win on EU migration without sacrificing free movement – trailed on the front page of Sunday Times yesterday and featured on BBC News at Ten and the Today Programme, amongst others.

The basic idea is that instead of putting an outright cap on the number of EU migrants who can come here, David Cameron should look elsewhere: Let free movement and its benefits stand, but bring back control over who can access in-work benefits in the UK, restricting EU migrants’ access to tax credits and social housing for an initial period.

It would reduce pressures on both UK wages and local services. At present tax credits provide a big boost to low income wages – sometimes doubling a workers wage. Under OE’s proposal, in some cases, without access to in-work benefits EU migrants’ take home pay would therefore drop below that which they would receive in their home states, meaning that the move would no longer make financial sense. It would also redefine EU free movement to mean the movement of “workers” – not access to benefits – as originally intended. We have a lot of figures to back up our argument that tax credits contribute to the income pull factor to come to the UK – and an annex which elaborates at length about into the Spanish, Bulgarian and Polish income tax, insurance and welfare systems (all done in-house, mind you, Cyrillic alphabet and everything).

A few quick points: First, we clearly note the trade-off: free movement is a net benefit to the UK economy and this would be a way to save it. On Today this morning, John Humphreys tried to frame the debate as us against Ken Clarke, “being on opposite ends of the debate”. The opposite end of the debate would be those who want to end free movement. Our proposal is a pragmatic one which aims to strike the right balance between an open economy and democratic control.

Secondly, Clarke’s substantive point of criticism was that the proposals would be “totally discriminatory”. Why should an EU migrant working in the UK get less, in benefits and tax credits, than a UK worker doing the same job?

• As we argued on Today, the UK’s system is much less contribution-based than most other EU countries. The UK can choose to either move to a full contribution-based system, or change EU rules to better accommodate for 28 different social and welfare systems.
• The UK’s tax credits are effectively social policy – not tax policy. There is no direct link between how much tax you pay and how much you get back in tax credits. They were designed to help UK workers back into work – it is not discrimination to say that these benefits, designed to help make work pay for UK workers, should not be open to the entire EU workforce from the outset. Free movement was never meant to be mutual and unrestricted to other countries’ full social policies.
• If our proposal is discriminatory, taking the argument to its logical conclusion, should we extend tax credits to migrants from outside the EU as well from day one? We look forward to hearing Ken Clarke or others making that particular argument.

This is a fair proposal to try and square the principle of free movement with differing social welfare systems across the EU, and the fact that the UK’s system is far more open than other systems - this proposal will help to reinstate some trust in free movement.

Responding to our report on Today, the Polish ambassador to the UK, Witold Sobkow said that the report has a “sound analytical basis” but argued that migrants don’t make a sophisticated spreadsheet analysis of income differentials before moving to the UK. That may or may not be the case but they will consider in broad terms how much better off they – and in many cases their families – will be by moving to the UK as migration is not a decision most people make lightly.

It stands to reason that state support will be part of that equation even if the exact level of things like housing benefit is very hard to pin down before moving. As our analysis shows, under our proposals, it would no longer make financial sense for someone to move from the average Polish wage to earn the UK minimum wage due to the withdrawal of the right to immediate in-work benefits – it stands to reason that this will impact on potential migrants’ decisions. But without, of course, taking away the basic right to come here to work.

Everyone take a deep breath: suggestions Merkel ready to accept Brexit following free movement row are wide of the mark

Der Spiegel reports that German Chancellor Angela Merkel warned David Cameron at last month’s EU summit that she would no longer try to keep the UK in the EU if Cameron sought to impose quotas or a cap on workers from other EU countries, as opposed to changing the rules around EU migrants’ access to benefits. The magazine also reported that the German Chancellery and Foreign Ministry fear that, for the first time, Cameron is pushing the UK towards a “point of no return” in terms of its EU membership and that a UK exit is “possible”. But there’s no reason to be get overly excited though.

• This was a report from one magazine which didn’t include any direct quotes from Merkel, but merely quoted unnamed sources. Moreover, as Sky News' Faisal Islam points out, the report isn't exactly front page either... its on page 36 of the print edition.
• The reported comments were specifically about reports in the UK media about Number 10 possibly considering putting outright caps on the number of EU migrants who can come to Britain to work, either via quotas or a points-based system. So one speculative media report leading to another.
• As we’ve argued repeatedly, there are two elements to free movement: volume – how many EU migrants come to the UK every year. And fairness: who can access what benefits and when. That Merkel doesn’t support an end to the basic right for EU migrants to come to the UK to work isn’t surprising at all. It’s been the German government position for ages. Stefan Seibert, Merkel’s spokesperson this morning re-stated Germany’s commitment to “the general principle of free movement”.

However, within that there’s a lot of scope for change and plenty of EU reforms that could fly in Berlin. Remember, the Bundestag will this week vote on a number of proposals aimed at tightening EU migrants’ access to benefits, including re-entry bans for those migrants that abuse of the German welfare system.

It’s interesting that since the stories in the UK media about a points-based system or quotas for EU migrants, FAZ and the Sunday Times note that the UK government is now looking to make its EU free movement proposals “Germany-compatible”. Also, UK Chancellor George Osborne told the BBC this morning,

“It was never envisaged that you would have such large numbers of people coming, people coming who don’t have job offers, people who move on to our benefits system…We are going to do this in a calm and rational way, but the British people want this addressed.”

The “job offer” part is interesting – the right to move to another EU country without a specific job offer hasn’t always been there. However, note there’s nothing about a cap – what the Der Spiegel report was about.

Similarly, at Downing Street’s briefing to journalists today, Cameron’s spokeswoman said:

“When the founding fathers established the European Union and introduced the principle of free movement, it was about labour and how you integrate the countries of the single market. The mass migration that we have seen with new countries joining, the impact on countries like the UK, the free movement to claim benefit – these are areas that have evolved and need to be addressed.”

There’s the point about wider “impact” but, again, the main focal point is benefits.

Which may suggest that No 10 remains primarily committed to looking at “fairness” – not actually ending free movement per se.

So only tweaks then? Not at all. Open Europe has today published a new pamphlet by Professor Damian Chalmers and Open Europe Research Director Stephen Booth which argues that the basic right to go and work anywhere in the EU should stand – on the whole, free movement remains a clear benefit to the UK. However, national governments should be able to limit EU migrants’ access to out-of-work and in-work benefits, social housing and publicly funded apprenticeships until after three years.

Incidentally, Der Spiegel did not claim that Merkel was now ‘ready to accept’ the UK exiting the EU, as some UK media outlets have reported. Instead, she now considers Brexit “möglich”, which translates as “possible”, which is more along the lines that it is something she fears.

In other words, whilst certainly a strong indicator of the mood music in Germany and the UK, on specific substance, this is much less of a story than the headlines suggest.

EU and Tory madness – but what has changed?

In Britain, “Europe” as a political issue has pretty much gone mad over the last few weeks. There has been a lot of rhetoric, but where are we in terms of substance?

Free movement: When asked about reports in UK media that David Cameron is considering proposing quotas for EU migrants, Angela Merkel told the Sunday Times: “Germany will not tamper with the fundamental principles of free movement in the EU”. This has always been the German position (Wolfgang Schäuble today echoed those comments). She added, “I spoke to David Cameron and we agreed to assess the [the upcoming ECJ verdict on EU migrants’ access to benefits] together. These are controversial issues that are debated also in our country. I am of the opinion that they need to be resolved in a way that tackles abuse.”

Hot potato factor: Medium to high. As we’ve always said, changes to the EU’s “fairness” regime – who can access what benefits and when – is fully possible. Caps will be much trickier. Yes, the politics around EU free movement have become massively complicated, with Tory politicians seemingly talking up the need to cap numbers – even though we may sense a bit of back-peddling on the more aggressive rhetoric (Michael Fallon’s comments notwithstanding). Remember, we have not yet seen a concrete proposal from No 10 and in terms of the basic positions in Europe, Cameron’s chances of achieving reform in this area are very much unchanged. This remains a moving target though and much can happen.

European Arrest Warrant and the “block” opt-in: This is the decision by the Coalition government to take advantage of a quirk in the Lisbon Treaty which allows the UK top opt out of around 130 EU police and crime measures, and then choose to opt back in to all, some or none of these measures, which means accepting ECJ jurisdiction over these laws. The opt out will take effect on 1 December – but the Coalition wants the Commons to vote to opt back into a package of 33 laws, including the controversial European Arrest Warrant.

Hot potato factor: Medium. Up to 100 Tory MPs have said they want to rebel and vote against opting in to the EAW. This is a debate that has been going on for some time and the big question was always how many MPs would vote against opting back in to the EAW. Theresa May and Michael Gove are now trying to minimise the rebellion and Lib Dem and Labour MPs will vote with the Tory leadership so the measure will almost certainly pass.

The £1.7bn cash demand: Due to changes to the way the size of the economy is calculated (ESA 95 NOT ESA 10), the European Commission has asked the UK to cough up another £1.7bn by 1 December – freakily coinciding with the bloc opt-in deadline. Cameron has vowed not to pay the money by then.

Hot potato factor: Off the charts. This is simply shocking. From the DG Budget people within the Commission not being able to explain where the changes come from – in fact briefing media the wrong information (out of ignorance not spin) – to officials in Brussels, London and elsewhere not getting the political explosiveness of the issue to Cameron seemingly being taken completely by surprise. Depending on how this ends, it has the potential to go down in history as one of the most mismanaged episodes in the EU, ever. Cameron can hardly pay up by December 1, but it’s also not clear whether he can block it (the decision will be taken by a qualified majority vote – see upcoming blog post), meaning that without a face-saving gesture - which, given the stakes, is still fully possible - the stage is set for a proper political crisis.

This is a new development, and in the short-term, far more unpredictable than the block opt-in or free movement debate.

Cameron will update the House of Commons today – it could be a long afternoon.

The Farage Paradox part II: Support for EU membership at highest level since 1991

Back in May, we pointed out the so-called 'Farage Paradox' - even as the party came first in the European elections in the UK and Farage himself was widely seen as having bested Nick Clegg in their TV debates, support for leaving the EU had fallen to its lowest level for a long time according to Ipsos-MORI with 37% in favour of Brexit and 54% in support of staying in.

A few months later and UKIP is still riding high in the polls with a victory in the Clacton by-election under its belt and with the Tories on the run in Rochester and Strood - amid all kinds of noise around EU migration. However, on the wider EU question, support for membership has climbed even higher - today's Ipsos-MORI poll has support for membership at 56% - its highest since 1991!! - with support for leaving on 36%.

It's not entirely easy to nail down the drivers behind the trend - even the UK's public defeat over the appointment of Jean-Claude Juncker as European Commission President hasn't reversed it but one possibility could be that as the prospect of exit becomes more real, especially in the wake of the Scottish referendum, people are more likely to go with the 'better the devil you know' option. Another explanation is that Farage is good at stirring up support in concentrated parts of the country, but his divisive rhetoric turns others off. A feel-good factor over the economy (through as we've argued before, this can cut both ways) combined with increased uncertainty around the world - making the status quo look safer and club membership more attractive - could be other reasons.

Either way, it shows that even as UKIP find a way of tapping into disenchantment with the EU and mainstream UK politics, they are failing to convince  people that they have the right remedies and this risks derailing the broader 'out campaign, as the pro-Bexit Tory MP Michael Fabricant has warned:

"The out team will be very different, with no leader who commands popular support. Before you can even make the case for Britain becoming a mid-Atlantic economic hub, freed from the shackles of Brussels diktats, the Eurosceptics will be all over the place. No clear leader, and angry looking grey men who have been arguing the toss on Europe for years, will fail to impress. Yes, Nigel Farage is clearly the most charismatic Eurosceptic in years, but does anyone really imagine Farage being the Alex Salmond of the out campaign? Would he be persuasive enough to seduce a nation?"

However, it is worth bearing in mind that other polls have slightly different outcomes. Today's YouGov poll for the Times' red box showed lower levels of support for EU membership - support for membership is roughly the same under their 'major changes' scenario as under Ipsos-Mori's status quo scenario (YouGov's status quo option assumes renegotiation was attempted but failed to secure even modest changes, so can't be directly compared with the Ipsos-MORI one).

This shows that even if some polls suggest a majority of Brits would vote to stay in no matter what, EU reform and renegotiation remains by far the best option for any UK government. 

As has been noted before, that's why some Better Off Outers are now starting to fear that long sought after In/Out referendum - in itself an ironic development. 

Barroso lets his hair down - and British media loves it

Would the UK have zero influence outside the EU? 

Outgoing European Commission President José Manuel Barroso is in London, and he has made a few interesting remarks about the Tories, Brexit, EU free movement and Grant Shapps. Wading into the most intense debate on EU migration in the UK since 1066, he has really hit the headlines. 

However, Barroso no longer has any real say over decisions in the EU - it's Juncker's show now, and he has made addressing the UK's concerns a key priority, although it remains very much an open game. Also, remember, the bulk of Cameron's renegotiation won't be with the Commission - it'll primarily be with member states (though having the Commission on-side will certainly help). 

In any case, Barroso told the BBC's Andrew Marr Show yesterday:

"So far the British government has not presented a proposal, a concrete proposal [on reform of EU free movement rules]. There are ideas floating, there are rumours. I cannot comment on specific suggestions that have not yet been presented. What I can tell you is that any kind of arbitrary cap seems to me to be not in conformity with the European rules."

Barroso is of course right - restricting the number of EU workers coming to the UK, via quotas, would be illegal under EU rules - as we argued in our recent flash analysis and most people agree on. The question is whether changes to these rules are possible - this is a big discussion which we've looked at here. However, Barroso also tried to strike a more conciliatory tone when he stressed that there are "widespread concerns in the UK and elsewhere about abuse of free movement rights" and further changes could be made to address them, although "changes to [EU migrants' access to benefits] need all countries to agree."

Barroso had some less well-targetted comments, claiming for example, that the UK would be "irrelevant" and "have zero influence" outside the EU, while also appearing to link EU membership to Cameron's ability to fight the Ebola virus.

At an event this morning, Barroso was also asked about remarks made by Conservative Party Chairman Grant Shapps, who was sent out yesterday to dismiss Barroso's comments, calling the outgoing European Commission President “an unelected bureaucrat”. Barroso - now clearly free to let his hair down - went all in:

“Since I was 29 years old, I was elected in my country…I don’t know who this gentleman is, but certainly he has not more democratic legitimacy than I have.” 

Which begs the question, if Barroso doesn't know who Shapps is, how can he comment on the man's electoral record? Anyway, it allowed the Tories to play the 'we stand up to Brussels card'.

Meet the new Belgian Finance Minister, an ally on EU reform

Good news for EU reform keeps coming from Belgium. After the publication of the new coalition agreement, which we've analysed here, it has today been announced that Johan Van Overtveldt will be the country's new Finance Minister. A former editor-in-chief of Belgian business magazine Trends, he was elected to the European Parliament in May with the New Flemish Alliance (N-VA) - Belgium's biggest political party and a member of the UK Conservatives' ECR group.

Van Overtveldt's pro-EU reform credentials are beyond doubt.

Last month, he said in an interview that he wanted "no political union" (see the headline in the picture), and added:

"We need a more social Europe, but first the monetary union should be anchored on a healthy basis. When national economies perform better economically, countries will start taking initiatives which go in a social direction anyway...A uniform European minimum wage, for example, is complete non-sense. It would at least need to differ for each country. A minimum wage is a sovereign competence of member states."

Furthermore, the new Belgian Finance Minister is a strong supporter of a 'capital markets union' - a key item on the agenda of the new EU Financial Services Commissioner, the UK's Lord Hill.

An expert in monetary economics (and a personal acquaintance of the late Nobel Prize winning economist Milton Friedman), Van Overtveldt also has an interesting take on the future of the Eurozone. In 2011, for instance, Open Europe hosted the launch of his book, 'The end of the Euro'. On that occasion, Van Overtveldt said he had "always been a doubter" of the sustainability of the single currency, and added:  

"The only solution for Greece is to leave the euro...in order to save itself and its democracy."

That said, Van Overtveldt has made clear that, despite his scepticism on whether the single currency may ultimately survive, he supports the efforts to keep the eurozone together. The new Belgian Finance Minister is in favour of "more economic powers for Europe", but opposes Eurobonds or fiscal transfers. This sounds very close to Germany's stance.

On banking union, Van Overtveldt wrote in April:

"The single resolution mechanism is too complex and takes too much time in order to be able to take action...The banking union as currently conceived leads to banks in weaker countries to do as much as they can to borrow from banks in stronger countries...Moral hazard is more than ever haunting the eurozone, like the Loch Ness monster."

Importantly, Van Overtveldt has also warned against a “big leap” towards fiscal union in the Eurozone, saying it would effectively create "two European Unions" - and, according to him, effectively lead to the end of the EU. Hence, we can expect the new Belgian Finance Minister to pay good attention to the concerns of the UK and other non-Eurozone countries when it comes to safeguarding the integrity of the single market.

The UK's Lord Hill is approved as EU financial services Commissioner - What next?

The final discussions and votes in the European Parliament's committees over the nominees for the new European Commission are currently taking place with most of the results already in.

As expected, Lord Hill has been approved as new EU Commissioner for financial services by 42 to 16 votes. The vote was on his actual portfolio, meaning that despite some speculation, he wasn't stripped of any of the responsibilities (i.e. ones relating to the banking union).

What does this mean for the UK? 

As we argued here, the appointment of Lord Hill as EU Commissioner for financial services is a victory for the UK - but not a make-or-break issue in the wider context of David Cameron's EU renegotiation strategy. The key negotiations will remain between national governments. We would also caution against drawing too much from Lord Hill's comments in front of the European Parliament - as we noted, this is ultimately an exercise in telling the European Parliament what they wanted to hear and trying to please everyone. The key will be to judge Lord Hill on what he does and how he works with the likes of Frans Timmermans in trying to change the culture of the Commission. Clearly, however, it will be important for Hill to not forget to mind public opinion at home as, for better or worse, he will be seen as some sort of a bellwether for the UK's approach.

What are the other verdicts of the day?

As for the other nominees, Finland's Jyrki Katainen was approved for his role as Vice-President for Jobs, Growth, Investment and Competitiveness by 98 to 52. A surprisingly close vote, possibly reflecting a weaker than expected performance in the hearings from someone of whom many had high expectations but also the fact that he failed to convince the left that he is no longer an arch proponent of the austerity approach.

In spite of all the controversies about his ties to the oil industry and his declaration of financial interests, Spain's candidate Miguel Arias Cañete has been approved as Energy Commissioner by 77 to 48 votes, but may face supervision by Commission Vice-President Frans Timmermans.

France's Pierre Moscovici also got the green light from MEPs as new Commissioner for Economic and Financial Affairs, Taxation and Customs Union by 31 to 15 votes. There may be some less than enthusiastic reactions in the German media tomorrow, so keep an eye out for our daily press summary. 

As expected, MEPs have rejected Slovenia's Alenka Bratušek by an overwhelming 112 to 13 votes. Bratušek had been proposed as Vice-President for Energy Union, but has been judged 'not fit' to be a Commissioner, meaning that she will have to be replaced.

The vote on Valdis Dombrovskis will take place later tonight, but he's also expected to go through.

Therefore, Bratušek is the only real 'victim' of the hearings. In addition, MEPs have also demanded that the Hungarian nominee, Tibor Navracsics, be given a different portfolio. Navracsics had been proposed as Commissioner for Education, Culture, Youth and Citizenship.

What happens next?

• The priority will be to find a substitute for Bratušek. At the moment, it's unclear who will replace her, and how long the process will take. Slovenia had put forward four nominees. The list of names included another woman, centre-left MEP Tanja Fajon. However, Fajon may not be seen as senior enough for a vice-presidency. Furthermore, she comes from a different political group (the European Socialists and Democrats, S&D). Bratušek belongs to the liberal ALDE group, which is likely to demand that she be replaced with someone from the same political family. Over the past hour, the name of Violeta Bulc, currently serving as Slovenia's Deputy Prime Minister, has also emerged as a possible candidate to replace Bratušek.

• Once Slovenia puts forward a new candidate, and provided that he/she gets the go-ahead from the European Parliament, there are broadly three possible scenarios:   

1) Timmermans becomes Cañete's supervisor: It has been reported that Frans Timmermans could, in addition to his current portfolio, also become responsible for 'sustainable development'. This means he would de facto supervise Cañete, and would also probably involve scrapping the post of Vice-President for Energy Union - meaning that the new Slovenian nominee would be handed a 'lighter' portfolio. As per Navracsics, he could perhaps keep the Education portfolio while being stripped of the Culture and Citizenship briefs.

2) Mini-reshuffle: Some reports have also suggested that Slovakia’s Maroš Šefčovič could become the Vice-President for Energy Union. Navracsics would become Commissioner for Transport and Space, and the new Slovenian nominee would get the Education portfolio. An alternative could be to make Austria’s Johannes Hahn the Vice-President for Energy Union, with Navracsics becoming Enlargement Commissioner and the new Slovenian nominee again taking the Education portfolio.

3) Tweaking portfolios: Another solution would be to give Navracsics, as in the first scenario, a ‘downgraded’ portfolio (i.e. without the Culture and Citizenship briefs), and keeping the new Slovenian nominee as Vice-President for Energy Union. However, the concerns over the seniority of the person and the ability to provide oversight of Cañete would remain significant.

• The European Parliament's final vote on the whole Commission is scheduled for 22 October. It may be pushed back if finding a substitute for Bratušek takes too long, but that looks unlikely.

• The new Commission will enter office on 1 November.

Things are progressing in a broadly positive way for the UK and the wider EU reform agenda. However, whether the Commission will in the end deliver reform - and whether it can function well internally given the new structure - very much remains to be seen.

When is money not "real money"? Let's ask the European Commission...

There is a select group of masochists out there (us included) who devote their time to studying the inner workings of the EU budget. Its a very dry and technical process but at the end of the day the numbers matter - the UK's gross annual contribution (post rebate) this year is around €14.7bn, which easily exceeds the £7bn in fresh tax cuts David Cameron pledged at the Tory party conference yesterday.

Today, Commission President Barroso urged member states to sign off on a €4.7bn 'top up' to this year's budget, an issue we covered back in June. What struck us however was some of the language in a separate Q&A put out by the Commission, which contains gems like:

"The EU budget consists of commitment appropriations and payment appropriations. Broadly speaking, commitments are usually higher than payment appropriations and do not constitute "real money"; they could be compared to the amount mentioned in a contract any household or private company commits itself to pay at the completion of any given work. Payments, on the other hand, are "real money"; they are what the EU budget has to pay, again, just like any household or private company has to pay the builders once any contracted work is completed."

However, it is highly disingenuous to describe new spending commitments in the budget as not "real money" given that they are inextricably linked with payments: as the Commission itself is fond of saying, today's commitments are tomorrow's payments while today's payments are yesterday's commitments. 

It might however explain why the Commission is so frivolous when it comes to making new spending promises before then pressuring national governments to stump up extra cash i.e. "real money" to make up the difference.

Malmström impresses in her hearing, but is she on the same page as Juncker on TTIP?

Cecilia Malmström during her hearing today

The European Parliament kicked off its hearings of Commission nominees today, with most of the attention focused on Sweden's Cecilia Malmström, the current Home Affairs Commissioner who has been handed the hugely important Trade portfolio. The hearing was eagerly anticipated due to the controversy around certain aspects of the EU-Canada (CETA) and EU-US (TTIP) free trade deals; specifically around investor safeguard clauses (ISDS).

Indeed, the hearing managed to make waves in Germany (where the issue is particularly sensitive), after Malmström's written response to initial questions from MEPs suggested that she rejected the need for ISDS in TTIP. German Green MEP Sven Giegold posted the relevant section on his website:

As the President-elect Juncker has committed himself to in his Political Guidelines..."no limitation of the jurisdiction of courts in the EU Member States will be accepted in [TTIP]; this clearly means that no Investor-State Dispute Settlement mechanism will be part of that agreement."

However, this version - sent out to MEPs on Friday - was subsequently re-called, and the new version published on the Commission's website now reads:

As the President-elect Juncker has committed himself to in his Political Guidelines... he will "not accept that the jurisdiction of courts in the EU Member States is limited by special regimes for investor disputes."

In other words, a clear change from ruling out ISDS altogether to a much more qualified acceptance. This change was subject to much speculation on Twitter, and Malmström herself claimed it was "simply the wrong version".

However, at today's hearing, Dutch MEP Marietje Schaake claimed that the Microsoft Word version sent out on Friday contained 'track changes' made by none other than Martin Selmayr, Jean-Claude Juncker's chief of staff (seemingly confirming rumours in Brussels about Selmayr's "Rasputin-like qualities"). Malmström replied that she had agreed to Juncker's office inserting a quote from Juncker and tried to brush off the affair as a "misunderstanding" and an "over-interpretation", basically denying that she and Juncker were at odds over the ISDS question.

In her opening remarks and in answers to questions, Malmström strongly endorsed the principle of free trade and TTIP specifically, which rather dominated the debate, while also defending European social and environmental standards (there is always something for everyone in the European Parliament). On ISDS, she defended the principle, while clarifying that she was committed to transparency and qualifications - such as protections for national parliaments to legislate in the national interest. She claimed that there was no need to renegotiate ISDS in CETA, as without it the deal could fall apart, that the EU itself would want to include ISDS in future agreements with other parties, but added that possibly it could be excluded altogether from TTIP - so far from a coherent line overall.

Malmström put in a solid performance - with the right mixture of assertiveness and reassurance - and it is certainly good to have a pro-trade voice in that role. However, as the shenanigans over her written answers demonstrate, there are questions over whether Malmström and Juncker are on the same page on TTIP.

#EUpriorities: Ensure the EU steers clear of decisions better taken nationally

As promised, here is the first of the cartoons accompanying our reform mandate for the new European Commission:

We believe that the EU must do more than merely pay lip service to the principle of subsidiarity, i.e. that the EU should not meddle in areas that can better be handled nationally (or locally).

The EU needs a dedicated Commissioner for subsidiarity (although we are open to a more catchy name, like "Common Sense Commissioner") who would be explicitly charged with reviewing both new and existing EU laws to ensure they are proportionate, add value, and could not be better handled at the national or local level. Any laws that do not meet these criteria should be scrapped.

Dutch Foreign Minister Frans Timmermans, who has been nominated to the new Commission and who  looks set to land an important post has strong reformist credentials to fill such a role and helped coin the maxim 'national where possible, European where necessary'.  

Our mandate (published in partnership with Open Europe Berlin) received some good media coverage in Germany today, with Die Welt featuring it on the front page of their economics section, along with our calculation that German taxpayers could save €32bn from the package of reforms that we propose:

With Juncker's full Commission line-up expected to be announced tomorrow or Thursday, stay tuned for more of our ideas in the days to come.

Attention new European Commission! This is how to save £200bn, kick-start growth and re-connect the EU with voters

This morning, Open Europe published a 'mandate' for the new European Commission - in short a series of proposals setting out what the Commission should - and shouldn't - be doing over its five year term of office. Our mandate idea was inspired by the reformist Dutch Foreign Minister Frans Timmermans, who last year proposed a 'European Governance Manifesto' in which national governments would identify a series of priorities for the Commission.

Our mandate, which we call on David Cameron and other EU leaders to adopt, contains a number of detailed proposals spanning a wide range of policy areas - from reforming the EU budget, increasing transparency and accountability to liberalising the single market in services - but its overarching theme is boosting the EU's capacity to create jobs and generate economic growth while ensuring the EU stays well clear of areas better handled nationally or locally. Our mandate would:

• Save European taxpayers £200bn (€252bn) over a seven-year EU budget period by re-targeting and slimming down flawed spending programmes,
• Cut the wages and perks of EU officials and scrap a number of EU quangos that add no value, saving taxpayers a total of £819m (€1bn) per year,
• Boost the EU economy by £236bn (€294bn) by making it easier to export services to other EU member states,
• Introduce a series of new checks on EU laws to ensure they boost jobs and growth whilst ending unnecessary EU meddling. 

With David Cameron's EU reform agenda often being accused of vagueness, having the Commission adopt such a mandate would be a big win. Of course this is not the limit of the reforms the UK ought to push for - our priorities relate to what falls within the Commission’s remit; many key issues will be debated between national governments with a limited role for the Commission. Although in the longer term we think EU Treaty change will be needed, all our proposals can be accommodated within the existing EU Treaties, so there is no excuse for foot-dragging.

We have commissioned George Roberts – an independent illustrator and animator – to draw a series of cartoons to accompany some of our key proposals. Over the next couple of days, we will be posting these cartoons on our blog along with a more detailed description of what the policy proposal entails and a discussion of why it is important.

In the meantime, you can read the press release here, the full mandate here and join the conversation on Twitter by using the hashtag #EUpriorities.

The SNP embraces EU reform - but is it trying to have it both ways on treaty change?

Ahead of next month's crucial Scottish independence referendum, the Scottish government has put out its own paper on EU reform, designed to position the SNP on the pro-reform as opposed to the status quo side of the debate. The report has generated very little coverage (our daily press summary being the exception). It's a mixed bag but contains some worthy ideas - we look at the key points below:

Reconnecting European citizens with the EU

The paper notes that "it is important that the EU institutions and the Member States recognise and respond to the challenges to the EU’s wider legitimacy". Its suggestions include:

"the Scottish Government considers that greater observance of the principle of subsidiarity, is one of the key means of maintaining the democratic legitimacy of the EU… it is essential that the procedure for monitoring subsidiarity by national parliaments is extended further to give an enhanced role for both sub-national and local parliaments."

Cutting red tape and EU "competence creep"

The paper notes that warns that “much more remains to be done” to alleviate concerns about EU “competence creep” and excessive “red tape”, and to “restore a balance between the burden of EU legislation and the benefits expected to derive from its implementation.” It adds that:

"the volume and complexity of the EU regulation affecting businesses in Scotland can pose a significant administrative and financial burden on them (particularly SMEs) and is threatening their ability to recover from the economic and financial crisis."

Its recommendations include:

• Consistent regulation - greater adherence to the framework set by the EU Treaties with less ‘competence creep’ without formal amendment of the Treaties,
• Increased flexibility to the member States when incorporating EU law into domestic legal systems and greater use of exemption schemes, in particular for SMEs,
• Further developing the impact assessment tool and applying it at each stage of the EU legislative process where prospective legislation is subject to significant amendment by the Council and/or European Parliament,
• Focusing on overall principles rather than detailed prescriptive measures,
• An increased review of legislation which is no longer appropriate for today’s climate.

The above are good suggestions - indeed ones which Open Europe has been advocating for a while now (see our 2011 report on European localism and our 2010 report on EU over-regulation for example) but as always, the question is how to translate this into practice. 

Still, the report has some pretty big gaps - for example, it barely mentions the EU budget despite this being in radical need of reform (for example, contrary to common perceptions, Scotland would benefit from devolving regional subsidies back to the national level). Likewise beyond some general praise for EU free movement, the report does not discuss whether changes are needed to rules around EU migrants' access to benefits. In some places, the report calls for more protectionist measures at the EU level, such as amending procurement laws to ensure that contractors to pay the living as opposed to the minimum wage. 

The SNP is also keen to distance itself from David Cameron's EU policies and says that changing the EU Treaties is "neither necessary nor desirable". The party claims that its reforms can be accommodated within the existing Treaties. Whatever the rights and wrongs, this is slightly ironic given that Scotland's potential accession to the EU as an independent country rests squarely on the EU Treaties being opened and changed: not only the accession itself (to which all other member states would have to agree) but also to get the opt-outs from the euro and Schengen that the SNP says it wants.

It's also ironic since if SNP has its way, it could deliver the kind of opening of the Treaties that the Tories are hoping for. 

Boris is right to set out an ambitious EU reform agenda

As we noted in an earlier post, London Mayor Boris Johnson's intervention on the UK's future relationship with the EU set out a list of policy objectives that go well beyond what David Cameron has so far proposed. They noticeably set the bar higher for any successful renegotiation.

Boris also told the Evening Standard this week that the UK had to go into the negotiations prepared to be tough. "You don’t go in hard to the tackle you are never going to come out well. You've got to go in hard and low," he said. Judging by his past form, he means business:

Here are the key reforms that Boris outlined, which embellished on those contained in the report authored for him by his economic advisor Dr Gerard Lyons - a member of our Advisory Council. They are an excellent marker for the direction in which the EU needs to go and most of them are reforms we have ourselves proposed and promoted:

• Make progress on the single market in services: The report for the Mayor cites Open Europe's research which illustrates that an ambitious liberalisation of cross-border trade in services could boost EU GDP by 2.3%. This is in fact a call for free trade that could boost competitiveness across the EU - the UK should push this policy hard and, if others aren't willing to agree en masse, be prepared to lead a vanguard of countries who are.  
• Better protection for the City of London from intrusive financial services regulation: A long-standing concern for us. We have noted that, since the eurozone crisis, the EU's regulatory output in this area has become far more trade-restricting and items such as the FTT were outright hostile to the City of London. This ties into the eurozone/non-eurozone point below, and why mechanisms to ensure that the single market cannot be controlled by the eurozone-bloc are essential to the UK's interests.
• Reform the relationship between euro ins and outs: This is arguably the biggest strategic issue facing the UK in Europe - and the report goes into far more detail on this than Boris did in his speech. The UK will not be able to live within an EU dominated by the eurozone. The ad-hoc solution used in the European Banking Authority of so-called 'double majority voting', which we were the first to propose, illustrates that this can be addressed but how easily this model can be replicated elsewhere is debatable and other solutions will be needed.
• A 'red card' for national parliaments: Again, a policy we have long championed. This is something that has support in several member states and would if member states and the Commission are serious about respecting it, root EU policy making more firmly in the hands of those with most democratic legitimacy in Europe - national MPs. 
• Reform "if not abolition" of the CAP: Abolition of the CAP is clearly a tall order, but we have set out how agricultural policy could be radically reworked which would hugely reduce the budget required and make it more market-orientated. Another budget reform we would through into the mix, which Boris didn't mention, is the repatriation of regional funding to the richer member states
• A return to intergovernmental cooperation in justice and home affairs, outside the jurisdiction of the EU: We have long argued that the ECJ should not have jurisdiction over crime and policing law as it applies to the UK and that the UK should seek a return to intergovernmental cooperation that does not cede democratic control over such a sensitive area.
• Reforming social and employment law: Boris talked of minimising "the costs to all EU businesses", but also said that if this meant resurrecting the UK's social policy opt-out, "I don’t think it will be a bad thing." We have calculated that EU social law currently costs UK business and the public sector £8.6bn a year - a figure also cited by Boris in his speech - and while these costs would not magically disappear if this area was left to national governments, there would be far more flexibility to tailor rules to local needs and practises - i.e. the UK's flexible labour market.
• On free movement of people, Boris called for "managed migration": Here Boris went further than Gerard's report. Boris seems to be calling for the principle of free movement to be revisited. It's not entirely clear what he means but we have long argued that EU migration can provide benefits to the UK and EU economy but that reform is certainly needed to the rules around access benefits for EU migrants. This means far more discretion for national governments over who can access state welfare and public services and on what terms. However, we do think the principle of free movement of workers - as originally intended - should remain. 
• Halting 'ever closer union': Often dismissed as a symbolic change, in fact this is about changing the culture of the EU and the default position that centralisation is always good. It is about instilling the principle that not all member states want to head in the same direction and that powers should be able to move downwards from Brussels to national capitals.

This is a reform agenda that would indeed radically reform the EU and the UK's relationship with it. As we have noted elsewhere, if there is a referendum in 2017, the British public will be far better placed than in 1975 to decide if the change is enough to vote for and that  is why the stakes are now so high. As we also have noted, however, the big challenge will be the timetable. Will this be possible before 2017?

Boris: EU reform the best option, but Brexit should not scare us

Boris Johnson today outlined his response to the report by his economic advisor - and Open Europe board member - Dr Gerard Lyons on the future of the UK’s relations with the EU and how they impact on London.

The report entitled 'a win-win situation' outlines four economic scenarios, with the best seen as staying in a reformed EU and the a close second being leaving the EU on good terms with growth-focussed policies towards Europe and the rest of the world:

• The best scenario is UK membership of a reformed EU, which could see London’s economy grow in size from £350 billion now to £640 billion over the next 20 years.
• The worst scenario would be where the UK leaves the EU on bad terms and does not produce a growth-focused policy. The report suggests the London economy would only grow to £430 billion by 2034 in this scenario, and see a shedding of about 1.2 million jobs. 
• If the UK left the EU, maintained good relations with the EU and adopted outward-looking policies, then the London economy would grow to £615 billion and see an additional 900,000 jobs created over the next 20 years. This is despite the near-term uncertainty that would follow from leaving.
• Being in an unreformed EU, London might see only an extra 200,000 jobs created and growth to £495 billion over two decades.

The key reforms - which draw heavily from Open Europe's work - proposed in the report are: addressing the relationship between euro ins and outs, liberalising the single market in services, safeguards on the single market in financial services and the position of the City of London, EU budget reform, reducing the burden of social and employment law, and halting over-regulation. The reforms go well beyond what David Cameron has set out so far.

If reform is not sufficient, the report concedes that withdrawal would create immediate economic uncertainty but this could be mitigated in the longer term if the right policies are pursued. The report suggests that the terms of a Brexit could be defined by the referendum result itself - a close result could prompt a re-re-negotiation rather than an immediate reach for the Article 50 exit clause - you can read the outcome of our 'wargaming' of Brexit here (which the report also references).

The report notes that financial services and insurance are key London industries, comprising 19.8% of GVA, the single biggest sector measured in these terms – how will this be affected in Brexit? The report notes that London has many attributes other than acting as a springboard for access to EU markets but adds that this market access is valuable and could face some extra barriers following withdrawal.

In summary, the report concludes that reform is the best option, but there is little to fear from Brexit.That last point - in addition, to the various reform proposals set out - will no doubt serve to put additional pressure on David Cameron to be more ambitious in his push.

Annus horribilis? 2017 could become the EU’s most challenging year to date

We don’t want to be over-dramatic, but 2017 could shape up to be the toughest year for the EU in a very, very long time. Perhaps ever.

If David Cameron gets re-elected, there will be an In/Out EU referendum in the UK in 2017 (though it could perhaps be delayed). With the appointment of Jean-Claude Juncker as new European Commission President and the symbolic defeat that involved, the risk of Brexit is now arguably higher than ever. The UK could leave the EU in 2017.

At the same time, there’s a growing possibility that Front National leader Marine Le Pen – who’s said she expects “nothing from Europe apart from destruction” – could win the French Presidential election due in April/May 2017. According to a new IFOP poll for French weekly Marianne, Le Pen would finish ahead in the first round of the 2017 presidential election with 26% of votes – followed by former President Nicolas Sarkozy on 25%, and President François Hollande or Prime Minister Manuel Valls on 17%. This means Le Pen and Sarkozy would make it to the final run-off. Although, the chances of her winning the run-off are relatively slim, it is notable that her closest challenger could yet be drowned in a corruption investigation.

As we noted yesterday, Swiss voters will likely be asked to vote again on the country’s relationship with the EU “at the latest by the end of 2016, or the beginning of 2017,” according to Swiss President Didier Burkhalter. It could be a “take it or leave it” vote in response to Swiss voters' opposition to the current free movement arrangements and the EU’s refusal to budge on the issue. If the Swiss vote “leave it”, there will be a huge crisis between Switzerland and the EU.

This wouldn’t be pretty at all. Now, we still don’t see this triple-whammy as a central scenario, but it’s hard to find a more ample illustration of why the status quo in Europe is the biggest threat to its survival.

Get on with EU reform. Now.

FTSE 100 businesses give EU reform and renegotiation a big boost

Whenever EU reform and renegotiation are being debated, one of the most powerful claims made by the status-quo side is that it would generate uncertainty which would be bad for business.

Well today's FT reports that according to a survey of one in three FTSE100 chairmen conducted by Korn Ferry, a leadership and talent consultancy, the overwhelming majority - 81% - said the want to see the UK renegotiate its relationship with the EU. In comparison, only 15% back staying in no matter what and 4% supporting an outright exit. There was naturally a range of views in terms of how far-reaching the renegotiation ought to be; some business leaders backed only "limited" changes, but a clear majority - 63% - backed "a return of social and economic power to nation states".

Although the business support for EU reform is not surprising - as our own pan-European business campaign for EU reform showed - the extent of support is considerable. This is particularly true since it comes from large corporations, which are often seen as gaining greater benefit from the current EU set up than small and medium sized enterprises, which bear a disproportionately larger burden from EU regulations. 

With such a strong mandate from business, it really is time for Cameron to ramp up his push for reform and flesh out exactly what kind of reform is desired, and how it can be achieved.

Is the UK's new man in Brussels a dark horse?

On his Telegraph blog, Open Europe Director Mats Persson looks at Lord Hill's nomination as the UK's next European Commissioner:

This morning, Brussels watchers, virtually in unison, typed the following name into Google: Lord Hill. David Cameron’s long-awaited nomination for the UK’s next European Commissioner was hardly a household name.

In 2009, Gordon Brown nominated Baroness Ashton for the post – the then leader of the House of Lords, known to few people outside of Westminster. As it turned out, Ashton grew in the role and will leave Brussels with a relatively good reputation. The main problem was that Asthon’s position – EU foreign affairs chief – meant long absences from Brussels. This proved critical as, whether we like it or not, working the Brussels corridors and getting stuck into the agenda-setting “College of Commissioners” are absolutely vital if the objective is to make as many EU proposals as possible come with a UK flavour. Some people hate this stuff – including William Hague who just refused to go anywhere near the role despite being the most obvious candidate – but others thrive on it.

I was always in favour of Cameron sending a high-profile figure to Brussels. It would have sent a strong signal that EU reform is for real and improved the likelihood of the UK getting a top economic job – internal market, competition or trade. Lord Hill lacks the obvious external gravitas and high profile, so in that sense, his appointment has reduced the chances of the UK getting a top job. Cameron has been criticised for not sending a sufficiently strong signal of intent. However, not least since I expect several portfolios – including internal market – to be broken up or altered, the job allocation is unusually unpredictable, and we shall have to wait and see. Also, sending someone with a lower profile may work in the UK’s favour. A heavy hitter – particularly with a Eurosceptic reputation – in combination with a big portfolio may have been too much for EU partners and Juncker to swallow, not to mention the European Parliament. And Lord Hill is hardly a novice, having worked across departments and at the heart of government, including as Chief of Staff to John Major, during which he was involved in negotiating the Maastricht Treaty.

On making EU reform happen – which remains the key objective – Lord Hill is a clever operator with a fantastic reputation in Westminster circles. Brussels is a very different place to Westminster, but if he can replicate his operational style over there – winning people over, striking deals – then perhaps he’s exactly the type of person the UK should be sending. Opting for a Viviane Reding-type, who does a lot of shouting but achieves little, wouldn’t be ideal either.

There's still no denying that choosing someone less known remains a gamble. But Lord Hill may yet surprise plenty of people both at home and abroad.

Who is Lord Hill? (The UK's new appointment to be the UK's EU Commissioner)

The most visited Wikipedia page from Brussels IP addresses today will be Lord Hill's - the UK's European Commissioner nominee. Lord Hill is currently the leader of the House of Lords.

We have previously argued that David Cameron should "send forth to Brussels the best he has." The reason is simple: reform is fundamental to the UK's EU membership so the UK should put forward its best candidate to secure one of the 'big jobs' in the Juncker Commission and maximise the chances of negotiating success on all levels.

In 2009 Gordon Brown made a serious mistake in coming late to the game and sending a little known Peer, Cathy Ashton (also leader of the House of Lords incidentally) and ended up with a job that nobody else wanted. Have the lessons been learnt? Well, Cameron certainly hasn't sent the guy with the highest profile, instead prioritising avoiding a by-election, but it's too early to tell whether Lord Hill will sink or swim. He could turn out great.

But who is Lord Hill?

Well he's certainly not a household name but has been in the Cabinet albeit as a Lord. Here is his biography:

• Conservative Research Department 1985-86 
• Special advisor to Rt Hon Kenneth Clarke at Department of Employment 
• DTI and Department of Health 1986-89 
• Lowe Bell Communications 1989-91 
• No 10 Policy Unit 1991-92 
• Political secretary to Prime Minister John Major 1992-94 
• Senior consultant Bell Pottinger Communications 1994-98 
• Director Quiller Consultants 1998-2010; (a part of Huntsworth Plc) 
• Under-secretary of state Department for Education 2010-13 
• Leader of the House of Lords and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster 2013-2014

Beyond that it is reportedly that he unsuccessfully attempted to resign as a minister in 2012, and recently ruled himself out as a candidate for European Commissioner, saying when asked

"Non, non, non. First, I don't believe I'm going to be asked. Secondly, I like it here. I quite like it at home, in the British Isles."

That's not the first time a politician has said something similar and ended up in that very position, though. Lord Hill is definitely well connected in the PR industry and knows the Conservative party. He knows the political system and the art of political public relations. Plenty of people say he's a 'fixer' who can work the corridors in Brussels - something which Cathy Ashton wasn't able to (partly because of her job which involved long absences from Brussels). It's too early to jump to conclusions.

Is Hammond the most eurosceptic Tory Foreign Secretary to date?

Hammond: Will he win back UKIP voters to the Conservatives?

Following the surprise resignation of William Hague as Foreign Secretary last night and the appointment this morning of Philip Hammond as his replacement, the Conservatives' Europe policy is once again in the spotlight. We now have a Foreign Secretary who has said that he would vote to leave the EU if it does not reform (he came out in support of Michael Gove who came out with similar comments). Last year, Hammond said:

"If the choice is between a European Union written exactly as it is today and not being a part of that then I have to say that I'm on the side of the argument that Michael Gove has put forward. I believe that we have to negotiate a better solution that works better for Britain if we are going to stay in."

He also told the BBC's Andrew Marr programme last year:

"I believe that we have to negotiate a better solution that works better for Britain if we are going to stay in and play a part in the European Union in the future, but let me be absolutely clear: I think it is defeatist to sort of say we want to leave the European Union."

"We should say no, this is a club that we are members of, and before we talk about leaving it, first of all we're going to try and change the rules and change the way it works and change the objectives that it has in order to make it something that works for Britain."

Is this a big deal? Well the logic of the Conservative position has always been that advocating an 'in' vote is dependant on achieving reform. Therefore stating the opposite - that no reform might lead to an 'out' is not that much of a revelation - Cameron himself has said a UK exit would be "imaginable". However, the key question is the threshold - how much needs to change for a Tory to vote Yes (In)? And Hammond definitely has a higher threshold than Hague.

Pointing out the obvious may have its advantages. If EU reform is to happen to the extent needed to persuade the British people to stay in the EU, other EU leaders need to understand that it cannot be tokenistic. In that sense, Hammond's appointment sends a clear message both at home and abroad - reform is not just desirable but fundamental to the UK's EU membership.

It will also have political benefits for the Conservatives. Hammond will now see the Conservative's EU policy through to the 2015 election and, assuming they win, attempt to force the actual reform agenda through before taking a leading role in the referendum. Having a figure who has said that reform must be substantial for him to back an 'in' will add credibility to their election campaign and help win back voters who have left to vote for UKIP.

But we think it's fair to say that Hammond is the most eurosceptic Tory Foreign Secretary since Viscount Halifax in 1939.

Why Cameron needs to make a swift decision on the UK's next EU Commissioner

In a recent briefing, we stressed that David Cameron needs to pick a 'heavy-hitter' as UK's next European Commissioner if he wants to secure a key portfolio for the UK. Our point is reinforced by a quick look at the candidates being (more or less officially) lined up by other EU member states.

If the UK drags its feet on 'declaring' its candidate, and then sends someone not considered up for the job, we suspect its chances will pretty much have evaporated.

FRANCE - Former Finance Minister Pierre Moscovici is regarded as the frontrunner. The possible alternative could be Élisabeth Guigou, who has served as French Europe Minister, Justice Minister and Employment Minister.

GERMANY - Günther Oettinger looks very likely to stay on as German Commissioner. A former Minister-President of Baden-Württemberg, he has gained influence within Angela Merkel's CDU party during his five years as EU Energy Commissioner.
 
ITALY - Foreign Minister Federica Mogherini is widely tipped to become the new Italian Commissioner. She is currently regarded as the frontrunner to replace Lady Ashton as EU foreign policy chief. 

FINLAND - Former Prime Minister Jyrki Katainen will be the new Finnish Commissioner. He has already replaced Olli Rehn, who had to take up his seat in the European Parliament. Importantly, Katainen stepped down as Finnish Prime Minister precisely because he had set his eyes on a job in Brussels.

SPAIN - Former Agriculture Minister Miguel Arias Cañete is the favourite to become the new Spanish Commissioner. He resigned in April after being picked by Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy as Partido Popular's top candidate in the European Parliament elections.

POLAND - Various names have been suggested. Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski remains the frontrunner (despite the recent wiretapping scandal). Former Finance Minister Jacek Rostowski and former EU Budget Commissioner Janusz Lewandowski - recently elected as an MEP - are also in the race.

NETHERLANDS - The frontrunner is Finance Minister and Eurogroup Chairman Jeroen Dijsselbloem, who is one of the two big contenders for the key post of Economic and Monetary Affairs Commissioner along with France's Pierre Moscovici.

ESTONIA - Former Prime Minister Andrus Ansip, leader of the liberal Estonian Reform Party, will be the new Estonian Commissioner, according to what Jean-Claude Juncker just said during his hearing with MEPs from the ALDE group.

What is somewhat different with this lot is that it includes a range of acting or former senior ministers still very much operating on the political centre stage in their respective countries. With some exceptions, the time when countries sent to Brussels whoever the sitting government tried to 'get rid of' seems pretty much over.

Cameron better get a move on.