Rückführung alert: CDU says repatriation of EU powers must be possible

This is interesting from today’s Handelsblatt. The paper has apparently seen the CDU’s draft manifesto ahead of the European elections. As a reminder: the CDU is Angela Merkel's party, which, along with its sister party, the CSU, won a landslide with 41.5% of the vote in the last federal election. It's what you would call the very definition of mainstream. 
 
The CDU manifesto calls for an “an effective regulation brake” with decisions needing to be “effective and more transparent.” Interestingly, the CDU manifesto suggests that the European Commission should be required to scrap an EU law if a majority of national parliaments says it could be handled better at the national or regional level . This seems to be very similar to the idea of a “red card”, which we long have argued for and which Dutch Foreign Minister Frans Timmermans, for example, has championed.

Perhaps even more interestingly, according to Handelsblatt, the CDU draft manifesto  also explicitly states that:

“a repatriation of competences to the national level should be possible.”

This is significant since German politicians tend to avoid using the word “repatriation” – or Rückführung – since it has strong connotations, instead preferring a range of other more guarded expressions including Dezentralisierung, Regionalisierung, Übertragung, Subsidiarität and Verhältnismäßigkeit.

Handelsblatt’s take on this is that that the :

“CDU is reacting to growing euroscepticism in the country” including to anti-euro party Alternative für Deutschland (AfD).

However, the take of CDU's campaigners is (as to be expected) that the party is simply becoming more realistic - which is a neat way of putting it:

 
Meanwhile, the Today programme has an interview with Hans-Olaf Henkel – formerly the head of the BDI (The German equivalent of the CBI) – now with AfD.

Henkel argues that though he wants return of EU powers, he also wants Germany to stay in the EU. Today's take on this is that "British sceptics may be disappointed" if they look to Berlin, concluding that “Even the German sceptics are not very sceptical when compared to their British counterparts.” Now, this isn't necessarily right nor wrong -- but just not very insightful.

• First, as we’ve argued before, the main clash in Germany is not between the “pro-European” and “anti-European” schism that the BBC is constantly looking for, but rather between two key pillars of post-WWII Germany: Europe and sound money.
• Secondly, is the BBC saying that the definition of “Eurosceptic” is now wanting to leave the EU?  If so -- it will have made a lot of "Better Off Outers" very happy. However, that also means that it can no longer use the "Eurosceptic" label for a whole of host of other actors, including large chunks of the current Conservative government which, irrespective of the rights or wrongs, want to stay in a reformed EU.

This isn't becoming too complicated for black-and-white labels, is it?

Dutch government: "Time of ‘ever closer union’ in every possible area is behind us”

Dutch PM Mark Rutte (VVD) and Foreign Minister Frans
Timmermans (PVdA) discussing what the EU should
and should not be doing?

For anyone involved in the EU reform debate, this is a must-read. The Dutch government has today published its “subsidiarity review” – an assessment of what the EU should and shouldn't be involved in. Again, we're first to the punch in publishing an English version of the document on our blog.

This is likely to be welcomed with open arms in Whitehall – and should be studied carefully by MPs in Westminster. Though not all good news for David Cameron’s renegotiation strategy – the Dutch have explicitly said they don’t want EU treaty change for example – this is clearly a major step towards a reformed Europe.

First, it shows that discontent with the EU status quo is not simply a UK phenomenon – or a Tory problem as some commentators would have us believe. Secondly, the ideas the Dutch are putting forward are in themselves pertinent, and would go quite some way in achieving a better functioning, more democratic and better focused EU. Finally – and this is where it gets really good news for Cameron - countries like Sweden. Denmark and Germany are far more likely to be persuaded down the reform path if the Dutch are prepared to take a lead with the UK.

So what does the document say? Well, it sets out nine broad principles and 54 specific recommendations, relating to what the EU should and shouldn't do. Many of the proposals have also been championed by Open Europe in various forms (it’s worth re-visiting our “European localism” paper). Most significantly, in the press release, the Dutch government proclaims that the “time of an ‘ever closer union’ in every possible policy area is behind us”. This is not going to go down well in certain corners in Brussels.

The guiding principle is described as “European where necessary, national where possible”, and the tone of the entire document chimes well with Cameron’s EU speech, calling for a “European Union that is a more modest, more sober and at the same time more effective.” Interestingly, it notes that the Dutch EU Presidency in the first half of 2016 “could play a role in promoting such an agenda” – this could coincide with the beginning of the EU referendum campaign in the UK should Cameron be in power.

The 9 general principles include:

• Where the European Court of Justice interprets EU law in a way that EU legislators had not provided for and/or did not intend, then this should be possible to address by amending the EU rules on which the Court based its ruling (this could well be a key plank in Cameron’s renegotiation strategy. An example of where the ECJ ruled in precisely such a way is the Working Time Directive, where the ECJ's interpretation of rules governing on-call time and rest periods for doctors has caused havoc in the NHS);
• Every EU intervention needs to be motivated by a clear legal basis in the EU Treaties, and the Commission shouldn't be making proposals on a legal basis that is tenuous or insecure. The Dutch Government explicitly mentions the English term “creeping competences” (this is very similar to what the UK government wants); 
• EU legislation should focus on main points to achieve shared goals rather than to prescribe in detail how those goals should be achieved (again echoes Cameron’s speech);
• When there are widely shared objections to EU legislation, there should be a mechanism to stop the Commission taking any further initiative in that area – this is a bid to stop new EU laws in areas where national governments don’t want them.

As regards the 54 specific recommendations, they mention individual measures where EU power should be scaled back. There are many overlaps with UK ideas. These include:

• Halting the further harmonisation of social security systems. The document says: “It is necessary to combat the negative impact of labour migration, including the abuse of social security systems” – an issue UK Home Secretary Theresa May has been keen to highlight; 
• Limiting the EU budget - the Dutch hint at scrapping the EU's Globalisation Adjustment Fund and structural funds outside of the poorest regions in the poorest countries on the basis that these do not demonstrate added value (the latter is a proposal Open Europe has championed and which the previous Labour government had pushed for. It’s also gaining traction amongst Tory backbenchers) 
• No expansion of agencies’ remits and no increases in their budgets – Cameron was very critical of EU quangos in his EU speech;
• Working conditions, which should only be regulated in broad outline (health and safety and working time, for example);
• No EU regulation of media pluralism; 
• A two-year freeze in salaries of EU officials;
• Sunset clauses should be incorporated in EU proposals (an old UK demand);
• The Financial Transaction Tax is heavily criticised, because "it has been designed in such a way that even parties outside the FTT area, like Dutch pension funds, will be taxed when they trade financial instruments issued in FTT countries";
• CO2 emissions should be dealt with at the global level rather than via EU legislation.  

There are also some further detailed examples of where the EU has gone too far and where powers should be rolled back. For example, the suggestion is made that flood risk management should only be harmonised at European level for truly trans-boundary water courses. The report also recommends the phasing out of the EU programmes for school milk and school fruit, and heavily criticises the recent proposal to ban refillable olive oil jugs from restaurant (which was eventually dropped by the European Commission).

However, the document also sets out clear limits to what the Dutch government says it is prepared to consider and it does not does call for entire policy areas to be returned to national governments. The Dutch government also says it is “not interested in treaty change or opt-outs” for itself.

Nonetheless, the fact that one of the EU’s founding members has stated that "the time of ever closer union is behind us" is clearly a major development.

Bernd Lucke sets out his alternative for Germany and the EU

The new German anti-euro party Alternative für Deutschland’s radically different take on the eurozone compared with the rest of the German political establishment has generated a lot of interest both inside Germany and beyond. As such it was no surprise that today’s Q&A session with AfD leader Bernd Lucke (hosted by the Bruges Group in Westminster) was packed. Here are a few key points from the event:

On the formation of AfD and its prospects 

Lucke admitted that as a young Economics professor in 1999 he supported the euro because he believed it would lead to structural reforms in Southern European countries, and because he took the ‘no bailout clause’ in the Maastricht Treaty at face value. It was the breaking of this that led him to leave the CDU and eventually establish AfD.

He also said that the German political system is structured to keep out new parties – including state subsidies for established parties - with the Greens being the only successful entrant onto the scene in recent years. However he said he was encouraged by polls suggesting AfD’s potential support could be as high as 30%, and that the key would be attracting lower educated blue collar workers in particular.

On the Eurozone

Lucke said that he had reached the conclusion that the current eurozone policy was fatally “mis-conceived” and would never work because financial markets’ fears of a sovereign default could never be squared with the kind of tough conditionality necessary to ensure that member states met their obligations with regards to structural reforms and fiscal consolidation (the failure of the fiscal pact to enforce its 3% deficit limit suggests he could have a point).

Instead, he argued that the Southern member states should leave immediately in order to allow for the devaluation of their new currencies, after which the remaining member states could decide whether to maintain a currency union between themselves or to go for a full break up.

On the UK and the EU

Lucke said that despite his opposition to the euro, he was not opposed to EU integration, adding that as a German he valued its role as a peace project. He even suggested that he was not opposed to transfers between European states per se but that the current system was flawed – for example indirect transfers via the ECB’s bond buying programmes, which happen without democratic approval. However, he added that there was much to be reformed about the EU from its overbearing bureaucracy and appetite for regulation which stifle economic growth to its undemocratic practices. He added that as such he broadly supported David Cameron’s critique, and that he valued British ‘euroscepticism’ as a positive force in ensuring better decisions being reached at the EU level.

New Open Europe/ComRes poll: British voters want changed relationship with EU rather than outright withdrawal

There has been a lot of debate recently about what the UK public really want in terms of the UK’s relationship with the EU. In an attempt to shed some further light on this Open Europe has today released a new poll conducted by ComRes.

The results show that among those certain to vote in next year’s European elections, UKIP would come first overall with 27%, closely followed by Labour on 23%. The Conservatives would come third with 21%. Two-fifths (39%) of Conservative voters from 2010 would vote UKIP in a European election if it were held tomorrow – this remains a major problem for the Conservatives.

However, paradoxically, there’s substantial support for David Cameron’s EU policy. If a referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU were held now, 37% say that they would vote to remain in the EU compared to 41% that say they would vote to leave. But, if there was a significant return of powers to Westminster followed by a referendum, 47% would vote to stay in the European Union, including one in five (20%) voters who say that they would vote UKIP in a UK General Election. Only one third of all voters (32%) would still vote to leave.

Of the individual party leaders, the public still has the most faith in David Cameron to negotiate a better deal for the UK in EU – though it’s clear that there’s a high degree of scepticism about whether a new deal can be delivered by anyone. In order address this 'credibility deficit', Cameron must start to press ahead with substantial reforms now.

 

In general, one thing is clear. That is the desire for a wider choice between simply In or Out. When asked to choose between different possible relationships that Britain could have with the EU, the public’s preferred option is to remain a member of the EU, without the Euro as their currency, but with the significant return of EU powers to the UK (38%). Surprisingly for an anti-EU party, “only” 61% of UKIP voters said they favoured completely withdrawing from the EU, with 30% saying they would be content with “significant return of EU powers”. For every other main party, a slimmed down EU was the single most popular option, suggesting that Ed Millband and Nick Clegg risk ending up out of step with their own voters if they continue to sit on their hands.

Here are some other interesting findings from the poll:

- In a General Election, Labour would win 37% of votes, followed by the Conservatives on 26%, UKIP on 20% and the Liberal Democrats on 9%. Under current constituency boundaries, Labour would win a majority of 110 seats with the Conservatives losing 102 seats. UKIP would not win any seats.

- More than half (55%) of the British public think that the Government should prioritise allowing the UK to have its own immigration policy when seeking to reform Britain’s relationship with the EU. Other areas of priority include giving the UK Parliament more powers to block un-wanted EU laws (42%), reducing Britain’s contribution to the EU budget (36%) and allowing the UK to have control over police and criminal justice laws (32%).

- 38% support the Prime Minister’s policy of negotiating new EU membership terms for the UK and then having an in/out referendum versus 32% who oppose it because they think meaningful renegotiation is impossible or want to withdraw altogether. Only one in ten voters (11%) say they favour the status quo and fear Cameron’s strategy creates “uncertainty”. 68% of Conservative voters, a surprising half of Lib Dem voters (52%), 32% of Labour voters and 21% of UKIP voters support Cameron’s strategy.

- However, when asked the question differently, six in ten (60%) think that it is unlikely that the Government will be able to deliver the changes it wants in the UK’s relationship with the EU – showing that whilst there’s support for Cameron’s strategy in principle, there remains a ‘credibility deficit’ which he must seek to close by pressing ahead with substantial reforms now.

See here for our full briefing on the poll results.

The UK electorate is in the market for something more than the false choice of status quo or exit

When it comes to the question of whether the UK ought to stay in the EU there are two key considerations. Is continued membership the best solution from an economic perspective (trade, regulation etc) and also is it democratically sustainable? (Others will also cite 'influence' and geopolitical clout).

Leaving aside the first consideration for now, the second one has long generated a heated debate, not least in the comment section of our blog, with some regular readers pointing out to us that a majority of the UK public wants to leave the EU. End of story.

In his Europe speech, David Cameron warned that support for the EU was “wafer-thin” – which as we highlighted at the time was a long-term trend (albeit exacerbated by the crisis).

Recent polls have shown an ever larger margin in favour of exit, with a widely cited ComRes poll over the weekend showing that 46% would vote to leave, 24% would vote to stay in, with 30% undecided.

However, there is, of course, an important sub-story here. While this and similar polls have been interpreted by some as a mandate for withdrawal, when a supplementary question about restoring “some EU powers” to the UK is posed, the proportions change quite dramatically with 43% (including 48% of Conservative and 20% of UKIP voters) voting to stay in, 24% voting to leave regardless, and 34% undecided. These figures are consistent with the results of similar questions asked in a number of opinion polls in recent times.

In fact, restricting the choice in the EU debate to only In/Out is rather odd. How often does that happen in other areas of public policy? Would a choice between a 100%, all encompassing welfare state or no welfare state at all, for example, be a fair choice put to the British public? Unlikely, as most of the public wants something in between.

That we consistently see such a large swing in opinion from 'Out' under a straight In/Out scenario to 'In' under renegotiated terms shows that one of the clearest trends in UK public opinion is that the UK public wants to see new EU membership terms first, and only then withdrawal if that fails.

As such, for those who cite the issue of democratic legitimacy as their prime motivation, whilst they most certainly have a point, there is no reason not to at least give Cameron a good shot at his strategy of re-negotiation followed by a referendum.

The democratic question is also frequently cited by those who demand an immediate referendum, including the MPs who voted in favour of the amendment to the Queen’s Speech last week. However, buried in the poll data was an interesting finding that ought to provide some food for thought – 20% of voters (including 52% of Conservative voters) said they had more sympathy with David Cameron while 18% sided with backbench MPs. Meanwhile 48% said they did not have more sympathy for either side.

If there was an overwhelming support for an immediate UK exit - as opposed to substantially reducing the EU's powers in Britain - one would have suspected far greater support for the handful Tory backbenchers who are pushing for an early referendum bill. This isn't to say that there is a major trust issue when it comes to Europe, and that some Tory backbenchers didn't make valid points last week, but merely that the public, again, is basically quite content with the basic idea of the UK negotiating new membership terms followed by a public vote.

At the same time though, politicians and officials who think they can fudge this process or procrastinate over addressing the EU's involvement in too many areas of national life ought to be very careful. The electorate's desire to staying the EU is clearly predicated on substantial reforms taking place.

Cameron: Before the 2015 election, we will do everything we can to make an EU referendum the law

David Cameron just sent out this note to Conservative members and activists:

In January, I set out our party’s position on Europe. I made clear that the EU needed fundamental, far reaching change - and that Britain would lead the way in negotiating that reform. I also promised an In-Out referendum once those negotiations were complete, and at any event by the end of 2017.

That's the right time to have a vote - it is wrong to ask people whether to stay or go before we have had a chance to put the relationship right. But make no mistake - my commitment to a referendum is absolute. If I am Prime Minister after the next election, there will be an In-Out referendum. No ifs, no buts. And before the 2015 election, we will do everything we can to make it the law. That’s why today the Conservative Party is publishing a draft bill that would legislate for a referendum by the end of 2017.

We understand that we are in a Coalition government - but we are going to examine every opportunity to bring it before Parliament and try to get it on the statute book. For too long the British people have had no say about their future in Europe. I am absolutely determined to put that right. Our action today is further proof we’re serious. You can pledge your support for the bill here. 

So does the "if I become Prime Minister" include also being a PM in a coalition? 

Lord Leach: EU reform is the best option, even for us sceptics

Open Europe’s chairman Lord Leach of Fairford has an op-ed in today's Times, where he argues:

Fifteen years ago, when a handful of businessmen set up Business for Sterling to stop Britain joining the euro, we were cold-shouldered by the BBC, patronised as Little Englanders by the Establishment and attacked relentlessly by the CBI’s leadership. 

By the time the previous Government dropped the idea of entering the eurozone, we had nearly 1,000 chairmen or chief executives on our supporter list. 

The centre of gravity has shifted as politicians today line up to argue that the EU in its current form has exhausted its usefulness, and exit is no longer to be feared. Even the most ardent Europhiles pretend amnesia about their former enthusiasm for the single currency. “More Europe” as the answer to every problem has become a bad joke. Even “Thus far and no further” has been replaced by serious questioning of the status quo. In short, the game is up for the Europhiles. 

I disagree, however, with Nigel Lawson and others who have given up on reform and want us to head for the exit. Procedurally, withdrawal would be a nightmare. The famous Article 50 in the EU Treaty would give us two years to negotiate, during which time EU laws would still apply to the UK, without us having any effective say, as we would be sidelined in the EU institutions. That alone should make us pause before pushing the eject button. 

The majority of the public, the political class and business, as shown by multiple polls, are sceptical about the EU but rather than leaving it they want a new deal to reduce its power over their lives. With good reason, for there are two jokers in the pack. First, none of the recent “outers” has set out a credible alternative. It is easy to say “Europe needs us more than we need it” or that if Asians and Americans can trade happily with the EU from outside it, so can we. 

 But this glosses over the reality that without free trade agreements many of our businesses would lose a chunk of their market. The car industry and the City would be especially hard hit. In theory, free trade agreements could cure that, but they would take time to negotiate and the EU would see no advantage in protecting our lead in those business areas. The eurozone’s attack on the City has been brutal enough; and the French would be particularly keen to block British financial services firms from having access to EU markets in perpetuity. 

But it is the second joker in the pack, Germany, that is far more important. Angela Merkel is a cautious leader and doesn’t shoot from the hip. She knows that without radical reform the risk of Britain leaving is huge. She also knows what the consequences would be, as do the Netherlands and Sweden. The EU would lose half its military capacity, nearly 15 per cent of its budgetary contributions, its financial powerhouse, its principal channel to the Anglophone world and its main opponent of protectionism. Berlin would be in a voting minority against the French-led, high spending, uncompetitive Club Med countries. 

Both David Cameron and Chancellor Merkel would therefore be playing with fire if they tried to buy off the British electorate with trivial concessions, as Harold Wilson did in 1975. The public won’t wear it and Germany would risk finishing off its dream of European unity and losing its most effective fellow reformer. 

The first necessary step to a new order would be to redefine the EU as the Single Market, not as a vague aspiration to political union, still less as a currency union. Safeguards would have to be put in place to ensure that the eurozone does not write the rules for the rest of the member states. The next step would be to strengthen the powers of Westminster over EU decisions. 

There is already support for these two reforms in Europe. With those in place, Europe could move to much greater flexibility. Member states could group together in passport unions, fishing or agricultural regimes, defence arrangements or tax and currency unions, but none of this would be obligatory. Subsidies, employment law and energy policy would no longer be micromanaged from Brussels. 

These kind of reforms would ensure that Britain would be at ease in Europe for the first time for 30 years. Norway and Switzerland could join such a structure and the Turkish issue would become more soluble. The euro problem would not go away, but the taboo that makes any change to the eurozone unmentionable would be broken. 

We cannot go on as we are, firefighting crises and ill-judged regulations inside a Union that has become the world’s economic laggard. Most of the necessary reforms have been identified and discussed across the continent. Now we will have to see whether Germany and its Nordic allies will be willing or able to deliver them. 

None of us knows what will happen next. There is still all to play for, and this complex game with so many other players should not be reduced today to a black-and-white argument about staying on the pitch or going home.

It's election day and David Cameron has promised to legislate for an EU referendum - or has he?

A Referendum Bill?

Yesterday on BBC Radio 4's World at One, David Cameron was asked if he would consider "bringing forward" an EU Referendum Bill in this Parliament. He replied:

“I think we need to demonstrate absolutely that we are serious about this referendum; we’ve said we’re going to hold it, we’ve said it’s going to be an in-out referendum, we’ve set a date by which it must be held. I look forward to publishing a bill, to getting support for it, to doing everything I can to show to people at the next election there will be a real choice... So anything we can do to strengthen that offer, as it were, I’m prepared to consider." 

This has been  written up by the media including the Times and the Telegraph as an immediate promise of a vote on legislation in Parliament for an In/Out referendum. With "Conservative sources" telling the Telegraph that "Mr Cameron was prepared to bring forward legislation" and "Downing Street officials" telling the Times that Jo Johnson would be asked to explore the idea of "legislating in this Parliament to guarantee in law that a referendum would take place on the Prime Minister's promised timetable."  It looks like an organised political operation.

So will we see MPs voting on a Conservative Referendum Bill before the election? Perhaps but, this is not all it seems. Firstly, David Cameron has not strictly speaking said anything new. In his big EU speech on 13 January David Cameron had already promised to draft a referendum Bill:

"Legislation will be drafted before the next election. And if a Conservative Government is elected we will introduce the enabling legislation immediately and pass it by the end of that year. And we will complete this negotiation and hold this referendum within the first half of the next parliament."

So what is going on? There are three possibilities:

A) The Prime Minister, under the pressure of the local election campaign, has made a mistake and oversold his previous offer and there is no intention of holding a vote.

B) He deliberately intended to stir up 'positive' headlines to help in the elections with no intention of following through.

C) He is actually intending to hold a Parliamentary vote.

This is a dangerous game. If it is A or B, it could easily get out of hand. We have been here before. On the Lisbon Treaty David Cameron's "cast iron guarantee" of a referendum was no more than a previous restatement of policy but left the impression of a broken promise that is still being felt.

That leaves C. Perhaps David Cameron is actually planning to hold a vote in the Commons. It has obvious political benefits of showing he means business and would allow the Conservative candidates at the next election to point to sitting (Liberal Democrat and Labour) MPs who voted against a referendum and so show the necessity of a Conservative majority.

So how would it come about? Firstly, there is the drafting of the Bill. This is not a problem, there are precedents, not least David Cameron's own very professional Bill to allow a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty before it came into force (the promise he did make and intended to keep).  The real problem is the Parliamentary timetable. There are several possibilities:

1) The Bill is brought forward as a Government Bill in Government time. This would obviously be difficult given Liberal Democrat opposition.

2) The Bill is taken up by a backbench MP and endorsed semi-officially by the Conservatives. This could allow for a symbolic vote, but little chance of it becoming law. 

3) It could be added as an amendment to another EU Bill. If another EU Bill comes before Parliament with a suitable wide "long title" the Bill could be amended to allow for a Referendum. This could again become the subject of Coalition politics.

Game on - UK Government launches legal challenge against controversial EU Financial Transaction Tax

It has just been announced that at midnight last night the UK government submitted a challenge against the financial transaction tax to the European Court of Justice. The ground being that it impacts (taxes) firms and individuals located in the UK outside the FTT zone.

We’ve put together a very comprehensive analysis on what this challenge means and what could happen next. Read it here.

Here’s the summary of the key points:

Summary: The UK has today announced a legal challenge at the European Court of Justice against the EU’s controversial financial transaction tax (FTT). Despite the British Government having chosen not to participate in the measure, UK financial firms that trade with an institution in a country that does participate will still be taxed. This, the UK claims, violates EU law and is inconsistent with international tax norms.

The economic, legal and political implications of this move for future EU-UK relations are huge. As currently drafted, the tax could cost fund managers (UCITS) based outside the FTT-zone around €5.6bn while one third of all derivatives trades in the UK could be caught by the tax. Legally, it could set out the parameters for how a “flexible Europe” involving different levels of participation in the EU – which Prime Minister David Cameron has said he champions – will be governed. Politically, it’s a test of the extent to which the UK – as a non-eurozone member - can halt or change EU measures with a profound impact on its national interest. Therefore, it will be a key issue in the on-going debate about the UK’s continued EU membership, though other EU countries have also expressed concerns about the impact of the tax.

Has Germany really gone off the idea of EU treaty change? (Part II)

Some EU pundits have spent the last several months arguing that a change to the EU treaties is a non-starter. "Don't you know", they say with a high degree of confidence "the Germans have gone off it." And in any case, no one else wants it any way for fear of ratification problems, not least in France.

Charles Grant from the Centre for European Reform said last week that "the Germans have cooled on the idea of rewriting the treaties." Another observer on BBC Newsnight (not our guy of course) said as late as last Friday that "the German government isn't at all keen on EU treaty change in the short-term", which the studio discussion then picked up on.

It's is definitely the case that the appetite for EU treaty change across Europe is limited, and for that reason it'll be a challenge to achieve it. But as we've said repeatedly, it's absolutely 100% wrong to say that the Germans have gone off the idea of EU treaty change. As we stated in our briefing ahead of Cameron’s Europe speech in January:

“There are currently seven broad proposals floating around for more Eurozone integration – most of which need EU treaty changes to be fully completed...Germany, in particular, is nervous about ad hoc-arrangements lacking firm constitutional grounding.”

Here is the full list:

Crucially, this also includes current proposal for a banking union, which from a German point, sit uncomfortably with the EU treaties. A few weeks ago we noted,

"Those who say that Germany has 'gone off the idea' of Treaty change - in light of David Cameron's speech where he mentioned EU treaty change as an avenue for reform - clearly haven't quite appreciated the nature of the proposals floating around."

Well what do you know, as we reported in today’s press summary, at last week's crucial meeting of EU finance ministers, German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble insisted that an EU Treaty revision is necessary to achieve a banking union, claiming that:

“We’ll only do this on a clear legal basis, because I don’t want risks in Karlsruhe.”

Somehow this announcement still managed to surprise people. But wasn't it always obvious? Anyone who is at all familiar with German history will understand why they're so keen to separate monetary policy from bank supervision. If keeping the two tasks with the ECB, such separation can only take place  if there's a rewriting of the EU treaties (so that the final say no longer rests with the ECB Governing Council). This also matters for non-eurozone countries as that guarantees them an equal say in the ECB supervision structure, and therefore makes them more likely to join (particularly Sweden and Denmark, which the Germans are keen on). Indeed, the Swedes - in a very brave moment - tried to push for just such a treaty change but dropped the idea. Further steps, such as a joint resolution fund, will also require treaty changes.

There are plenty of hurdles to fresh EU Treaty negotiations - some countries will want to avoid them like the plague - and even if the Germans can get them off the ground, the timing and scope (limited or full?), remains unclear. It is also still not fully clear whether the eurozone could circumvent the UK via an inter-governmental arrangement if the latter kicks up too much fuss.

But what's clear is that, in the land of ordnungspolitk, the idea of an EU treaty change is alive and well. So hör auf mit dem Blödsinn as the Germans would say.

Has Germany really gone off the idea of an EU treaty change?

Usually technical meetings behind closed doors in Brussels are pretty dull. However, judging by some of the reports floating around, yesterday’s meeting of the EU Committee of Permanent Representatives (COREPER) may have bucked the trend somewhat. This is the negotiation forum for member states' EU ambassadors - the key guys involved in talks over EU policy. This is where a lot of decisions, de facto, are being made.

As we noted in today’s press summary the UK was outright outvoted on the plans for capital requirements for banks (CRD IV), which entail the controversial caps on bankers' bonuses. 

However, though it was already clear that the UK had lost that particular battle, it was the talks over the EU's proposed, and in part agreed, banking union which caught our eye. EU ambassadors failed to reach agreement amid continued North-South divisions, but the reason why is interesting.

Most media failed to pick up on this, but the WSJ Real Time Brussels blog rightly notes that Germany was strongly pushing for a clearer separation between the ECB's monetary duties and supervisory responsibilities, to avoid a running conflict of interest (see here). The only way this can really happen is to give the supervisory board the final say over supervisory decisions (as opposed to now when it rests with the ECB's Governing Council). This, in turn, requires EU treaty change. The Germans wanted a clear commitment from other member states that this would happen.

According to the WSJ, Berlin also insisted on giving national parliaments (not just the European Parliament) the right to ask questions and get answers on supervisory policy, and giving states under the single supervisor along with the EP the power to remove the Vice Chairman of the supervisory body.

A couple of interesting points there. This is an incredibly fluid target but those who say that Germany has 'gone off the idea' of Treaty change - in light of David Cameron's speech where he mentioned EU treaty change as an avenue for reform - clearly haven't quite appreciated the nature of the proposals floating around. Of course, Berlin won't be shouting it from the rooftops ahead of a national elections and with the relationship with France at an all time low (well almost), but in many of the Germans demand on eurozone governance is an implicit acknowledgement that something has to change in the EU's institutional framework (see our table here of the broad proposals being discussed [p.9]).

The scope (limited or full treaty change), nature (EU treaty or inter-governmental) and timing will be discussed, but it will likely happen sooner or later.

Will one of the Conservative 'Big Beasts' convert the party to 'better off out'?

Every Tory Big Beast needs to say something on Europe...

It is an essential qualification of the exclusive Conservative club of 'Big Beasts' - a group of high-profile Tories competing to succeed David Cameron, or who at least have considered themselves leadership contenders at one point or another - to have made an intervention on the UK's fraught relationship with Europe, preferably in a powerful article followed up by a substantial and well-thought through speech. With the half way mark in this Parliament crossed, and with the possibility of the Tories winning the 2015 general elections seemingly shrinking by the day (though much could still change), the Conservative Party is quietly contemplating a life in opposition, and who might possibly take over from Cameron.

For a range of reasons, Europe will feature prominently in any leadership campaign, and one particularly uncomfortable question will be difficult to avoid: will any of the contenders openly advocate the UK leaving the EU, thereby (if selected) making the Tories a 'better off out' party in opposition?

Well, here's our Big Beast watch, in chronological order (based on interventions in the debate over the least year). If we've omitted anyone, our apologies.

Michael Gove: A serving Cabinet Minister he nevertheless let if be known in the Mail on 13 October 2012 that he wants Britain to give other EU nations an ultimatum: "Give us back our sovereignty or we will walk out."

Philip Hammond: Not to be outdone he added his name to Goves's comments telling the BBC on 14 October 2012 that "What Michael is reflecting, and many of us feel, is that we are not satisfied with the current relationship between the EU and the UK."

Owen Paterson: He ventured outside of his pursuit of EU agricultural and fisheries reform on 7 December 2011 to tell the Spectator that "If there was a major fundamental change in our relationship, emerging from the creation of a new bloc which would be effectively a new country from which we were excluded, then I think inevitably there would be huge pressure for a referendum."

David Davis: A former Minister and Shadow Home Secretary, runner-up to Cameron in the last leadership contest and senior member of the BB club. He made a speech on the 19 November 2012 saying "We should seek the repatriation of a whole range of powers to create a new relationship between Britain and the EU" based on the original "Common Market [via] the so-called double referendum strategy." One referendum to approve a negotiation strategy and another to "approve the new negotiated relationship, or if it was not good enough, it would trigger the negotiation to leave the Union."

Boris Johnson: The Mayor of London on 4 December 2012 delivered his speech (video here) setting out a similar theme of renegotiation and referenda saying the UK should "Boil it to down to the single market, that's the great achievement of the European Union, I think we could easily scrap the social chapter, the fisheries policy." He concluded "The choice is going to be very simple: it's between staying in on our terms or getting out."

Dr Liam Fox: The Former Defence Secretary and leadership contender was next on 10 December 2012. In his speech to RUSI and Open Europe he argued that there was a new consensus forming that the "debate has centred on the need for a defined negotiating period over the EU issue ending in a much needed referendum." Concluding "To be frank, if the choice is between the current trajectory towards ever closer union and leaving, then I would choose to leave, albeit reluctantly. If the choice is between a looser, more economic relationship and leaving, then I would choose to stay. It is a view that, I believe, is gaining ever greater traction with the British people."

George Osborne: The Chancellor made an intervention in an interview with Die Welt saying: "I very much hope that Britain remains a member of the EU. But in order that we can remain in the European Union, the EU must change."

Adam Afriyie: The young pretender to the BB club and a former shadow Minister. He wrote an article for the Telegraph on 11 January 2013 arguing that "It is now time to ask the British people what they want. If the Government is to fulfil its commitment to offer people a real choice and a real change in our EU relations, then in my view it would be wise to offer two referendums: one in this parliament and a conclusive one in the next."

Andrea Leadsom: A new MP and therefore not traditionally considered a BB, Andrea Leadsom has however been a leading light in the Conservative EU Fresh Start project, working with a large number of her fellow MPs. Her views are summed up in an article for Conservative Home on 3 February 2013 after the Fresh Start manifesto was published on 16 January 2013.

Andrew Mitchell: Another BB new to the backbenches he added his weight to the European debate in an article for the FT on 19 February 2013 where he echoed David Cameron's sentiments and put forwards some ideas for European reform. However Mitchell has been widely tipped to be nominated as the UK's next EU Commissioner in 2014.

Theresa May: Although not a traditional BB, the Home Secretary may not have made any major interventions on the overall EU question, she made a speech on 9 March 2013 arguing that "by 2015 we’ll need a plan for dealing with the [non-EU] European Court of Human Rights. And yes, I want to be clear that all options – including leaving the Convention altogether – should be on the table."

Jesse Norman:  Another junior backbencher and not a conventional BB but has been widely tipped as a future leader, and he has raised his profile as the leader of a rebellion against the Coalition's plans to reform the House of Lords. He has now entered into the EU sphere with a thought-provoking article for the Telegraph yesterday followed up by a speech to the Localis think tank.

Of course David Cameron's speech of 23 January 2013 is the yardstick against which they will all have to be measured.

So what do we make of them? Well there is a surprising amount of agreement between the Big Beasts centred on the idea of a EU renegotiation followed by a referendum. Whoever is leading the Conservative party (in Government of Opposition) for the foreseeable future will probably subscribe to some variant of this. But there's also a possibility that someone goes down the 'better off out' route, perhaps triggered by some event in Europe which is perceived as a blow to the UK's chances of getting a new EU deal.

Who might that be? The comment field is open...

Will the German Social Democracts come out in favour of debt pooling in the eurozone?

Last year we highlighted the German opposition’s somewhat ambiguous position on the hugely controversial proposition of debt mutualisation in the eurozone. However, with September’s elections rapidly approaching, it seems the SPD could have nailed their colours to the mast and have come out in favour, with their draft manifesto – launched yesterday by the party’s chancellor candidate Peer Steinbrück and party chairman Sigmar Gabriel (pictured) - claiming that the subject can “no longer remain taboo” according to Die Welt.

With the manifesto not yet publicly available (it has to be approved at the party’s national conference on April 14), we cannot be sure what form this would take – more limited mutualisation via a so-called debt-redemption fund or more extensive debt mutualisation via commonly issued eurobonds. With the German electorate reamining firmly against dept pooling, we suspect the former.

The party has also come out in favour of expanding the role of the European Commission into a ‘European government’ subject to control by the European Parliament and a second chamber where national governments would be represented, although it must be said that this concept has already been floated both by Angela Merkel and also by the ‘Future of Europe’ group chaired by Guido Westerwelle.

It will be interesting to see what effect – if any – this has on the SPD's electoral fortunes (we can imagine that the new 'Alternative for Germany' anti-euro party making this a big issue). At the moment the party is struggling to break through the 30% barrier in opinion polls and has been as low as 23% in recent weeks.

In addition to the dynamics of German domestic politics, from the perspective of the UK, this debate is both interesting and relevant given that any of the changes proposed above would require changing the EU Treaties, thereby giving the UK the opportunity of putting forward some reform proposals of its own, as suggested by David Cameron in his recent speech.

From Amsterdam to Brussels with love?

Events may have conspired to prevent David Cameron from delivering his Europe speech in Amsterdam as originally planned but it has still managed to create political waves in the Netherlands.

It is rare for statements from foreign politicians to be the focus of parliamentary debates but last night the Dutch Parliament held a debate specifically on Cameron's speech. Halbe Zijlstra, the parliamentary faction leader of PM Mark Rutte’s VVD party argued that “Cameron’s speech is a more extensive version of the European chapter of the Dutch coalition agreement.”

The relevant section of the Dutch coalition agreement reads:

"The Netherlands asks the European Commission to inventarise, on the basis of subsidiarity, which policy areas can be transferred to national authorities and will put forward such proposals itself."

Indeed Rutte has himself quipped that what will take Cameron two years (i.e. the FCO's Balance of Competencies Review), will take the Dutch Cabinet 6-7 months. Last week, in a joint letter together with Finance Minister Jeroen Dijsselbloem, Rutte also reiterated the VVD/PvdA coalition’s desire for member states to have the right to opt out of individual EU policies, such as the Schengen zone and the eurozone, or from the EU altogether.

Yesterday, in an effort to apply pressure on the coalition in this area, Sybrand van Haersma Buma, the leader of the centrist Christian Democratic Party (currently in opposition but historically a party of government), claimed that “Europe is indulging too much in all kinds of over-detailed rules”, and put forward his party’s own detailed list of areas in which Brussels should not be involved:

- Nitrates Directive
- Air Quality Directive
- European Soil Framework Directive
- Home Energy Labels
- Freedom of the press
- Occupational Pensions Funds Directive
- Income limit for social housing rent
- Family reunification for immigrants (point system)
- Internet cookies regulations
- Public procurement of small building projects
- Maternity leave
- Ministry of Transport tests
- Female quotas on EU company boards

This is going much further than Cameron, who did not present a ‘shopping list', only mentioning general policy areas such as social and employment law and environmental legislation. Interestingly though, many of the above fall into those two categories. Specifically addressing Cameron's position, Buma said:

"He's right…let's go back to what Europe was originally all about...What I want is for several countries to decide together that [certain] matters can better be regulated domestically. A Europe à la carte isn't a good idea…We must get rid of the idea that if you want less Europe, it means you're against Europe from the start."

This is set to increase the pressure on the VVD-PvdA coalition which will try to agree in the coming months on their own list of policy areas which should be dealt with nationally, and which the government can use as the basis for any negotiations in Brussels. PvdA MP Michiel Servaes reacted by saying that Buma was only “following the line set out earlier by the cabinet", but that Buma's list was "a big leap" which ought to be carefully considered and discussed with other countries.

Meanwhile, on his Elsevier blog, Dutch Professor Afshin Ellian, a well-known political commentator, described Cameron's stance as "a third, more pragmatic way between europhobia and europhilia", while in a letter to NRC Handelsblad, nine prominent Dutch professors and academics argued that in order to bridge the gap between EU centralisation and EU citizens, the Netherlands should also have a referendum on its future in the EU, an option supported by 52% of Dutch citizens according to a recent opinion poll.

As we suggested in our analysis ahead of last September’s Dutch elections, in the medium to long term the Netherlands “could well be on the path to becoming a more assertive – and far more complicated – EU partner.”

A view from France: "Long live Europe without the UK!"

Last week, we noted how the German media's reaction to David Cameron's Europe speech had been cautious, but receptive. Unsurprisingly, the French press has been much less receptive to the British Prime Minister's call for a reformed EU. In today's Les Echos, Jean-Marc Vittori pulls no punches:

The headline is, “Long live Europe without the UK!”. Here are the key sections:

“The British have always considered the EU as a big market… [Since their EU entry] they have favoured everything which could expand this market. They have supported all the enlargements which took the EU from six to 27 members. They backed the strengthening of competition rules (which was a good thing).”

[...]

“At the same time, they have consistently resisted everything that went beyond that. They dug their heels in on the institutional reform made necessary by the enlargement itself (a business or a family dinner do not work the same way with six or 27 people). They resorted to opt-outs to escape the common policies – the single currency, of course, but also the Schengen security area, the Chart of Fundamental Rights and judicial cooperation.”

“And it’s not everything. The British act as ‘free riders’, as clandestine passengers. They have benefited from European monetary stability in normal times, and from the devaluation of their currency in times of crisis (during the early 1990s and over the past few years). They also know, better than others, how to have the [legislative] projects favourable to them passed in Brussels.”

[…]

“Nowadays, the eurozone can't just be a market and a currency. After the shake-ups of the last three years, it has (finally) become clear that it must be a space of solidarity – that word the British dislike so much (I want my money back). The Greek bailout, the creation of the European Stability Mechanism or the banking union plan all show this, each one in a different way. The other members of the Union are not obliged to enter this logic, even if they did ratify a treaty establishing that all countries aimed to join it. But they can no longer hope to be part of a Union without solidarity.”

“The UK has been a brake for the EU for a long time. It now risks becoming [the EU’s] ball and chain…Europe without the UK would do better than the UK without Europe. Since no exclusion procedure exists, we can only hope that the British themselves decide their eviction by referendum in 2017. With one brake less, Europe will then have more chances to accelerate.” 

Pretty strong stuff. Especially coming from a business daily, which should be more aware than others that the UK is an asset to the EU. Perhaps Monsieur Vittori should have a quick look at our recent 'Right speech, right time?' briefing, in which we noted that: a UK exit from the EU would shrink the single market by 15%, with £261.4 billion in annual European exports (up from £165.25 billion in 2001) potentially facing extra costs; a €14 billion hole would open up in the EU budget; and the EU's geopolitical clout would be substantially reduced.

Would it really be in the best interests of France?

Mali and France: about that 'pact of European solidarity'...

It's always interesting to watch rhetoric and negotiation posturing clash with reality.

Following David Cameron's EU speech last week, Najat Vallaud-Belkacem, a French government spokeswoman, insisted that:

"Being a member of the European Union has a number of obligations... The Europe that we believe in is a pact of solidarity and that solidarity applies to all member states".

Yeah, about that "pact of solidarity":

Ministers from the 27 EU member states, plus Norway and Canada, are currently discussing the operation in Mali, with the Canadians seemingly more committed to 'European solidarity' than the Europeans given that they already have special forces on the ground. The Germans are providing cash, two transport planes and possibly some training personnel while Poland is likewise considering participating in the training operations, with a decision due by the end of the day.

Other European powerhouses are still to make their minds up. In other words, we'll see what the great pact of solidarity can deliver for the French in the end...

Cameron's EU speech: German media cautious but receptive

Yesterday we brought you some instant reaction to Cameron's speech from European media and politicians. In this blog post, we round up reaction from the German press after they've had a day to digest it - a crucial barometer of how much, if any, purchase Cameron's agenda can count on in Berlin. What struck us was that the media, overall, tackled the complex issue where next for the UK in Europe, with admirable balance. Criticism tended to focus on Cameron's perceived pandering to UKIP and his own party. But equally there was also strong support for parts of his argument.

In a piece with the strong headline: "The Ignorance of the Cherry-picking Westerwelle", Die Welt's London correspondent Thomas Kielinger argues that:

“David Cameron has called for a fundamental reform of the EU so that his country can remain a member. This has nothing to do with blackmail… When [German Foreign Minister] Guido Westerwelle repeated his well worn assertion that the UK would not be allowed to ‘cherry-pick’ in its relations with the EU he was guilty of exactly the same thing that he denounces. He picked out of the speech that which fits his argument while he ignored that which he did not want to hear.”

"Cameron is in no way alone in his analysis of the changes that are coming for the EU, which one cannot address as being 'business as usual.' The overdue plans to stabilize the euro zone bring with them a deepening of the EU that also will have wide-reaching consequences for the countries not belonging to the euro. Those need to be not just discussed, but also most likely negotiated. It is not anti-European when the British prime minister brings these up. “It is not anti-European of Cameron to remind of the threat to the EU’s competitiveness [or] the creeping democratic deficit and the lack of public confidence in the EU and its institutions… Great Britain is approaching the EU question in a 'practical' not emotional way, Cameron says. That would do us all some good."

On a much more critical note we have Der Spiegel, which it must be said has consistently adopted a Cameron-critical position. Their UK Correspondent Christoph Scheuermann argues that:

“Cameron's vision of Europe is a free trade area with access to the beaches of the Mediterranean. Beyond that, he doesn't associate the project with a past or a future. Apart from vague demands like competitiveness, flexibility and fairness, he has no idea how the EU should develop… He's isolated partly because his interest in Europe stems from fear rather than any desire to shape it.”

FAZ's Klaus-Dieter Frankenberger argues that:

“Once the agitation has settled over real or perceived British special demands, the country's European partners should quietly sit down and study Cameron's wish list and not just immediately dismiss it as cherry picking. Cameron’s strategy may be risky, but his analysis is not wrong... A solid [EU] framework is essential. Nonetheless this framework has to accommodate a range of traditions, mentalities and objectives. This means that without flexibility, it won’t work either. Europe's challenge is to find a way of combining that flexibility with commitment. Pragmatic British and other sceptics should be able to warm others to that idea.”

Süddeutsche’s Martin Winter argues that:

“Since the crisis, the formula that more Europe is always good for Europeans is no longer valid. It would be good to know what ‘more Europe’ means in detail and who will be expected to bear its political and financial costs. Brussels’ almost planned economy mentality in the crisis does not inspire confidence. A blunt European debate – which is not conceivable without Britain – could lead to greater clarity… The statement currently heard in Brussels that Britain needs Europe more than Europe needs Britain is foolish and dangerous… Above all, it is in the interest of both the Germans and the French, not only to pull the British along, but to bring them to the centre of the European debate."

Finishing on a lighter note we have Bild Zeitung which in its print edition had a very tongue-in-cheek list of 8 reasons for "Why we don't need the Brits in the EU" which included pearls of wisdom such as using imperial measurements, driving on the 'wrong' side of the road, eating chips with vinegar and drinking stale beer, as well as having a higher debt than Greece, Spain, Portugal and Ireland combined. However, in an equally tongue-in-cheek online piece which paid tribute to "the crazy Brits" citing everything from the Royal Family and Boris Johnson to the Loch Ness Monster and the Sex Pistols, argues that:

“With his promise of a referendum, David Cameron has turned the old continent upside down… Most EU countries have tacitly agreed to build Europe above the heads of the people. Motto: The European project is simply too important for democratic participation. And then along comes this Cameron!... The Europeans are collectively pissed… and want to convince the combative Cameron that he is acting against the interests of his own country. Some even speak of expulsion and want the friends of mint sauce and those who drive on the left completely out of the EU. But dear Britons, please stay! You are so crazy. We need your opposition, your obstinacy rather than a united Europe.”

Who said Germans don't do sarcasm...? Potentially plenty of scope for support if the UK, with partners, is able to pitch its proposals for EU-reforms in a smart way.

Business backs Cameron's call for a mandate on Europe

A letter in today's Times from some leading UK business people supporting Cameron's approach:

EU reforms must come before any membership referendum

Business faces ever more burdens from Brussels and the single market in Europe has not yet been fully realised

Sir, As business leaders we are passionate about Britain’s prosperity. We agree with the Prime Minister that Britain’s best chance of success is as part of a reformed Europe. We need a new relationship with the EU, backed by democratic mandate.

Business faces ever more burdens from Brussels and the single market in Europe has not yet been fully realised. The euro crisis has created the circumstances for a new EU settlement. This is the moment to push for a more flexible, competitive EU that would bring jobs and growth for all member states. That means completing the Single Market and quashing the culture of red tape.

Now is our chance to reform the EU from within. The Prime Minister is right. This is a European policy that will be good for business and good for jobs in Britain.

The full list of signatories:

John Ayton, Bremont Watch; Sir Anthony Bamford, JCB; Sir John Beckwith, Pacific Investments; Samir Brikho, AMEC; Sir George Buckley, Arle Capital; William Butler-Adams, Brompton Bicycles; Stephen Catlin, Catlin Group; Ian Cheshire, Kingfisher; Andrew Coppel, De Vere Group; Gerald Corbett, Betfair; Mick Davis, Xstrata; Philip Dilley, Arup; Paul Drechsler, Wates Group; Ralph Findlay, Marston’s; Rupert Gavin, Odeon & UCI Cinemas; Ben Gordon, Britvic; Michael Gutman, Westfield Group; Lord Harris, Carpetright; Aidan Heavey, Tullow Oil; Robert Hiscox, Hiscox; Brent Hoberman, made.com; Sebastian James, Dixons Retail; Luke Johnson, Risk Capital Partners; Andrew Law, Caxton Associates; Lord Leach, Open Europe; Alistair McGeorge, New Look; Jon Moulton, Better Capital; Charlie Mullins, Pimlico Plumbers; Jamie Murray Wells, Glasses Direct; John Nelson, Hammerson; Richard Nichols, College Group; Tim Oliver, Hampden Holdings; David Ord, Bristol Port Company; Alan Parker, Brunswick; Sir John Peace, Burberry; Tony Pidgley, Berkeley Group; Sir John Ritblat, Delancey; Nick Robertson, ASOS; SIr Simon Robertson, Rolls-Royce; Xavier Rolet, London Stock Exchange; Sir Stuart Rose, Ocado; Joanna Shields, Tech City Investment Organisation; Michael Spencer, ICAP; Tim Steiner, Ocado; James Townshend, Velcourt Group; Ted Tuppen, Enterprise Inns; Moni Varma, Veetee; Paul Walsh, Diageo; Robert Walters, Robert Walters; Joseph Wan, Harvey Nichols; Tom Wells, Charles Wells Pub Company; Nick Wheeler, Charles Tyrwhitt Shirts; Bob Wigley, Stonehaven; Charles Wigoder, Utility Warehouse; Lord Wolfson, Next