The £1.7bn question - who's right: Osborne, Farage or the European Commission?

Below we give a blow by blow breakdown of what George Osborne did or did not secure at today’s EU finance ministers meeting. This basically comes down to the UK’s rebate and how it’s applied - and whether it was always going to apply to the £1.7bn.  Osborne claimed that:

As PM said EU bill unacceptable. Now we've halved the bill, delayed the bill & pay no interest on the bill. Result for Britain
— George Osborne (@George_Osborne) November 7, 2014

Whilst Ukip leader Nigel Farage has claimed that:

Osborne trying to spin his way out of disaster. UK still paying full £1.7bn, his credibility is about to nose dive.
— Nigel Farage (@Nigel_Farage) November 7, 2014

This is what EU Budget Commissioner Georgieva said at a press conference just now:

“As we all know the UK receives a rebate on their contribution, but in years when the UK has to pay additional because of GNI corrections, normally this payment would be on 31 December and it would be in the full amount. With the proposal [under discussion]…in exceptional years this period of time would be stretched into the next year, and when this happens, and it would be in these exceptional circumstances, then the payment and the rebate on the payment could converge. In a normal year, they would not. In a normal year, you have a payment on 31 December and then next year, in the spring, we have the calculation of the rebate on this payment.” 

So who’s right?

Well, Osborne is right that the UK will pay half of the initial £1.7bn demand, since the UK’s rebate will now knock off the difference. So in that sense, Farage is wrong. Britain “will not pay the full £1.7bn”. However, the Government’s position isn’t’ entirely what it seems either, since it’s possible (though still not clear) that the rebate was always going to apply to the £1.7bn.
 
Confused? Don’t worry. Few people know how the rebate actually works. Below is our attempt to clarify the issue.

What has actually been agreed?

• The UK secured a delay on its payments and will now have until September 2015 to pay. It will probably pay in July and September 2015.
• It was also agreed that the UK’s £1.7bn bill will have the UK’s rebate applied to it (in the same way all annual contributions do). The Government claims that it wasn’t ever clear whether the rebate would apply, however, Commissioner Georgieva’s suggest that it always would. Usually  the rebate operates on a one year time lag, but now it will be netted off at the same time when the payment is made. The UK government also claims that the rebate applied to the specific amount is above and beyond that which applies normally, due to the way different facets of the rebate are applied and the time period over which it was calculated (we're still looking into this one). 
• This accounts for the reduced the bill from £1.7bn to £850m.

So, Osborne has effectively achieved an ‘interest free’ payment plan for the surcharge, which will see it coincide with the rebate on said surcharge.

Would this always have happened?

• It has been unclear for some time how the rebate would factor in here. Either people were purposefully trying to obscure the question or it was genuinely unclear.
• However, now that it has been settled that the rebate would be applied, it can be said that this reduction would always have happened. The main change is that the rebate has been moved forwarded allowing the initial payment to be reduced.
• On net the UK will pay £850m, but this should always have been the case thanks to the rebate.

Does this impact other countries?

• Since other countries essentially pay for the UK rebate, they will on net be hit.
• Our understanding is that the countries will still get the full amount expected from the GNI calculations – i.e. France should still get €1bn.
• That said, since the rebate is being paid and also a year early, it is likely that their annual EU budget contributions will increase in 2015. On net then, the gains for certain countries (such as France) could actually be less than expected.

So are we looking at a cash flow problem for the EU budget?

• One outstanding question is how this will all work in practical terms. Judging from the European Council conclusions, countries who are getting a pay-out from the GNI calculations can still claim the money on 1 December.
• However, countries who are paying in large amounts can delay their payments until September 2015. It is not clear whether there is enough spare cash in the budget to smooth over this gap.
• Furthermore, the UK is using its rebate to offset its payment. This will not be covered until all countries have paid in their (higher) annual EU budget contributions next year. This further worsens the cash flow problem.

A political conspiracy or genuine uncertainty?

• Questions will now swirl around when all this was known. Surely, if the rebate applies, that was always known to be the case? Logically, since all UK contributions are subject to the rebate, it always was going to be. The only thing that wasn’t entirely clear was when and how it would be factored in. While this is tricky to work out, it’s not clear why the HM Treasury and the European Commission let the dispute run for two weeks. If this was a “set up” by the UK government to claim success, then the Commission was in on it.
• Maybe the handover in Commission has helped breed uncertainty.

So what’s the verdict? Who’s right, Farage, Osborne and Georgieva? Well, Farage is wrong, Osborne right on the amount but may be exaggerated the extent of the concession. The most right is probably Georgieva - though, we still don't have evidence that the rebate was always going to apply.

And of course, the UK will still pay an additional £850 million.

We will update this as events unfold, but what a mess.

Britain's £1.7bn budget bill: Who is to blame and what happens next?

Cameron has promised to invoke the spirit
of Thatcher over the EU budget

As EU leaders were agreeing the final details of the EU's new energy and climate change policies on Thursday evening, the FT's Alex Barker dropped the bombshell that the UK had been asked by the Commission to pay an extra £1.7bn surcharge into this year's EU budget. It was clear Cameron had not been expecting this and he angrily accused the Commission of a stitch-up, and refused to pay by the December 1 deadline.

By now, several explanation pieces have been published but there is still some confusion so here is one more try from us to clarify the situation:

Where did the demand come from?

There are effectively two things going on here, lumped together: the standard, annual revision of national contributions to the EU budget, and a one-off recalibration of the way in which national statistics authorities measure the size of their economies, going back several years. It is the combination of the two that have created a “perfect storm” for the UK:

1) Annual adjustment: Every year the EU member states and Commission work out respective national contributions to the following year's EU budget, once the actual economic data for the year in question is available. Member states' contributions can be revised upwards or downwards based on the performance of their economies. EU rules state that:

"The Commission shall inform the Member States of these adjustments in time for them to enter them in the account... on the first working day of December of the same year."

As David Cameron has rightly pointed out, these revisions are usually minor and therefore uncontroversial.

2) Changing the way the size of the economy is measured: Eurostat – the EU’s statistical body – recently reviewed the way in which member states auditing the way in which EU member states assess the size of their economies, concluding that under agreed EU rules (ESA95), several countries haven’t estimated their economies properly dating all the way back to 2002 (1995 in the case of Greece). In 2012, Eurostat instructed member states’ authorities to re-assess the figures – and to do so before 2014 . The ONS published its revised figures in May 2014, which among other re-valued the size and contribution of the UK's charity sector, which meant that overall. the UK economy was larger than previously thought, and had therefore been underpaying towards the EU.

The large UK bill is therefore primarily due to the one-off revision applied retroactively over 12 years, though effectively rolled in with the far less controversial annual adjustment. This is where a lot of the confusion comes from.

Who knew what when – and who is at fault?

This is what the debate has now shifted to, and there is a fair amount of blame to go around; no one really had their political radar switched on.

The European Commission: People within DG Budget (the Commission’s budget department) were briefing media on Thursday and well into Friday that the changes was due to the introduction of ESA10 – basically drugs and prostitution, something which left most people perplexed, and helped to fuel confusion and outrage.

It was also clear that the politics of the hefty bill would be lethal. Of course, Commission officials can claim the robot defense that “we are only following the rules”, but the Commission has always been a hybrid between an executive and a bureaucracy – so it should have handled this with far more care (the December 1 deadline was an over-kill), although some of this can be forgiven given that we’re between two Commissions.

The UK government: The exact figures were presented on Friday a week and half ago, a week before the EU summit. But it’s been clear since May this year that the UK economy was larger than expected following the ONS' revisions – indeed, the UK government itself triumphantly pointed this out. It’s also been clear for some time that other key countries were going to revise their figures. So while no one knew the full picture until 1 ½ week ago, different parts of the Government, including the Treasury, knew earlier a higher bill would be coming, albeit not the exact size. Perhaps the Government hoped this could have been snuck through somehow.

David Cameron: Probably hadn't been briefed until just before the EU summit but chose to adopt a very tough position, leaving himself limited room for manoeuvre. Some say this is a manufactured row to distract from other pressing EU issues like the European Arrest Warrant and EU free movement – a convenient row in which Cameron can ‘stand up to Brussels’ and claim some sort of success. We very much doubt it however,

What are Cameron’s options?

Cameron has effectively promised not to pay by 1 December and not to pay a bill “anywhere near” the £1.7bn mark – he restated that position yesterday in the Commons. So it’ll be hard for him to climb down. At the same time, the annual adjustment is supposed to be automatic – not subject to a separate vote – and the new calculations have already effectively been signed off by the ONS, so Cameron’s practical options are limited:

Rally a coalition to block the change: As a result of the extra €9.528bn that the EU will get due to the revisions, it is cutting the budget by €9.948bn - a net cut of €420m, and the Commission has tabled a draft amending budget to implement these changes. This budget will be subject to a vote among member states and as we set out here, the UK and other net losers have a blocking minority. However, rejecting the amending budget would mean the UK actually paying more (€3.6bn as opposed to €2.1bn), but the flipside would be that almost every member state would pay more too - rather than a €1bn rebate for France and a €779m one for Germany, they would face bills of €562bn and €1.4bn respectively - this could give the UK some leverage, although it could also backfire.

Seek revision of figures: Cameron has said he will launch an "exhaustive" review into the methodology that was used, effectively challenging the basis for the calculations. The figures aren't exactly transparent – and maybe this process will expose something they can run with and muster political support around. It's complicated by the fact that the ONS itself signed off on the underlying figures.  

Unilaterally revise the figures: The UK could check if the ONS went further then it needed to in revising past economic performance under ESA95, and if so, revise its figures again.

Go to court: It is not clear whether the UK would have any grounds for taking the Commission to the ECJ but one potential avenue would be to challenge the retroactive aspect of the bill as well as its unprecedented nature. Either way, it could bog down the process and buy Cameron some much needed breathing space in which to work on alternatives.

Refuse to pay: That could well trigger a crisis However, and the worst-case scenario is that the UK will face potential fines and infraction (see here for the figures).

Veto unrelated EU measures: It has been suggested that the UK could play hardball by vetoing other EU measures such as changes needed for the Eurozone to integrate further- but there are no such measures imminent over which the UK has a veto.

Ultimately, because the money is not needed for the 2014 budget per se, the issue could be kicked into the long grass, allowing for a face-saving compromise to be agreed. Speaking in the Commons yesterday Cameron sounded pretty confident that something can be done. We hope he’s right.

EU budget surcharge: how much support does the UK have around Europe?

David Cameron has taken a very tough position on the EU budget surcharge, claiming that he "won't pay" the £1.7bn the Commission has demanded from the UK by December 1 after concluding the UK had been underpaying into the budget relative to the size of its economy. Other countries have also been hit - so how much support does Cameron have around Europe?

These changes which again are due to recalibration in the way the size of economies are calculated (more on this later) are being tagged on to the annual "adjustment" to the EU budget, which is basically normal procedure.

However, this also means that EU leaders will have to agree to an "amending budget" via a decision taken by Qualified Majority Voting. This also means that the UK might have some chance of "blocking" the change if it can get other allies on board.

Below is the voting balance, if all "net losers" are clubbed together under QMV. 

EU member states' voting weights: 93 votes needed for a blocking minority

However, not all the other member states affected have been as firm as Cameron. The Dutch have appeared to soften their stance with Dutch Finance Minister Jeroen Dijsselbloem stating on Dutch TV yesterday that the Netherlands would pay its €642m surcharge "if the facts and figures are correct". Irish Taoiseach Enda Kenny said his Government will pay the additional bill, adding that “we have always abided by the rules”, while Maltese Prime Minister Joseph Muscat claimed that:

“Malta is not surprised that the EU has asked for this top-up… but we are still seeking clarifications on how the [Commission] calculated this figure”. 

Italian Europe Minister Sandro Gozi said that:

“An in-depth examination is needed… we will see whether it will be really necessary to apply the new method to calculate [national] contributions. In any case, this doesn’t imply an immediate payment.”

So hardly an endorsement of the UK's tough position, but there may be enough support for a delay or some alternative arrangement such as paying the surcharges in installments. Meanwhile, Cameron did at least get some support from an unexpected source... France (which has received a €1bn rebate). The Telegraph cites former French Europe Minister Pierre Lellouche as saying that:

"I think it's ludicrous to actually go and punish the one country that has suffered the reform. The results are showing up now - the unemployment rate has gone down to half what it is in France. The growth rate is four times what it is in France - and we go and punish the British? It's madness". 

Sadly for Cameron, Lellouche won't have a vote.

Showdown between France and Commission set to test EU’s budget rules

It has been widely reported over the weekend that the European Commission (EC) is seriously considering rejecting France’s new budget proposal which will see it run a deficit of 4.3% next year rather than the EC target of 3%.

As the graph above shows, France has strayed significantly from the path originally agreed with the EC, even after it requested and was granted additional time to meet its deficit targets just last year.

Importantly, this is the first time a country has flagrantly flouted the budget rules. Other countries have missed their targets or asked for extensions, but with the presumption of good faith and serious efforts being made to meet said targets. However, with its latest budget France has rejected the previously agreed cuts (worth 0.8% of GDP) and offered just 0.2% of GDP in savings. In other words it has flat out chosen to ignore the rules.

This may seem like semantics but it puts the EC and the EU more broadly in a tough position. With much of peripheral Europe failing to meet the fiscal rules agreed under the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP), the Fiscal compact and the European Semester, many have already been questioning the effectiveness of these tools. Ultimately, the EC risks replaying one of the key features of the previous crisis – letting a big country break the SGP and then being unable to effectively enforce it for other countries, helping to facilitate the large build-up of sovereign debt.

This is therefore a key test of the viability of the new rules and whether this time will really be any different. Combined with the renewed bank stress tests and bail-in rules, the coming months are an important testing ground for the new financial architecture which the Eurozone has put in place.

Sadly, as Reuters highlights, another fudge looks to be on the cards. While the EC will probably reprimand France to the fullest extent before getting to outright fines, it will also work up a new looser programme which gives it more time. This helps all sides save face and avoids the risk of further weakening French President Francois Hollande to the benefit of the Front Nationale (something which the EU wants to avoid).

As for what happens now, the EC will provide a verdict on the budget by the end of the month in what will be one of the last acts of the Barroso Commission. This is of course all complicated by the hand-over of the EC and the wrangling over who will actually be in charge of enforcing the budget agreements. When all is said and done another muddle through is likely, but with the Eurozone facing economic stagnation investors may be less than convinced by such moves.

Is Bild having second thoughts about Juncker?

If Angela Merkel had privately hoped to quietly ditch Jean-Claude Juncker after the European election, it all started to go wrong when Axel Springer, the media group that owns Bild, Germany's and Europe's biggest selling paper, added its substantial weight to the pro-Juncker/pro-spitzenkandidaten campaign. This severely restricted Merkel's room for manoeuvre.

While Bild's editorial line has not changed explicitly, today's coverage of the issue is notably less enthusiastic. The paper's Brussels correspondent Dirk Hoeren asks "Will the Juncker deal be a dirty one?", with his piece claiming that France and Italy have made their support for Juncker conditional on a relaxation of EU budgetary rules (unlike Cameron who has taken a principled stance).

In a separate op-ed entitled “Merkel’s dilemma”, Bild’s deputy editor in chief Béla Anda argues:

“that the Southern Europeans will make their vote for Juncker dependent on an agreement on their debt policies shows the shabby extent the haggling over the EU’s chief post has reached.”

“If Merkel supports the election of a euro-softener to the post of Commission President, she will have backed the wrong horse.”

“Jean-Claude Juncker should be warned and be made aware that he must not be a chief at the mercy of Southern Europe.”

If you believe in tight observance of budget rules, as most Germans do, the last thing you want is to have a Commission President, appointed on a 'pan-European democratic mandate', who supports relaxing German-inspired rules on budgetary stability and the introduction of eurobonds.

While Juncker might need French and Italian support, ultimately he is the EPP candidate and Merkel is likely to bring her influence to bear. But imagine if 'centre-left' parties with a more avowedly Socialist spitzenkandidat were to win in future. How would Germany respond then, particularly the 'centre-right'? Would it be a case of yes to pan-European democracy, but only if the 'right' candidate wins? It seems like some people are starting to wake up to this prospect.

Dutch contortions on budget highlight potential limits of eurozone rules

Jeroen Dijsselbloem (L) and Olli Rehn (R)

The Netherlands, Germany's most prominent triple A ally, has been through a bout of political upheaval in recent weeks, which could have brought down the government. The troubled coalition of the centre-right VVD and centre-left PvdA was struggling to find a majority in the Dutch Senate for its 2014 budget, which aims to comply with the EU's deficit rules.

After several months of discussions with opposition parties the government narrowly managed to convince three opposition parties last Friday to support measures for the 2014 budget: the left-liberal D66 and two small Christian parties: the Christian Union and the SGP.

European Commissioner Olli Rehn's conflicting statements on the issue illustrate how the Commission now must attempt to cajole the member states into line. He suggested in June that the Netherlands should ideally aim for a 2.8% deficit, with Finance Minister (and Eurogroup Chairman) Jeroen Dijsselbloem responding that the 3% EU deficit target was already difficult enough. This week Rehn praised the Netherlands for reaching a deal on a 3.3% deficit in 2014, even saying that the US should follow the example and "go Dutch". By the way, the government's own economic advisory agency, the CPB, thinks the real deficit will be 3.5%.

Martin Visser, the finance editor of the Netherlands' most-read daily De Telegraaf commented that:

"Even before all the calculations are made, Rehn provides a political judgment instead of a purely economic one."

When push comes to shove, the European Commission is always liable to grant a bit more wiggle room to national governments - illustrating the difficult in enforcing the EU's souped-up budget rules. This week German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble criticised Rehn’s decision to exempt large scale public investments from calculations of member states’ structural deficits, describing it as a “re-interpretation of criteria”. What constitutes a 'structural deficit' is, of course, always open to debate and therefore finessing.

On a side note, Dijsselbloem's role as Eurogruop chair is undoubtedly getting tougher. Telling other eurozone member states to get their house in order when your own country has been in the EU's "excessive deficit procedure" since 2009 must be increasingly difficult.

So, after a whole range of eurozone reforms (think Fiscal Pact, six-pack, two-pack etc) the lesson seems to be that legal rules just won't trump politics.

Plus ça change...

Did MEPs really vote to reject the EU budget deal?

There is a fair amount of confusion surrounding the vote that took place in the European Parliament earlier today on the long term 2014-2020 EU budget deal (MFF) struck by EU leaders last month. MEPs voted by a large margin (506 vs 161 with 23 abstentions) on a motion to “reject the agreement in its current form”. So what does this mean?

Firstly, it is important to stress that MEPs have not rejected the budget itself. Unlike other areas of EU legislation, the EP cannot amend the MFF, it can only accept or reject the entire thing. So, what we have now is the EP positioning itself to 'negotiate' with government ministers on some of the details before taking a final decision on the package, expected at some point in the summer.

The figures

Although the motion did not state that the Parliament has accepted the headline spending figures negotiated by member states, it appears most MEPs have come to accept, however reluctantly, that these will not be up for re-negotiation, as evidenced by the Freudian slip in this press release. Instead, they will demand concessions on the structure of the deal.

Settling all outstanding claims for the current MFF

EP jargon: “The European Parliament… Strongly opposes the current accumulation and rollover of outstanding payment claims in the EU budget… Is therefore determined to prevent any further shifts of payments from 2013 to the next MFF… emphasises that it will not start negotiations on the MFF until the Commission comes forward with an Amending Budget corresponding to [all unpaid payment claims for 2012].” 

Translation: MEPs may have to accept lower spending ceilings for 2014 – 2020 but they want to make sure that any funding shortfalls in 2012 and 2013 are paid for with new cash and not money from the 2014-2020 budget. It is rumoured that up to €16bn could be requested to cover spending commitments made for 2012. This is set to be a huge flash point with member states.

"Maximum overall flexibility"

EP jargon: “Agreed MFF ceilings for commitment and payment appropriations be used to the fullest extent when establishing the annual EU budgets; [The European Parliament] considers, therefore, that the maximum overall flexibility between and within headings, as well as between financial years, needs to be ensured in the next MFF and decided by qualified majority in the Council… [and supports] recycling of the surplus of the EU budget.”

Translation:  Essentially the EP wants to be able to adjust the areas where money is spent at some point during the seven year MFF. This is a reasonable demand given that a seven year budget clearly struggles to take account of changing economic circumstances - MEPs may get some joy with national ministers on this.

"Recycling the surplus" refers to the EP's desire to roll back any unspent funds back into the budget rather than seeing them returned to member states as they are now. This is likely to face resistance from member states but could be less of an issue than thought since the surplus is expected to be squeezed under the new MFF anyway.

Compulsory mid-term revision under QMV

EP jargon: “The next European Parliament and Commission – that will come into office following the 2014 European elections – should be in a position to reconfirm the Union’s budgetary priorities and carry out a revision of the MFF 2014-2020; [The European Parliament] underlines, therefore, its position in favour of a compulsory and comprehensive revision of the MFF… considers that the revision should be legally binding, enshrined in the MFF Regulation and decided by qualified majority in the Council.”

Translation:  Same as the demands for "flexibility" above. However, the big target is to introduce majority voting to the MFF, which unlike annual budget is always conducted under unanimity. This idea will hit a brick wall when proposed to national governments.

Direct EU taxes

EP jargon: "The European Parliament… Stresses the importance of reaching an agreement on an in-depth reform of the own resources system… [and supports] phasing out all existing rebates and correction mechanisms… insists that revenues from the Financial Transaction Tax should be allocated at least partly to the EU budget as a genuine own resource.” 

Translation:  The EP wants to see the budget part-funded directly by EU taxes (the Commission proposed the FTT and a new system of EU VAT) and also limit the number of rebates that countries get. Demands for EU taxes will be met with the same derision by national ministers as calls for QMV. Even those countries that eventually went down the FTT road aren't planning on handing the revenue to the EU.

Ultimately today’s vote is a case of the EP trying to flex its muscles by standing up to member states. However, today would suggest that Martin Schulz, who marched his fellow MEPs up the top of hill in the immediate aftermath of the summit by threatening to veto the entire budget, will have to march them back down again, albeit with a couple of minor concessions. Most of the EP's demands will be thrown out immediately.

Open Europe publishes (and analyses) leaked draft of Van Rompuy's new EU budget proposal

We’ve got our hands on a leaked copy of the latest HermanVan Rompuy (HvR) proposal for the EU budget (see here for the full doc). The headline spending figure remains broadly unchanged in the new proposal, standing at €1,014bn (a €4bn increase), but more cash is spent on farm subsidies and structural funds, in a move designed to appease France, Poland, Italy and Spain.

(The figures here includes off budget items, if they are discounted the second proposal is actuall a decrease, from €973bn to €972bn. This is mostly due to items which weren't off budget in the original proposal, being off budget in the second version).

No figure is given for payments appropriations – the figure that the UK government is targeting – but given that this figure has widely been cited to be €940bn, it’s likely that it’ll have to come down more if acceptable to the UK (with the government's initial proposal at €886bn).

Also, just like with the previous draft, the latest HvR proposal foresees cuts to the UK rebate – which is a non-starter for Britain.  As a refresher (from our recent flash analysis):

“The proposal also includes an adjustment in the way in which the UK rebate is calculated. This could result in the UK rebate falling by as much as 11% or €3.5bn across the next budget period, solely due to this adjustment.

The plan also suggests that ‘corrections’ such as the UK rebate will be “fully financed by all member states”. It’s not entirely clear what this means, but it does suggest that the UK could actually be responsible for funding part of its own rebate. If this were the case then the rebate could be reduced by a further €3.316bn, cutting the rebate by a further 11.5%, and 21% (€6.8bn) from its original amount.”

The increased spending on CAP and Cohesion moves further away from the spending split which many in the UK would like to see (more growth focused) while although the headline figure has not increased it is still probably slightly too high. See table below for the full break down (click to enlarge):

So, despite talk of progress last night, it still seems that, from a UK perspective (but also likely a Swedish, Dutch and German one) there are some significant divisions.
 

Nick Clegg’s opposition to renegotiation could risk the UK’s EU membership

Following Nick Clegg's Europe speech at Chatham House yesterday, we argued on the Spectator's Coffee House blog,

Nick Clegg this morning fell into the usual ‘all or nothing’ fallacy on Europe. He said: ‘As soon as we start talking about repatriation, we descend into the in-versus-out debate.’ But the Deputy Prime Minister is wrong: the in/out debate is already underway, and rather than seek to defend the unpopular status quo, Nick Clegg should back renegotiation as the best option for those who wish to put the UK’s membership on a stable democratic footing.

But instead of attempting to address the causes for the EU’s unpopularity, the inflated budget, democracy deficit and bureaucracy etc. Nick Clegg sought to channel the debate into his own in/out debate where the problems of ‘out’ justify doing nothing about the problems of ‘in’.

Clegg said that UK can either be a full member of the EU or outside, like Norway and Switzerland. He is right that Norway as a member of the EEA does indeed implement a large proportion of EU law over which it has little influence and that Switzerland does not have full access for its services industries. He also pointed out that with no EU deal ‘firms who currently pay no import tariffs on the goods they send to the continent would be faced with taxes of up to 22 per cent’.  It is actually more like 10 per cent but the point is the same. However, protesting that no one is suggesting joining the EEA or not having a free trade deal with the EU is missing the point. Nick Clegg is presenting a false choice.

There is not one standard EU membership. The UK is not in the Schengen travel area, others are. The UK has a different deal on EU crime and police law than Denmark, which is fully opted out. There are neutral states and those involved in EU defence, there is the euro, the list goes on. But for Clegg there are only two types.

‘There’s the core: where the Eurozone countries are now pulling together more closely… Then there is the ring around that… And the outer circle… The UK is in the inner circle – but the terrain is shifting. The core is tightening – to what degree we don’t yet know.’

Clegg believes we should remain ‘a strong UK, influential in Europe’, but does not define what he wants to influence or convincingly explain why we should be in anything beyond the single market and some absolutely vital cross-border measures. Clegg’s reasoning:

‘What kind of club gives you a full pass, with all the perks, but doesn’t expect you to pay the full membership fee or abide by all the rules?’

This is an odd justification for the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy, Common Fisheries Policy, social and employment regulation, wasteful regional policy and unnecessary loss of democratic control. Are these accepted as some bizarre self-imposed flagellation for daring to desire free trade? If so, why not just accept a rise in the EU budget and get on with it? It’s the ‘subscription’ fee after all.

So what should the UK aim for? In a recent paper we set out that for now the UK benefits from being in the EU’s customs union and single market for good and services but that all other areas should be decided on a case by case basis. Is this pick -and-mix EU possible? Yes. The EU, as Clegg acknowledges, is changing. The eurozone is renegotiating its membership terms, and the treaties will need to be revisited sooner or later. This will present the UK with the opportunity to reform its membership terms and put it on a stable democratic foundation in line with public opinion.

What next for the Netherlands?

The political situation in the Netherlands continues to look uncertain, following the fall of the Dutch government, largely due to EU-imposed austerity targets.

Yesterday the Dutch Parliament debated the crisis (which we live-tweeted) with at times heated exchanges. So what has come out of it and where are we at?

• Outgoing PM Mark Rutte announced that he would propose 12 September as the election date, despite many parties calling for a June election to allow the new government to get on with business. 

• There is still disagreement over an absolutely vital issue: how to deal with EU austerity rules. The Dutch government has to present its 2013 budget to the Commission before 30 April, which needs to comply with the EU's 3% deficit limit or, says Rutte, the Netherlands could face a fine of up to €1.2bn (though it would take a lot for that to actually come to pass).

• Diederik Samsom, the leader of the social democrat PVDA, remains opposed to sticking to the the 3% rules, saying that going beyond that limit (his proposal is 3.6%) is allowed in "exceptional circumstances" - which was immediately denied by PM Rutte.

To put the Dutch economic problems into context, we are talking about a country with a deficit of 4.7% and debt to GDP of 65% (2011 figures), although high household debt and falling house prices are creating some trouble right now. Many countries would love to have this problem (the UK, for one). The problem, of course, is that these figures do not conform to the eurozone orthodoxy of austerity - of which the Dutch have been major cheerleaders, and in many ways the Dutch have made a rod for their own backs here.

In any case, talks are ongoing and a new debate is scheduled for Thursday. Our bet is on the political parties reaching an agreement to send to Brussels before the deadline and that will serve to appease the Commission.

But this runs far deeper than whether the Dutch can pass this year's budget, it raises fundamental questions about whether the country will be able to prodcue stable government in the longer term. Political fragmentation in the Netherlands has been a feature of the last decade. In 2003 the three 'mainstream parties' (PvdA, CDA, VVD) held 114 (76%) of the 150 seats in parliament. In 2010, this was down to 82 (54%). In 2012, who knows?

The one to watch is clearly Geert Wilders and his populist PVV party - if they gain, passing the EU fiscal treaty will be far more difficult in the Netherlands, as will eurozone politics in general. However, interestingly, Wilders is currently polling at the lowest level in two years, at 12.6%. What's also interesting is that the left-wing Socialist Party (SP), which has also been quite critical of the EU in the past, is polling close to 20% (governing VVD at 22% and centre-left PVDA at 16%).

But as we've noted before, the Dutch crisis is an indication of how unsustainable the current eurozone path is, and the tension involved in having key decisions on spending and taxation subject to supranational rules rather than votes in national parliaments.

Yesterday, Bild presented a list of eurozone countries where governments have already collapsed over the euro: the Netherlands, Ireland, Portugal, Italy, Greece, Spain, Slovakia and Slovenia.

The eurozone crisis used to be perceived as the the core versus the indebted periphery. What happened this week in the Netherlands has bent these assumptions.  But the common theme is that voters feel powerless to change the status quo. Whichever mainstream party they vote for, the answer is the same. For as long as this persists, no one should be surprised by the alternatives that people might seek.