The EU Referendum Bill passes another hurdle - but time is running out

EU Referendum Bill rises again

The Conservative party's attempt to force an EU Referendum in 2017 onto the statute book is back in the guise of Bob Neill's Private Member's Bill (remember James Wharton's bill was killed of by the Lords back in January). Once again, the bill has passed at second reading stage in the House of Commons (283 MPs voted in favour and none were brave enough to vote against).

So what are its prospects for success this time around?

The Bill will now go to Committee stage where the best strategy for those who wish to scupper it (without been seen to be overtly doing so) will be to amend the bill in order to prevent it from being 'parliament acted' - something which will happen automatically if the Bill is rejected outright or is still stuck in the Lords by the time parliament is dissolved for the general election. Since the unsuccessful Bill has to be exactly the same on both occasions, if Labour and Lib Dem MPs manage to - for example - extend the franchise to 16 and 17 year olds as happened in the Scottish referendum, the Parliament Act could not be used. The exact make-up of the committee (will any pro-referendum Labour MPs be included?) could prove crucial.

Another problem is that unlike James Wharton - who topped the Private Members' Bill ballot last time around - Bob Neill only came third, so his Bill is behind the two other PMBs in the parliamentary pecking order. Both are relatively contentious themselves - one seeks to fundamentally reform the so-called 'bedroom tax' and the other aims to enshrine the government's to spend 0.7% of GDP in foreign aid - so the more time they spend in Committee stage, the longer it will take for Neill's Bill to progress to that stage.

If however it does navigate its way through the Commons unamended, then it will be for the next UK Government to either hold the referendum as instructed, ignore the law or seek to reverse the legislation. Either way, it will have served its primary purpose - convincing a sceptical electorate that the Conservatives are serious about a referendum.

Miliband vague on most EU issues but categorical on energy

Labour leader Ed Miliband addressed his party conference in Manchester this afternoon. While the focus was on ‘togetherness’, the NHS and his various encounters with members of the public with useful bits for his speech, there were a couple of mentions of the EU and related issues. On the topic he said:

“Let me say it plainly: Britain’s future lies inside not outside the European Union. And the way we reform the EU is by building alliances, not burning them. And it’s why all those who want to leave, including in the Conservative Party, are now a huge threat to the prosperity of our country.”

Miliband went on to add that he saw the need for EU reform in areas such as “the economy, migration and other big issues”. He also cited the UK’s failed opposition to Jean-Claude Juncker’s Commission Presidency as evidence that UK Prime Minister David Cameron cannot achieve reform in Europe, since all countries simply believe he is pandering to his party.

Ultimately the EU section was a side note to the main messages of his speech. Once again there was no detail about exactly which reforms Labour would pursue with regards to the EU, no mention of whether a referendum would be held or not and only vague talk of alliance building with no clear message of how this would be achieved other than by not being the Conservative Party. He also glossed over the fact that the Labour Party ostensibly supported the anti-Juncker push by the UK and that the negotiations over Juncker seem to have resulted in the UK securing a prime post in the new Commission – one many thought they would never get.

Interestingly, there was a bit more detail at one of Open Europe's fringe events with Shadow Europe Minister Gareth Thomas stating that he (and presumably his party) support a red card for national parliaments as well as a specialised European affairs committee to better scrutinise all EU legislation. Certainly commendable if they prove to be concrete Labour policy.

One final interesting point on substance from Miliband regarding energy:

“[We are] making a clear commitment to take the carbon out of our electricity by 2030.”

This is a pretty bold statement (although he did hint at something similar last year), which essentially says that all of the UK’s electricity consumption will be met by renewable sources in 2030. To put that into context current renewable share of electricity generation is around 16%, and is due to rise by to 30% by 2020 – that is if the UK meets its EU set targets (quite a big if at this point).

To achieve the current 2020 target, according to government impact assessment, the Renewables Directive costs £4.2bn per year over the course of a decade. Miliband’s target would essentially involve tripling the increase of renewables over the same timeframe up to 2030 – exactly how much would such a policy cost per year!? (We’d hazard a guess at…a lot). As the graph above from the National Grid shows, most forecasts expect the UK to still have a sizeable chunk of electricity generation from gas and coal, mostly due to the cost and complexity of overhauling the entire grid and the intermittent nature of renewables (note - we have an upcoming paper on these issues and more soon so stay tuned).

All of this also takes place in a context where carbon prices (via the EU ETS) and targets are set and negotiated at the EU level. Will Miliband unilaterally commit to such an approach when it seems likely few, if any, other EU members would sign up to it? We've highlighted before the potential conflict between Labour's energy policy and the EU. Again, more detail needed but at least here there are some interesting questions to chew over.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Get on with EU reform. Now.

EU referendum to be held in 2016 or 2017...No, not that one!

Swiss President Didier Burkhalter (see picture) has today announced that Swiss voters will be asked to vote on the future of their bilateral relationship with the EU "by the end of 2016 or the beginning of 2017."

There have been long-running negotiations over the Swiss-EU bilateral deals, with the EU keen on greater supranational oversight, but these talks gained more urgency in the wake of February's referendum in which the Swiss electorate voted in favour of renegotiating rules on the free movement of persons.

The result stipulated that Switzerland will have to renegotiate its bilateral accord with the EU on free movement within three years or revoke it. This in turn could threaten Switzerland's other bilateral agreements with the EU.

Last week, the EU told Switzerland that it was not prepared to negotiate quotas on free movement. In other words, in that choice between accommodating Swiss demands or playing hardball that we identified back in February, the EU has definitely opted for the latter approach. Interestingly, the decision not to negotiate was apparently reached by unanimity amongst EU governments, meaning that the UK opposed allowing the Swiss to 'renegotiate'. This is awkward for David Cameron, he was left with a choice of either giving Better Off Outers fresh ammunition ("see what the Swiss can do outside the EU") or accusations of denying the Swiss a similar right to which he wants to give Britain. In addition, in that old EU tradition, the Swiss are effectively being asked to 'vote twice', with a view to them voting 'the right way' the second time around.

In any case, faced with this impasse, the Swiss government's approach seems to be to put a 'take it or leave it' package to the public in the hope they vote to renew the bilateral relationship with the EU, even if this means little or no change to the rules on free movement.

Given that Switzerland is already outside the EU, a rejection of the package by the Swiss electorate could see relations return to square one - what that means is anyone's guess at this stage.

If David Cameron is re-elected, Switzerland's 'renegotiation and referendum' could coincide or foreshadow the Conservatives' efforts, which could be interesting.

Renegotiation and referendum: history repeating?

The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has published a previously confidential account of the 1974-75 renegotiation of the UK's EU membership under Harold Wilson's Labour Government. That renegotiation largely resulted in only token concessions to Britain - greater imports of New Zealand butter being chief among them. They were however enough to secure an In vote of just over 67% in 1975.

The account, written in 1975 by Nicholas Spreckley, then head of the FCO's European department, is a hugely interesting read. Some of the similarities to the situation David Cameron finds himself in are striking, although there are major differences in today's environment, such as a much less deferential media, a greater flow of information, far more actors in the space (including think-tanks), which means the public will be far better placed to assess the success of any negotiations.

Still, the politics described are remarkably similar to those of today. Consider this passage:

"The Germans, the Dutch and the Danes seemed the most sympathetic to British objectives...But as so often, it was the French attitude which was at once the most important and the most critical. In these early weeks the French government took the line that the Treaties and the principles of the Community were inviolable."

The most important figure was then German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt, who proved willing and keen to be helpful in addressing British concerns. France, however, was hard work and largely unhelpful.

There are also strikingly similar disagreements about the budget, and the UK's contribution to it, the frustration of UK ministers to fundamentally alter the CAP, and so on.

There are however some clear differences in approach between then and now. The 1970s negotiators were extremely cautious and ruled out treaty changes at an early stage - due to the small of number of such changes, this was seen as a radical option in the UK and among the eight other member states. However, David Cameron is on the record as saying he wants treaty changes as part of his negotiations.

As Sir Stephen Wall writes in his foreword, the "past is a different country", and with over 40 years of collective memory of the EU - added to the famous British cynicism - Cameron is unlikely to be able to pull off the Wilson trick with the British public this time around.

Is Hammond the most eurosceptic Tory Foreign Secretary to date?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Timing, not substance, is the biggest obstacle to David Cameron's reform agenda

Our Director Mats Persson writes on his Telegraph blog:

In a recent Sunday Telegraph article that received surprisingly little attention at the time, David Cameron came close to setting out a “shopping list” of what he wants to change in Europe. He outlined seven areas, though they were more principles than policies: powers flowing back, a beefed-up role for national parliaments, less regulation and more free trade, limiting the influence of European judges (possibly opting out of the ECHR, which is not an EU institution), tightening welfare benefits for EU migrants, tougher controls on future EU accession countries and no more “ever closer union”.

Nick Clegg – in a strange kind of way – has almost endorsed the plan, saying that "Now [Cameron] doesn't even talk about repatriation, instead proposing a mild seven-point plan, most of which wouldn't even require treaty change." European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso has said that the EU wants to "cater" to the UK without "threatening the Union’s coherence" (though he was all over the place on EU treaty change). And in the Financial Times this week, Jean-Claude Piris, former legal guru of the European Council – the key decision forum for EU leaders – concluded that Cameron's changes could pretty much be done without actually changing the EU treaties.

For Cameron, this is a double-edged sword. Sceptics at home already see Cameron’s starting position as a “sell-out” – mere presentational changes that will allow him to recommend a “Yes” vote in the 2017 referendum. This is a premature accusation as there’s a huge range within the Sunday Telegraph piece, from token reform to sweeping changes.

Cameron could cobble together a decent package without changing the EU treaties. First, areas like toughening up rules on access to benefits, removing trade barriers, signing free trade deals or scrapping red tape – key planks in Cameron’s renegotiation agenda – just fall under normal Brussels decision-making (which doesn’t meant it will be easy. Think European Parliament). Secondly, “repatriating” powers wouldn’t necessarily require EU treaty change but could still be meaningful, for example devolving the EU’s irrational regional policy (saving UK taxpayers £4bn over an EU budget period) or exemptions from maddening working time rules for the NHS.

Finally, the EU specialises in legal acrobatics. When pushed – say when the bloc’s second largest economy risks leaving – it can be amazingly creative. For example, it created a €440bn bailout fund out of thin air and via so-called political agreements, the Danes got four surprisingly effective opt-outs after having rejected the Maastricht Treaty in 1992, which were incorporated when the next EU treaty came around. Something similar can be done for some of the reforms currently being discussed, including giving national parliaments the right to block or revise EU laws.

So it's right that Cameron seeks to maximise the reforms that can happen without EU treaty change. However, not only would a Treaty change be a form of political insurance to the Tory party and public that things have changed but it's also needed since the treaties simply aren’t fit for purpose. With a more integrated eurozone, we need new organisational principles and practical measures to avoid the EU becoming the eurozone, while allowing powers to flow back to countries that wish to be less integrated. A 2017 referendum should be the start of a slimmed down, flexible Europe, not the end destination. A quick and dirty solution will only bring us back to where we are today – and could well generate a referendum result too close to call, solving nothing.

Ironically, the strongest and most plausible contender for a Treaty change is one measure that Cameron – oddly – didn’t mention in his piece: safeguards against the Eurozone writing the rules for the rest of Europe, which will also effectively kill the notion of "ever closer union". Exactly how this principle will be organised needs careful thought (ideas here), but it’s highly desirable that this principle is firmly enshrined in EU law.

Since it’s the eurozone that is now changing the rules via banking union and other measures, not the UK, Cameron would be given a fair hearing in national capitals on this point. It is conducive to a "grand bargain": the Germans and French solve their catch-22, agreeing to beefed up supervision in the Eurozone in return for Berlin underwriting the euro, while the British ask for safeguards against Eurozone stitch-ups in return for nodding through EU treaty change at 28 (which Berlin still prefers). In this scenario, it’s the German-led EU treaty change that may trigger a referendum in France, not the UK’s.

It's whether it can be done before 2017 that remains the biggest question.

Fact-checking the Clegg v Farage EU debate

The first EU debate between Nick Clegg and Nigel Farage on LBC was for the most part restrained with a surprising amount of detail and substance. Most of the key fault lines in the UK-EU relationship were touched on.

However, given that the two men represent the polarising ends of the debate, there were also a number of claims that struggled in the accuracy department. Here is our quick 'fact-check' of the key debating points:

Claim - Clegg: I supported a referendum on Lisbon

Verdict: Technically true but highly misleading

On the referendum question, Clegg said that when it came to new EU Treaties transferring new powers to Brussels,

"I've never wavered in that position, that's why the last time the rules changed, something called the Lisbon Treaty, I said there should be a referendum."

It is true that the Liberal Democrats called for referendum on Lisbon but crucially it was an in/out referendum which was not on the agenda at the time - the issue wasn't even put to put to a vote. There was however a vote on whether to have a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty itself on which the party abstained, despite the fact that together Tory MPs, Lib Dem MPs and Labour rebels could have passed it. Clegg is being highly disingenuous by blurring the distinction between an in/out referendum and a treaty specific one. Farage's quip that there was no point waiting for a new Treaty as powers were being transferred to the EU every week via directives and ECJ rulings was quite effective in this context.

Claim - Farage: Under EU rules we have a completely open door to 485 million Europeans 

Verdict - Partially true but unclear on the numbers

It is true that the free movement of labour is a fundamental principle of the EU and the UK cannot limit the numbers of EU migrants coming over. However, Clegg was right to point out that the right to free movement is not completely unqualified - under the free movement directive migrants have to be able to support themselves financially or have 'reasonable' prospects of finding a job.

In terms of Farage's 485 million figure though we have to say we are a bit confused as to where exactly this comes from - the population of the EU28 is around 506 million, which minus the UK's approximately 63 million leaves 443 million.

Claim - Clegg: 3 million jobs would be at risk if UK left the EU

Verdict - Highly unlikely - would depend on a range of other factors

Clegg cited the well-worn '3 million jobs linked to the EU figure' despite established doubts over its veracity. Recently those tending to cite this number have replaced "depend on" with "linked to" but it's still dubious. As we've argued in the past, this claim is one of the most conspicuous examples of a rogue statistic without any credible counter-factual attached to it. The assumptions behind the 3 million jobs figure is that there would be no trade at all trade with Europe if the UK left the EU, which of course is nonsense -  a similarly heroic assumption to that which Better Off Outers make when calculating the cost of EU membership based on all regulatory cost magically disappearing on Day 2 post-Brexit.

Claim - Farage: UK would hold the whip hand in negotiations over a new trade deal with the EU

Verdict - Very uncertain 

Farage argued that in the event of an exit, the UK would "hold the whip hand" in trade negotiations with the EU due to the EU's trade deficit with the UK. We've looked at this in detail - the key point is that while this is true in the area of goods, when it comes to services - a crucial and thriving area of the UK economy - this is not the case. So with that logic, EU countries would have incentive to strike a deal with the UK in goods but not services including financial services. Secondly, the process for leaving the EU - the so-called Article 50 - actually involves less control for the UK than is often assumed, including a Qualified Majority Vote on the final deal in which the UK will not take part.

Claim - Farage: 75% of UK laws come from the EU. Clegg: no it's 7%

Verdict - Both are wrong

The contentious topic of how exactly how many UK laws are derived from the EU also came up, with Farage gleefully citing Viviane Reding's absurd claim that 75% of UK laws are decided in Brussels (as we've argued many times, Reding must secretly be on the UKIP payroll). Clegg went with the House of Commons' Library's briefing which estimated this to be around 7%. Regular readers will know we've analysed this in painful detail and the truth is it is simply not possible to say exactly - what's clear is that it's neither 7% (this only counts primary legislation which isn't meaningful at all) nor 75%. (But basically too many).

Claim - Farage: We give the EU £55 million per day

Verdict - True if counting gross cost, untrue and misleading if counting net cost

Farage is correct that the UK's contribution to the EU works out as around £55 million per day. However, that it is a gross figure which does not include the UK rebate (cold, hard cash the UK gets back from Brussels every year) and nor the UK's receipts from the EU budget (even if this is only UK taxpayers' cash being re-routed via Brussels).

Claim - Clegg: Without the EAW we'd struggle to extradite criminals and terrorists

Verdict - The EAW makes the process faster but it is not indispensable

The European Arrest Warrant (EAW) is used by EU states to speed up extradition procedures. It is true that the EAW has been used by the UK to recover suspected terrorists and other criminals from other EU states who have subsequently been found guilty and locked up. It is however untrue to claim that suspects such Hussain Osman and Jeremy Forrest could not have been recovered without it. Also before the EAW was agreed, there were agreement on extradition and the UK managed to successfully extradite plenty of criminals from EU countries through bilateral procedures. These were considerably slower but it is highly unlikely that with or without the EAW Italy would have wanted to hang on to Hussain Osman or France to Jeremy Forrest.

Who won the Cleggv Farage EU debate?

The much hyped debate between UKIP leader Nigel Farage and Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg has made the Westminister village buzz.

So who won? The headlines give it to Farage on the basis of the instant YouGov poll commissioned by the Sun which found that 57% believed Farage had “performed better overall” in the debate, 36% believed that Clegg had won (7% said they didn't know).

A decisive victory then? Well LBC's twitter 'worm' had Farage only just edging it, and there was a general consensus among the Westminster village punditry that Clegg had emerged as the winner.

However, the poll also found that after the debate 47% believed Britain should stay in the EU – down from 48% before – while 44% wanted to leave – up from 42% before the debate. This means that even a substantial number of those who want to stay in the EU believed Farage had performed better than Clegg which has to be a worry for the 'in at all costs camp'. Moreover, the poll also found that following the debate, the number of people who believed leaving would be “good for jobs in Britain” rose from 28% to 34%.

Finally, the big omission from the debate was any substantial discussion of EU reform which we've argued will be key to swinging public opinion in favour of staying in. Will the post debate polling lead Team Clegg to focus more heavily on this in Round II on the BBC next week? Let's hope so.

The closest Cameron has got to setting out an EU "shopping list" yet few have noticed

What do David Cameron's seven EU 
reform commitments mean?

Writing in the Sunday Telegraph, David Cameron set out seven objectives - or eight if you read between the lines - for a Conservative EU reform agenda ahead of that potential 2017 EU referendum. Surprisingly, despite this being the most explicit that David Cameron has been in setting out a 'shopping list' (an unfortunate term), it has generated surprisingly little attention, in the UK and abroad.

To be fair, none of these objectives are completely new, one is not strictly to do with the EU, while in the case of some of the others it would be rather difficult to define success. Interestingly only the point about removing the commitment to “ever closer union” would definitely require treaty change.

In large parts, these are broad principles rather than specific policies - which is wholly appropriate given that it would be silly to set out a set of clear polices so far in advance (though some of these could easily get under way now). Here are the seven:

Commitment	What does it involve?	Treaty Change?
“Powers flowing away from Brussels, not always to it”	This is an overarching principle which would take a number of forms, including repatriating entire areas of EU powers, such as regional policy, to repealing specific regulations, to structural changes in the EU (incl. possible Treaty changes) that makes it easier to roll back the acquis such as a "green card" for national parliaments.	Depends. Reforms to regional policy and repealing individual rules, such as the Working Time Directive, would not require treaty change. Removing entire EU powers or structural changes might.
“National parliaments able to work together to block unwanted European legislation.”	At present a third or more of national parliaments can require the European Commission to reconsider proposals (a yellow card) - but it has only been used twice. There are various proposed ways of strengthening this mechanism to allow national parliaments collectively the power to strike down EU laws. This could give them a legal veto – the ‘red card’ or simply strengthen the existing mechanism.	If placed into EU law it would require treaty change. However, the Dutch Foreign Minister has suggested this could also be done through a "political agreement" between the Member States requiring the Commission to treat the yellow card as a de facto veto.
“Businesses liberated from red tape and benefiting from the strength of the EU’s own market – the biggest and wealthiest on the planet – to open up greater free trade with North America and Asia.”	De-regulation is very difficult to quantify. It could involve proposals to exempt small business from EU regulations. It could also involve imposing a repeal mechanism (a green card operated by national parliaments), sunset clauses, for EU laws as well as reviewing old EU regulations. This agenda also suggests further services liberalisation and the completion of the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and further free trade agreements.	None of the "competitiveness agenda" requires Treaty Change. However, it is far from certain that TTIP will be agreed and then ratified while cutting EU red tape is always a challenge in the face of interest groups and the European Parliament - but far from impossible in the face of political will.
“Our police forces and justice systems able to protect British citizens, unencumbered by unnecessary interference from the European institutions, including the ECHR.”	This could involve withdrawal from the ECHR, successful reform of the ECHR or a UK Bill of Rights limiting its impact in the UK. The reference to “European Institutions” could imply removing the European Court of Justice’s (ECJ) jurisdiction over EU crime and policing law.	Withdrawing from the ECHR would not require EU treaty change as it's not to do with the EU. Removing ECJ jurisdiction over EU crime and policing laws would.
“Free movement to take up work, not free benefits.”	This could involve a number of changes to EU rules around free movement including strengthening the link between economic contribution of EU migrants and access to benefits and ending "exportability" of child benefits.	Reforming the Free Movement Directive and the Social Security Regulation could be done without treaty change. Putting an outright cap on EU migration - which Cameron has NOT suggested - would require Treaty change.
"Support for the continued enlargement of the EU to new members but with new mechanisms in place to prevent vast migrations across the Continent.”	This would involve imposing tougher transitional controls on all future EU accessions, for example by extending the existing 7 year maximum transitional period or linking the right to free movement to population size and/or relative wealth levels.	EU enlargement requires a new Treaty with the accession state(s) over which all existing EU members would have a veto, so London could push this demand as the price for its agreement. However, enlargement does not alter the underlying EU Treaties themselves.
Dealing properly with the concept of “ever closer union”.	The EU treaties currently include a commitment to “ever closer union”. Removing these words would be largely symbolic but could have some political, and possible indirect judicial, impact.	Yes, given that the concept is itself enshrined in the treaty.

In addition, though he has not said so specifically, apart from a passing reference to need to achieve a union for both eurozone and non-eurozone countries, another priority for David Cameron will most definitely be to secure safeguards against eurozone caucasing.

A number of questions still remain of course, including the various reform ideas not touched on this article, including the EU budget, employment law or dealing with the ECJ (though they all could fit under the general principles he has laid out).

Lastly, David Cameron has said he will pursue this reform agenda followed by a referendum “if he is Prime Minister”. This is important as he appears to be setting down a red-line in any future negotiations with the Liberal Democrats to continue the Coalition.

The big question is if these reforms were to fail, would he campaign to leave or stay in regardless?

Miliband’s EU pledge divides UK media – but is largely ignored in Europe

There is this much chance we will hold an
EU referendum if I'm Prime Minister

Ed Miliband’s intervention yesterday – in which he said he would only hold an In/Out referendum in the event of a new EU Treaty transferring specific powers from the UK to Brussels – has, as expected, divided commentators and media opinion in Britain.

Echoing a similar point we made in our response yesterday, the Telegraph’s leader describes Labour's new policy as a "classic fudge" and argues that:

"Effectively, Mr Miliband is offering either more Europe or no Europe... The Tories and Labour like to give the impression that they have fundamentally different policies. But they are, in truth, remarkably similar”.

Also in the Telegraph, Peter Oborne argues that the new policy is

"by far the biggest mistake of [Miliband's] leadership... [this] unforced error is a priceless gift for David Cameron because it amounts to an unequivocal vindication of the Prime Minister’s decision last year to promise a referendum on Europe after the election.” 

However, on Conservative Home, Lord Ashcroft warns that Miliband’s announcement could lure the Tories into talking only about one thing – Europe, arguing:

“the Conservative Party would not only be missing the chance to talk about the things most voters care about more, like the economy, jobs and public services. It would also, as far as these voters are concerned, be proving again the out-of-touchness (outness of touch?) of which it has for so long been accused." 

The Sun has commissioned a snap YouGov poll which found that 50% of voters disagreed with Miliband’s pledge to only hold an in/out referendum if more powers are transferred to the EU – a move he admits is “unlikely” - while 32% backed his policy but nearly twice as many people regard it as a cowardly move rather than a bold one. The Sun's leader argues that the wait-and-see approach has made Miliband “even more unpopular” with voters and the paper concluding that he'd have been better off "keeping schtum".

The FT broadly endorses Miliband's speech though echoes our caveat that “Mr Miliband’s policy does not guarantee the British people the right they should have to an in-out referendum if the bloc ultimately redesigns the way it operates in the wake of the eurozone crisis.”

In a less coherent leader, the Guardian argues that Miliband is desperate to avoid having to deal with a referendum if elected as:

"Trying to avert an "out" vote would drain all energy from anything else a Miliband government might want to do; enduring one would sink it entirely."

What about European media? Well, surprisingly, Miliband has been largely ignored. There’s almost nothing at all in the German press, though Der Spiegel's Carsten Volkery – not known for being the Tories' greatest fan – argues that:

“Chancellor Angela Merkel, French President François Hollande and the EU Commission should now secretly have their fingers crossed for Miliband. For all public expressions of sympathy for Cameron’s reforms, the British referendum seen as a massive nuisance in the rest of the EU.”

Walter Oppenheimer, London correspondent for Spanish daily El País, writes that Miliband's decision not to hold an EU referendum:

"It is, however, a very calculated risk: it can cost Miliband some votes – and who knows whether those votes can cost him the election – but leaves his hands free if he manages to get into Downing Street."

The French press has almost nothing bar news agency write ups, ditto in the Italian and Spanish press, although Miliband got a couple of hits in Switzerland. The speech was picked up by the Polish Press Agency but they focused on the immigration/access to benefits angle and completely ignored the wider referendum issue. The Nordics are quiet too, despite Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt trying to weigh in on the debate yesterday.

We won’t pass judgement as to why Europe has so profoundly ignored Miliband.

Ed Miliband confuses with a new EU referendum lock he says is "unlikely" to be triggered

Ed Miliband will today set out the Labour Party's position on an EU referendum. Previewing his speech in today's FT, Miliband says:

"I am announcing that the next Labour government will legislate for a new lock: there would be no transfer of powers from the UK to the EU without a referendum on our continued membership of the EU."

So, unlike the existing 'referendum lock' put in place by the Coalition, it would not simply be a referendum on a specific transfer of power to the EU or treaty change but would mean that any proposed transfer of powers to the UK would trigger a straight In/Out vote.

It is not entirely clear whether Labour would therefore repeal the existing referendum lock and replace it with theirs. If not, we might be faced with the strange situation of two referendums - one on the specific treaty change and one on whether to remain in the EU altogether - with no guarantee that they would go in the same direction. If they do replace it, then we could be left with a much blunter instrument, where any transfer of power requires an In/Out referendum. Far from ideal if you wish to stay in the EU but also want to push for reform or dislike the transfer of power on offer.

Miliband himself notes that it is "unlikely" that his referendum lock will be triggered, emphasising that "there are no current proposals – from either the EU or any member state – for a further transfer of powers from Britain. Therefore it is unlikely there will be any such proposals in the next parliament." However, what would happen if, for example, the fiscal compact were to be incorporated into the EU treaties as is envisaged? This would not be a transfer of powers per se but would potentially alter the UK's relationship with the EU substantially.

In the rest of the article Miliband is keen to stress his reform credentials, saying that:

"I know the reputation of the EU is, with reason, at a low ebb. If Britain’s future in Europe is to be secured, Europe needs to work better for Britain. And Britain needs to work more effectively for change within the EU."

Labour has so far been rather vague about its proposals for reform. The Labour leader cites three main areas in his article. On economic competitiveness:

"Europe must do more to address common economic challenges by improving competitiveness, tackling youth unemployment and building an economy that better promotes prosperity."

On EU migration:

"A Labour government would work with our EU partners to lengthen the existing transitional arrangements for countries joining the EU so that their citizens have to wait longer before gaining rights to work here. There should be reforms to rules allowing people to claim child benefit or child tax credit when their children live abroad. And we should look at ways to make it easier to deport people who have recently arrived in this country when they commit crime."

On the democratic deficit:

"The agenda for change, however, must address people’s concerns about how power is exercised in the EU. This means giving back more control to national parliaments. And it means responding to concern that the EU is intent on an inexorable drive to an ever closer union. I am clear this is not Labour’s vision for Europe."

These proposals all sound very much like what David Cameron, and others, have been saying on EU reform.

But, on Labour's conditions for a referendum, it remains to be seen what political impact it will have. On the one hand, Miliband has raised the prospect of a vote (presumably in an attempt to avoid accusations of denying people a say). But, with the other, he is saying that the likelihood of his conditions ever being met is very small. What will the British electorate and other EU governments make of that?

When Ukip's recruitment sergeant number one came to town...

Update 15:00 Nigel Farage himself speaks:

After hearing Commissioner Reding admitting 70% of our laws are made by the EU I am willing to sponsor her doing a UK tour
— Nigel Farage (@Nigel_Farage) February 11, 2014

Update 11:50 - We've come across a video (h/t @hughbs) in which Reding very much stands by the 70%-80% estimate.

Update 11:15 - The Telegraph's man in Brussels, Bruno Waterfield, has gotten in touch to say that he asked Reding specifically about the 70% figure:

@OpenEurope I asked her about the 70% figure, she said EP 'co-decides' on 70% of all EU legislation rather than what she said
— Bruno Waterfield (@BrunoBrussels) February 11, 2014

However, at a similar event in Stockholm last year, she argued that:

"Did you know that 80% of Swedish laws are not Swedish laws? They are European laws that have been translated into Swedish legislation."

We've already examined this claim here, but it seems Reding is at best confused about the extent of EU legislation (worrying for an EU Commissioner) or being purposefully misleading.

UKIP's most effective recruitment sergeant?

Original post:

Where to start with Viviane Reding? She visited London yesterday as part of her so-called 'Citizens’ Dialogue' – which is neither about citizens nor a dialogue – and gave a very impressive performance. Somehow, she managed to offend absolutely everyone.

• The British public by questioning whether they "know what they are going to vote about" in a potential 2017 EU referendum, 
• The British media by suggesting it “completely distorts the truth” over Europe, 
• The British government by rubbishing large parts of its strategy, most notably on the crime and policing opt out and EU free movement, 
• Europhiles by suggesting that “70% of the laws in this country are made, co-decided, by the European parliament" (meaning that the share of EU laws, according to Reding, must be higher since not all EU decisions are made jointly with national parliaments) – a “euro myth” that ivory-tower types in the UK have spent years trying to “dispel”, and ironically, used as Exhibit A in their accusations of “misinformed media” (“6.8% of primary legislation” and all that),
• The Ukrainian protesters by praising their brave, pro-EU stance, and then later saying she has, unlike the UK, "never pushed for further enlargement" instead favouring deeper integration. 

So in short, the British are too ignorant to vote, British media all misinformed and 70% of UK laws are made in Brussels. As one person put it on Twitter, it’s hard to think of better “rocket fuel for those who want to quit the EU”.

Apparently, Reding got her bag stolen from her car while engaging in the “dialogue”. Fortunately, her papers, hopefully including the source for the “70% of all laws” claim, were left untouched.

EU Referendum Bill: Peers or the People - will Cameron seek to overrule the Lords?

Which century do the Lords think they live in?

So the assembled House of Quangocrats (sorry, we couldn't help it), former MPs, diplomats and political hacks otherwise known as the House of Lords has voted to put an end to the Conservative's EU Referendum Bill. David Cameron will most likely now try to use the so-called Parliament Act. This is a rarely used power which allows the House of Commons to effectively over-rule the House of Lords. So this will be a showdown.

We looked at how this could work before. This is the likely sequence of events from here.

Firstly, the Parliament Act requires that the Bill should be rejected twice by the Lords in consecutive sessions of Parliament. Running out of time counts as rejection but the Bill needs to be presented in exactly the same form in the next session of Parliament. This will require the same rigmarole as the first time around - a new Conservative backbench MP taking up the Bill in backbench time, and further votes which will require another abstention by the majority of Labour MPs.

So will there be enough time before the election to actual use the Parliament Act? The biggest risk for the Tories is that the Peers who oppose the Bill continue to debate it until the end of the next session, meaning that Cameron would never get the chance to use the Parliamentary Act. The second session will start in May. That will give the Conservatives a year to get it through the Commons and into the Lords before the election. If it is still in the Lords when the general election is called in May 2015, it could potentially be "Parliament Acted" as one of Parliament's last acts before it is dissolved for the election.

Could John Bercow MP - the Common's speaker - have a role? The legislation states that a certificate is required on the Bill to state the parliament Act has been complied with. It states a "certificate of the Speaker of the House of Commons signed by him that the provisions of this section have been duly complied with" is needed. It would be highly controversial for him not to comply but stranger things have happened.

So it is just possible to get this through before the election, even if the Lords try to talk it out. This will give the Conservative's a symbolic victory and a political advantage but will not bring a referendum on its own. That will require Cameron to win an election.

This has been a tricky Europe week for David Cameron

Is the EU Referendum Bill dead?

The EU referendum Bill - pushed forward by Tory backbenchers aiming to legislate now for an EU referendum to be held in next Parliament (post-2015) - passed through the Commons with flying colours but is now stuck in the House of Lords.

Labour and Lib Dem Peers in the Lords have just managed to pass two amendments. These amendments are now sent back to the Commons which will have to decide whether to accept or reject them.

Big question now is whether this Bill will run out of the time, and therefore die an early death. This happens if the 2013-2014 Parliament session runs out before the Bill is passed (in the UK system, all proposals are chopped by the end of a parliamentary session). This ends at the end of April.

The short answer is that's we don't know yet, but it'll go down to the wire.

Parliament could attempt a round of Parliamentary Ping Pong, or "Wiff Waff" as Boris Johnson called it, as the amendments are returned to the Commons to be debated - probably on Friday the 28 February. If their Lordships amendments are reversed by MPs they will be ponged back just in time for the end of the session - at the end of April.

But does the Commons actually need to pong them back or could they simply accept it all in order to speed the Bill on its way? Well, the first amendment is about the actual referendum question:

"Do you think that the UK should be a member of the EU?"

Which the Peers want to change to:

"Should the UK remain a member of the EU or leave the EU?"

Well, opinions are divided as to whether the question will make any difference on the outcome - something we looked at here. But the Electoral Commission felt that some Britons were blissfully unaware the UK was in the EU at all, hence their suggested change. The second amendment, to Commission an impact assessment on the consequences of an EU exit, seems harmless enough but will not really settle anything as any impact assesment will become the subject of the dispute. In any event legislation is not required. So perhaps the Commons could accept this one aswell?

Or would it be better to reject the amendments and use the Parliament Act in the next session as we looked at here?

Regardless, this is a setback to the Conservatives, who will take comfort from the political advantage to be made from telling the public that - in their view - Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband do not trust them.

Is an EU referendum back on the Dutch agenda?

Thierry Baudet

This week, the Dutch Parliament held a debate on whether it is necessary to hold a referendum on transferring new powers to the European Union. The debate was triggered by a campaign, called "Citizen's forum - EU" which managed to gather over 63,000 signatures, above the threshold needed (40,000 signatures necessary) to force it on to the agenda of the Lower House.

The campaign demands:

1. An end to the creeping transfer of powers to the EU.

2.  If powers are transferred to the EU, a referendum must be held so the Dutch population can have a say on this transfer of powers.

Two of the campaigners, Dutch academic Thierry Baudet (photo), and economist Ewald Engelen said in a speech to MPs: 

"The Lower House is about to lose its core competences...You won’t be able to decide policy any more. You abolish yourself. But you don’t have the right at all to do this. Because the sovereignty is with us, the people. You are merely the representatives of the Dutch people."

As De Volkskrant reported, the reception was more positive than expected. It was not only the "usual suspects", like Geert Wilders' PVV, the Socialist Party and the Party for the Animals that welcomed the idea. These parties have expressed support for a Dutch-style "referendum lock" in the past,

More interestingly, the social-democrat PvdAalso  came out in support, with its EU-spokeswoman Marit Maij MP, saying: "the PvdA wants to proceed quickly with a possible referendum" - albeit with a lot of qualifications,The party is only in favour of a non-binding referendum, and wants it to be held according to new rules currently being negotiated in the Dutch Senate, which would make it necessary to first obtain 300,000 signatures, a high threshold in the Netherlands (but something which the EU referendum campaigners are considering).

The Christian Union, which sits with the Tories in the ECR Group in Brussels, support the idea, with its spokesman, Gert-Jan Segers MP, saying that "by means of exception we accept an advisory referendum".

Dutch PM Mark Rutte's governing VVD reiterated its support for strengthening national parliaments (something which the PvdA also wants), but is against referendums as a tool of policy.

Meanwhile, a new poll, by prominent pollster Maurice de Hond, reveals that 67% of Dutch citizens want a referendum in the event of new powers be transferred from the Netherlands to the EU:

Ja = Yes, Nee = No

This is against a tricky backdrop: current opinion polls show that Geert Wilders' PVV would have almost as many seats the governing VVD and PvdA combined, if an election was held today (though that goes far beyond Europe as an issue). With the Dutch government's campaign to set limits on the powers of the next European Commission shows, the European election campaign could prove interesting in the Netherlands.

Open Europe Chairman Lord Leach: We can't do nothing. Only #EUReform will work

Open Europe Chairman Lord Leach of Fairford has an article in today's Times, trailing this week's unprecedented Open Europe-Fresh Start Project pan-European Conference on #EUReform. He argues,

There will be no escaping the European question this year. The European Parliament elections in May will be followed by the selection of a new Commission, the EU’s executive arm and spiritual home for federal-minded officials. This is also the year when the Prime Minister will set out his negotiating strategy for Europe ahead of next year’s general election and the promised referendum in 2017.

Voters across the Continent will be assured by EU leaders that the euro crisis is over. It isn’t. A financial and currency crisis has simply morphed into a social and economic crisis, with youth unemployment running at 50 per cent in parts of Southern Europe. The European elections will return sceptical parties in record numbers.

These flashing warning lights illustrate voters’ deepening frustration with the status quo. An out-of-touch Brussels political elite will no doubt try to frame the debate about Europe’s future as a struggle between moderate idealists who see the EU as an end in itself, a staging post on the journey to a United States of Europe, and dangerous “extremists” who oppose it lock, stock and barrel.

That would be a grave mistake. Without radical change, the legitimacy of the EU will continue to decline in every member state. And if there is a referendum in Britain it will be so close as to leave the issue undecided and half the country feeling resentful and disenfranchised.

However, here’s the good news: as economic and democratic realities mount, the momentum for reform is growing. National politicians increasingly sense that they risk ending up on the wrong side of history if they settle for the “do nothing” option. In an unambiguous sign of the changing mood, Open Europe and the Fresh Start Project of UK MPs are this week hosting a conference for more than 250 leading politicians and opinion-formers from all 28 EU member states. Though we won’t agree on everything, we have a common mission: reform.

For years Europhiles have used conferences to set the agenda, talking to themselves about themselves. No more. For the first time, reformers are joining forces in large numbers to call for sweeping change.

This event is about substance. Beyond the simplistic ideological divide between those who want a superstate and those who want break-up, what is the most effective way to organise Europe, practically, democratically and economically?

Over two days the focus will be on competitiveness and democracy, a testing-ground for fleshing out which concrete EU reforms the Prime Minister can achieve ahead of the 2017 referendum. Our European friends will have constructive ideas of their own.

Countless statistics show how the EU is losing out in the global race. Yet it is not hard to see how to make Europe work for prosperity, rather than against it. A liberalised market, not least in services, with each country free to make its own successes and mistakes, would provide fresh competitive edge. Returning labour market laws to the domestic shop floor, dropping the centralised European management of farm subsidies and national energy policies, ending the grossly inefficient recycling of regeneration subsidies through Brussels and cutting needless regulation across the board — all these would immediately help growth and jobs.

Above all we need a new constitutional settlement to square national democracy with European co-operation. That means facing the existential question that was posed when the euro was created: what is the common cause that defines the EU? Is it the single currency, and its ideological parent “ever closer union”? Or the Single Market?

If the EU becomes a political extension of the euro, sooner or later the UK electorate will vote to leave. Yet there has been acknowledgement — from Berlin to Rome — that it is in no one’s interest to convert countries into first and second-class members, still less to sleepwalk into the exit of one of Europe’s main powers. However, in what will be a long battle, the UK needs allies. They will be worth listening to.

We're all EU reformers now?

Thumbs up to EU Reform but is he for real?

Lord Mandelson on the BBC's Today programme earler stated that:

I think that reform and change in Europe is what is wanted by the British public and I think that is needed in Europe...

 He went on to argue that:

The Government should this year go quietly patiently but persistently setting out its reform agenda in the rest of Europe winning those arguments and gaining allies.

Quite... But you would be right to be cynical, given his history, as to why he is saying this now on the day the EU Referendum Bill is being debated in the Lords (Lord M was once in favour but is now against). On the referendum, he was a bit slippery, to say the least. 

But still, this is surely a sign of the changing mood. Even Lord Mandelson is wary of being seen as backing the status quo and sees the need to champion EU 'reform'. We're very much looking forward to hear what, exactly, he means by "reform"...

Open Europe Chairman Lord Leach: The single market must be the EU's primary mission

Open Europe Chairman Lord Leach of Fairford writes in the Sunday Times: 

In the 1990s, the process of eliminating trade barriers between Europe’s member states was hijacked by an ideologically driven elite bent on nation-building; on giving flesh to the postwar dream of ending conflict by abolishing Europe’s patchwork quilt of selfish national states.

In constructing this project, the ends always justified the means, even if this meant ignoring the electorate. Those in this country who opposed the UK joining what was to be the crowning glory of European integration, the single currency, were vilified as Little Englanders.

Now the game is up. Elected parliaments have become the sole accepted seal of legitimacy. A new generation is saying that the EU is in desperate need of both democratic and economic reform. The Dutch government has called time on “ever closer union”, the German chancellor Angela Merkel says we should “consider whether we can give something back” to member states, and the Italian prime minister Enrico Letta talks of treaty changes in the “very near future”.

The latest sign of the changing times is an unprecedented joint call from German, Swedish and UK business leaders — from the head of the world’s largest bank down to the Mittelstand, between them guiding companies employing about 1m people — in favour of sweeping change. Germany’s leading business magazine, Wirtschaftswoche, wrote: “Now business leaders have spoken up — some of them for the first time. This is not only good, but it is long overdue.”

Britain needs to be attuned to the changing mood. Its current shouting match between polarised camps doesn’t help. I have lost count of the number of times I’ve been asked by the BBC to take part in or stage a debate between “europhile” and “eurosceptic” business leaders. Spurious facts and figures are thrown around — “3m jobs will be lost if we leave the EU” or, “if we withdrew, the UK would instantly be freed from all EU regulatory costs”.

The reality is that business tends to be neither die-hard europhiles nor convinced “outers” — with exceptions, most are in between. Business values access to European markets but doesn’t see why it has to come with a political union. On balance, business still likes the EU’s combined weight in trade talks but worries about protectionist tendencies and the dampening effect of Brussels regulation on firms competing in global markets. As the economic climate hardens, more business people on the Continent make the same analysis, concluding that we have to lay grand ideological projects to rest and focus on where the EU can add value.

The objective is therefore simple. The EU’s defining purpose must be the single market — it doesn’t have to be the only thing the EU does, but it is the primary mission. The task at hand is equally simple: maximise trade — including in the hugely underdeveloped EU services market — and minimise non-trade costs. Once we have tested the limits of reform, we can see if it still makes sense to remain an EU member.

So it’s time for business to make its voice heard. It won’t be easy to achieve the reforms we need if we are to reverse Europe’s economic decline and win back the support of our electorates. If Europe’s wealth and job creators throw their weight behind this agenda, not even the most detached politician or eurocrat will be able to resist.

This could be huge: Germany’s fledgling coalition considers its own “referendum lock”

As we point out in today’s press summary, the German media is abuzz with reports that a proposal has been tabled in the on-going Grand Coalition talks between the CDU/CSU and SPD on encouraging more "direct democracy" via national referenda, including on the transfer of new powers to the EU. Details remain unclear, but this looks similar to the UK’s own “referendum lock,” which provides for automatic public votes in many (but not all) cases of powers being transferred from Westminster to Brussels. 

Süddeutsche Zeitung reports that a CDU/CSU and SPD working group (lead by the CSU’s incumbent Interior Minister Hans-Peter Friedrich and the SPD’s Thomas Oppermann), has prepared a draft paper, which states that people should "be directly consulted on European policy decisions of special importance” and that this should apply in particular to:

"the accession of new Member States, important competences being transferred to Brussels or Germany’s financial contributions at the EU level - for this, we want to provide nationwide referendums."

The CSU campaigned for the introduction of referenda on important European policy decisions during the election, while the SPD has, in principle, been in favour of direct democracy for some time. While the CDU is somewhat more sceptical, there is still support for this idea within the party's own ranks. Schäuble last year floated the idea of a referendum on a new constitution.

In other word, this could mean referenda on:

• Significant transfers of power from Germany to the EU;
• Future EU enlargements;
• More financial contributions which, presumably, would include any form of transfer union.

If this becomes part of the Coalition agreement it would be hugely significant. Germany, a country historically allergic to referenda, will have one of the strictest regimes with respect to public EU-related votes in Europe. More to the point, as revealed by our own polling, it’s very hard to see how it would be possible to get, say, fiscal transfers voted through by the public (though even without the commitment, changing the German Constitution could require a referendum as per Schäuble's suggestion). Significant transfers of powers could also be blocked by public opposition.

The big difference between this and the UK’s referendum lock is that the German one would also apply to future enlargements. That would be a de facto massive block on a future Turkish accession, for example.

Still far from certain the idea will materialise in the end but it's definitely one to watch.