IPPR: Many unanswered questions on emergency brake
• Who would decide whether the emergency brake can be pulled? Some reports have suggested that the European Council will decide whether a member state can pull the emergency brake. But there is a risk for the Prime Minister that they would block a UK request. On the other hand, if the European Commission has the final say, then such a deal may struggle to receive public support in the UK.
• For how long could the emergency brake be used? Reports have suggested that the Prime Minister is arguing for in-work benefit restrictions to be in place for seven years, before permanent changes can be agreed. But such an extensive ban may not be countenanced by other EU leaders.
• Is the proposal possible without treaty change? If not, then it will require ratification by all 28 member states. On the other hand, a change to secondary legislation would only need a qualified majority in the Council of Ministers (as well as a majority in the European Parliament).
Marley Morris, Research Fellow at IPPR, said of the proposed deal:
“There are many unanswered questions about this newly touted ‘emergency brake’. Who should decide when it can be used? What objective measure should be used to determine whether it can be pulled? And how high should the bar be set? If – as No 10 sources suggest – the UK’s current circumstance would trigger the use of the emergency brake, then how is this agreement materially different to the UK’s original proposal, which was rejected as discrimination by other EU leaders? If the Prime Minister can overcome these political and legal hurdles, then a deal may be in sight.”
Sofie Jenkinson - email@example.com 07981 023 031
Lester Holloway - firstname.lastname@example.org 07585 772 633
Notes for editors
After negotiations with European Council President Donald Tusk this weekend, no deal has yet been reached. If a deal can be found, Tusk is expected to publish a draft text of the agreement tomorrow. However, the nature of the agreement on the most contentious area – freedom of movement and welfare – is still very unclear. No 10 has signalled a significant step forward on the UK’s proposal to limit in-work benefits for EU migrants. A No 10 source says the Prime Minister has found agreement for the UK to pull an ‘emergency brake’ to restrict benefits immediately after the EU referendum.
IPPR has published two briefings on how the Prime Minister can negotiate changes to EU free movement rules as part of the current negotiations:
On changes to EU migrants’ access to benefits: http://www.ippr.org/publications/freedom-of-movement-and-welfare-a-way-out-for-the-prime-minister
On changes to free movement rules relating to crime, public services, labour markets, and integration: http://www.ippr.org/publications/unlocking-the-eu-free-movement-debate
Latest News from
NIESR: A Balanced Budget approach to the Risks posed by Brexit23/11/2017 15:05:00
Dr. Garry Young, Director of Macroeconomic Modelling and Forecasting and Amit Kara, Head of UK Macroeconomic Forecasting have issued the following statement reacting to today’s Budget announcement:
CSJ - The forgotten role of families – why it is time to find our voice on families23/11/2017 13:35:00
New CSJ report sets out the extent of public support for government talking about family stability
Policy Exchange - Beware excessive “declinism” – we’re putting more money into UK defence but American warnings must also be heeded23/11/2017 12:35:00
The 2017 Budget Statement comes amid higher-than-usual fears that the axe is about to return to defence.
IFS - If these forecasts prove correct we will be worse off and government debt will remain higher for longer23/11/2017 11:35:00
The big news in the Budget was not anything the Chancellor did. Instead, it was the new economic forecasts he presented.
The King's Fund responds to the 2017 Autumn Budget23/11/2017 10:35:00
Richard Murray, Director of Policy for The King’s Fund, said: ‘The additional money for the NHS is a welcome shot in the arm as the service struggles to meet rising demand for services. But it is still significantly less than the £4 billion we estimate the NHS needs next year. Even with this additional funding, the NHS will struggle to meet key targets and provide the investment needed in services such as general practice and mental health.