The balance of powers between Brussels and London is broadly correct in six key policy areas, a Whitehall review has found, undermining David Cameron’s attempts to renegotiate the UK’s relationship with the EU.
The first six analysis papers in the government’s review of
EU powers suggest that the UK is not significantly harmed by what
Brussels does, and Britain largely benefits from its relationship with
the rest of the union.
Verdicts from first six papers
The papers
looked at the single market, tax, healthcare, foreign policy, aid and
food safety. A senior government official said: “In none of these areas
did the balance of evidence suggest the balance of competences was not
broadly appropriate.”
The findings appear to contradict the prime minister’s view that the UK needs to renegotiate the way it interacts with the EU. Mr Cameron promised in January: “I believe we can achieve a new settlement in which Britain can be comfortable and all our countries can thrive.”
One
Liberal Democrat minister said on Monday: “All this review has done so
far is underlined rather than weakened the case for Britain’s membership
of the European Union, which is not exactly the message that many
Conservatives were hoping for.”
The analysis was ready to publish last week but was held
back until after MPs had left for recess in an apparent attempt to
minimise the likely fallout of the review on the Tory benches. Some MPs
expressed anger at both the findings of the analysis and the way the
government has handled it. Douglas Carswell, a Conservative MP, said:
“The Europhile Whitehall elite says EU membership is a good thing. This
is hardly a shock.”
Mr Cameron’s case was also undermined by the fact that just
two of the 26 countries asked to submit evidence to the Whitehall
analysis did so – Italy and Bulgaria. The prime minister had previously
said he thought member states would be keen to co-operate with Britain
on the issue.
The papers focus heavily on the benefits to British business provided by membership of the single market. The analysis gives Vodafone
as a case study, which told the government its global growth “would
never have happened if Britain had adopted one [technology] standard and
the rest of Europe another”.
The analysis welcomed the EU’s role in coordinating food
safety rules, channelling aid to developing countries and setting
licensing rules for drug companies.
On one of the most politically sensitive current topics – the impact of immigrants on the National Health Service
– the report said: “Evidence suggested that free movement of persons
brings benefits for the UK health sector and for patients.”
Although it added: “A number of NHS stakeholders raised
concerns about the large number of EU/EEA patients seeking treatment in
the UK as this may place capacity and funding pressures on the NHS.”
However, it found several examples of specific regulations
or practices that were harming or could potentially harm British
interests.
One that was especially highlighted was the Working Time
Directive, which health professionals complained meant junior doctors
were not able to balance their workload.
It also found evidence that some member states were using
backdoor routes to introduce tax measures without the consent of every
member state, for example through carbon emissions trading.
But in general, the reports appear not to give the prime
minister a strong evidential base from which to argue for a
renegotiation of powers. One senior government aide admitted the papers
had found the balance of powers to be appropriate, but added that future
papers, such as that into the free movement of people, were more likely
to be more critical.