View source for 2015–2016 United Kingdom renegotiation of European Union membership

{{short description|Process that preceded Brexit referendum}}
{{tone|date=April 2024}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=April 2022}}
{{main|2016 United Kingdom European Union membership referendum}}
{{Infobox Treaty
|name = UK renegotiation of EU membership 2015–2016
| caption                 = {{Legend|#f11|<small>'''United Kingdom (UK) as a EU member state'''</small>}} {{Legend|#003399|<small>'''Other 27 EU Member States (EU27)'''</small>}}
| image               = United Kingdom and European Union (Red-Blue).svg
|date_signed = 19 February 2016
|signatories =
* {{flagicon|United Kingdom}} [[David Cameron]] ([[Prime Minister of the United Kingdom]])
* {{flagicon|European Union}} [[Donald Tusk]] ([[President of the European Council]])
|parties =
* {{flagcountry|United Kingdom}}
* {{flagicon|European Union}} [[European Union]]
|condition_effective ="Remain" vote in the [[2016 United Kingdom European Union membership referendum|United Kingdom European Union membership referendum]] and subsequent approval by [[European Parliament]].
}}
{{2016 United Kingdom EU referendum series}}
{{United Kingdom in the European Union}}
{{Politics of the European Union}}
{{Brexit sidebar}}
The '''2015–2016 United Kingdom renegotiation of European Union membership''' was an unimplemented non-binding package of changes to the [[United Kingdom]]'s terms of its [[European Union]] (EU) membership as a [[EU member state|member state]] and changes to [[EU treaties|EU rules]] which were first proposed by [[Prime Minister of the United Kingdom|Prime Minister]] [[David Cameron]] in January 2013, with negotiations beginning in the summer of 2015 following the outcome of the [[2015 United Kingdom general election|UK General Election]].<ref>{{cite web|title= The UK's 'new settlement' in the European Union|url= https://op.europa.eu/o/opportal-service/download-handler?identifier=1e8d4675-e4fa-11e5-8a50-01aa75ed71a1&format=pdf&language=en&productionSystem=cellar&part=|publisher= European Parliamentary Research Service|access-date=9 May 2020}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=The best of both worlds: the United Kingdom's special status in a reformed European Union|url= https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/502291/54284_EU_Series_No1_Web_Accessible.pdf|publisher= HM Government|access-date=9 May 2020}}</ref> The package was agreed by the [[President of the European Council]] [[Donald Tusk]], and approved by EU leaders of all 27 other countries at the [[European Council]] session in [[Brussels]] on 18–19 February 2016 between the United Kingdom and the rest of the European Union.<ref name=":0">{{cite web|author1=General Secretariat of the Council|title=European Council meeting (18 and 19 February 2016) – Conclusions|url=http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/meetings/european-council/2016/02/euco-conclusions_pdf|publisher=European Council|date=2016-02-19}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=European Council meeting (18 and 19 February 2016) – Conclusions|url=http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2016/02/19-euco-conclusions/|publisher=European Commission|access-date=14 May 2016}}</ref> The changes were intended to take effect following a vote for "Remain" in the UK's [[2016 United Kingdom European Union membership referendum|in-out referendum in June 2016]], at which point suitable legislative proposals would be presented by the [[European Commission]]. Due to the outcome of the [[2016 United Kingdom European Union membership referendum|referendum in which the electorate voted by 51.9% to 48.1% to leave the bloc]], the changes were never implemented and subsequently the [[Brexit|United Kingdom withdrew from the European Union in January 2020]].

The renegotiated terms were in addition to the United Kingdom's existing [[United Kingdom opt-outs from EU legislation|opt-outs in the European Union]] and the [[UK rebate]]. The changes were legally binding insomuch as the intentions and statements made by the EU leaders were enshrined in an international treaty. The implementation of some of the changes would have required legislation by the [[European Parliament]] or treaty change within the EU and so the details may have altered, although it would be hard for the European Commission or the European Parliament to directly defy national governments.<ref>{{cite web|author1=Steve Peers|title=The draft renegotiation deal: EU immigration issues|url=http://eulawanalysis.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/the-draft-renegotiation-deal-eu.html|date=2016-02-02}}</ref>

After the deal had been approved, Cameron described it as giving the United Kingdom "special status within the European Union" and immediately declared that both he and the [[Government of the United Kingdom|UK Government]] would campaign for a "Remain" vote in the referendum within a "reformed European Union". The following day, after a special meeting of the [[Cabinet of the United Kingdom|cabinet]], Cameron announced that the in-out referendum would be held on 23 June 2016 under the provisions of the [[European Union Referendum Act 2015]] which had already been agreed by the [[Parliament of the United Kingdom|British Parliament]].

On 23 June 2016, the United Kingdom, on a national turnout of 72%, voted by 51.9% to 48.1% to [[Brexit|leave the European Union]] and indirectly reject the terms of the new agreement. The result received [[International reactions to the 2016 United Kingdom European Union membership referendum|a variety of different reactions internationally]] and began the process of leaving by [[United Kingdom invocation of Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union|invoking Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union]] on 29 March 2017; after three extensions to the Article 50 process on 31 January 2020 at 23:00 GMT in accordance with the result of the referendum, the United Kingdom became the first EU member state to formally leave the bloc, ending 47 years of membership.

== Emergency brake ==
The so-called "emergency brake mechanism" would have allowed [[Member state of the European Union|member countries]] to limit access to in-work benefits for new EU immigrants. This would have needed the agreement of the [[European Parliament]] and the UK would need the agreement of a majority of other governments through approval in the [[Foreign Affairs Council]] (of Member States).<ref name=spaventa_brake>{{cite web|author1=Eleanor Spaventa|title=Explaining the EU deal: the 'emergency brake'|url=https://fullfact.org/europe/explaining-eu-deal-emergency-brake/|website=fullfact.org|date=2016-02-22}}</ref>

Under existing rules, other EU citizens could ultimately claim most of the same benefits as a UK national. Some of the benefits were subject to a test on "Right to Reside"<ref>{{cite web|author1=Dept for Work and Pensions|title=Right to reside|publisher=UK Government|url=https://www.gov.uk/right-to-reside|website=gov.uk|date=2014-11-12}}</ref> for which EU citizens would almost certainly qualify. Most benefits also required Habitual Residence<ref>{{cite web|author1=Dept for Work and Pensions|title=Freedom of Information request 3160/2014|url=https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/345184/foi-3160-14.pdf|publisher=UK Government|date=2014-07-11}}</ref> which means that for the most EU Citizens they will have to wait three months before claiming [[Jobseeker's Allowance]], [[Child benefit]] or [[Child tax credit]].<ref>{{cite web|author1=Dept for Work and Pensions|title=Improved benefit test for migrants launched|url=https://www.gov.uk/government/news/improved-benefit-test-for-migrants-launched|publisher=UK Government|date=2013-12-13}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|author1=Dept for Work and Pensions|title=Further curbs to migrant access to benefits announced|url=https://www.gov.uk/government/news/further-curbs-to-migrant-access-to-benefits-announced|publisher=UK Government|date=2014-04-08}}</ref>

Under the emergency brake (which needed first to be established in [[European Union law|EU law]]),<ref name="spaventa_brake" /> the [[European Council]] (of national Heads of Government) could have authorised a country that is experiencing migrant flows of "exceptional magnitude" to restrict benefits for new migrants for four years (with migrants starting with no entitlement then gradually gaining rights to benefits).<ref name="spaventa_brake" /> These restrictions could be kept in place for up to seven years but could be used only once.<ref name="spaventa_brake" /><ref name=":0" /> In this case "established in [[European Union law|EU law]]" means the EU Commission proposing draft legislation for approval by the [[European Parliament]]. Subsequently, member states [but specifically the UK] could have requested and applied it to migrants reasonably quickly, with the Commission already expressing that they believed the UK would be justified in doing so.<ref name=":0" />

== The "Red Card" ==
The "red card" would have allowed a member of the [[Council of the European Union]] with the support of 15 other members to return a recommendation to the European Parliament for further changes. This is not a veto as EU politicians could still go ahead if they judge that they have addressed the concerns raised by the "red card",<ref>{{cite web|author1=Derrick Wyatt QC|title=Explaining the EU deal: the 'red card'|url=https://fullfact.org/europe/explaining-eu-deal-red-card/|website=fullfact.org|date=2016-02-22}}</ref> which is named after the [[Penalty card#Red card|penalty card used in football]].

Cameron backed the "red card" as a means to support the EU's principle of [[subsidiarity]], which he believed was not fully realised.<ref>{{cite web|author1=Prof Catherine Barnard |author-link=Catherine Barnard |title=Cameron's subsidiarity battle|url=http://ukandeu.ac.uk/camerons-subsidiarity-battle/|website=The UK in a Changing Europe|date=2016-02-17}}</ref> In this way the "red card" is intended for groups of countries to block or reform [[European Union law|EU rules]] where they think it is their job, rather than that of the EU, to make laws on a particular subject. The "red card" would have joined the existing "yellow card" (which has been triggered twice) and the "orange card" (which has never been used).<ref>{{cite web|title=The Subsidiarity Control Mechanism|url=http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/secretariat_general/relations/relations_other/npo/subsidiarity_en.htm#protocol2|publisher=European Commission|date=2015-06-23}}</ref> The use of the "red card" would have required the backing of 55% of governments at the council, which is slightly less than is required to approve directives – which is 55% of all countries and votes representing 65% of the EU's population.<ref>{{cite web|author1=Vaughne Miller|title=Voting Behaviour in the EU Council|url=http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06646/SN06646.pdf|publisher=House of Commons Library|date=2013-05-13}}</ref>

== Deporting EU migrants ==
[[Freedom of movement|Free movement of people]] is an important tenet of the European Union and enshrined in primary law in treaties.<ref>{{cite web|title=EU treaties|url=http://europa.eu/eu-law/decision-making/treaties/index_en.htm|publisher=European Union|access-date=2016-05-19|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160505025414/http://europa.eu/eu-law/decision-making/treaties/index_en.htm|archive-date=2016-05-05|url-status=dead}}</ref> The EU deal would have subtly changed the free movement rules to make it easier for countries to deport migrants from other EU countries. This would have been achieved by "beefing up" the exceptions to the general rule that EU citizens can live and work where they choose in the EU.<ref name="fullfact.org">{{cite web|author1=Catherine Barnard|title=Explaining the EU deal: deporting EU immigrants|url=https://fullfact.org/europe/explaining-eu-deal-deporting-eu-immigrants/|website=fullfact.org|date=2016-02-22}}</ref>

National governments have a carefully restricted ability to restrict the free movement of people about the EU.<ref>{{cite web|title=DIRECTIVE 2004/38/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL|url=http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2004:158:0077:0123:en:PDF|publisher=Official Journal of the European Union|date=2009-04-29}}</ref> Once a citizen lives in another EU country the threshold of reason for the local government to remove them becomes progressively higher.<ref name="fullfact.org"/> The changes planned in the EU-deal were subtle changes of wording to permit governments to take in to account where migrants' behaviour is "likely" to represent a threat, rather than that it "does",<ref name=":0" /> and would have allowed governments to take in to more account a person's past behaviour rather than just their present behaviour.

The consensus from the EU leadership is that the planned changes would have given nations more power to deport criminals and prevent their return<ref>{{cite web|author1=David Cameron, Prime Minister|title=A NEW SETTLEMENT FOR THE UNITED KINGDOM IN A REFORMED EUROPEAN UNION|url=https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/475679/Donald_Tusk_letter.pdf#page=5|publisher=10 Downing Street|date=2015-11-10}}</ref> but not necessarily restrict movement for other reasons.

== Child benefit ==
The deal would have made no changes to the principle that [[child benefit]] should be paid to citizens no matter where their children reside. However following the deal governments would have been able to adjust the payment they make to reflect the standard of living in the country the child lives and the amount of child benefit that would normally be paid in that country.<ref name="https">{{cite web|author1=Charlotte O’Brien|title=Explaining the EU deal: child benefit|url=https://fullfact.org/europe/explaining-eu-deal-exporting-child-benefit/|website=fullfact.org|date=2016-02-22}}</ref>

Although many people have questioned the idea of paying child benefit for children living in other countries,<ref>{{cite news|author1=Eleanor Mills|author2=Jack Grimston|title=Ban migrant welfare for two years — Duncan Smith|url=http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/Society/article1362086.ece|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150529130834/http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/Society/article1362086.ece|url-status=dead|archive-date=May 29, 2015|publisher=Sunday Times|date=2014-01-12}}</ref> it is a logical consequence of the EU's principal of non-discrimination – as migrants are more likely to have children in another country and would therefore be discriminated against by restricting those benefits.<ref name="https"/> If the changes to law had been passed to reflect this agreed change it would have been up to the Court of Justice to clarify if it is legal or there are any unintended consequences if it was subsequently challenged.

== "Ever closer union" ==
In the EU deal, there was a statement specifically exempting the UK from "ever closer union". The precise phrasing of the aspiration, which was in the preamble of the EU's founding treaty<ref>{{cite web|title=Treaty Establishing the European Community|url=http://lawvolumes.dwp.gov.uk/docs/a9-1001.pdf#page=2|publisher=European Community|date=1957-03-25}}</ref> and every treaty since is "ever closer union of the peoples [of Europe]". The phrase has symbolic political status but it has little or no legal effect in any of the treaties and thus UK's exemption from it is equally symbolic.<ref>{{cite web|author1=Sionaidh Douglas-Scott|title=Explaining the EU deal: an "ever closer union"|url=https://fullfact.org/europe/explaining-eu-deal-ever-closer-union/|website=fullfact.org|date=2016-03-05}}</ref> The deal explicitly said that the presence of the "ever closer union" phrase in the treaties does not of itself grant the EU any specific competences or powers.<ref>{{cite web|title=Draft Decision of the Heads of State or Government, meeting within the European Council, concerning a New Settlement for the United Kingdom within the European Union|url=http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/european-council/president/pdf/new-settlement/|publisher=European Council|date=2016-02-02}}</ref>

== The UK and the Eurozone ==
The EU deal attempted to reassure non-Eurozone countries including the [[United Kingdom and the euro|UK]], that decisions would not be made favouring Eurozone members over them. There would have been a system for non-Eurozone members to object to rules being passed that might harm them but it will not give them a legal opt-out. However [[European Union law|EU law]] already bans discrimination so this would have been merely an additional protection.<ref>{{cite web|author1=Paul Craig|title=Explaining the EU deal: the UK and the eurozone|url=https://fullfact.org/europe/explaining-eu-deal-uk-and-eurozone/|website=fullfact.org|date=2016-02-22}}</ref>

Along with Denmark, the UK had an opt-out to the 1992 [[Maastricht Treaty]] which means they were not technically obliged to join the [[Euro]].

Prior to this EU deal, there was concern<ref>{{cite web|author1=David Cameron, Prime Minister|title=A NEW SETTLEMENT FOR THE UNITED KINGDOM IN A REFORMED EUROPEAN UNION|url=https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/475679/Donald_Tusk_letter.pdf#page=2|publisher=10 Downing Street|date=2015-11-10}}</ref> that [[Eurozone]] members may discuss matters of the EU and single market separate to the wider membership and therefore come up with a deal they could theoretically impose on non-Eurozone countries. In the [[Council of the European Union|Council]], Eurozone members would have sufficient majority to pass directives if they wished, although those proposals would need to be proposed and drafter by the Commission first and also approved by the European Parliament.

In addition to specifically banning such discrimination, it also contained a statement of intent that any measures for "economic and monetary union" will be voluntary for non-Eurozone countries, and that those countries will not stand in the way of such measures for those in the Eurozone. For example, non-Eurozone countries will not be required to contribute to bailouts for Eurozone countries.<ref>{{cite web|title=European Council meeting (18 and 19 February 2016) – Conclusions|url=https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/21787/0216-euco-conclusions.pdf|publisher=European Commission|access-date=14 May 2016}}</ref>

== Limiting residence rights for family members ==
The European Council intended<ref>{{cite web|title=Draft declaration of the European Commission on issues related to the abuse of the right of free movement of persons|url=http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/european-council/president/pdf/free-movement_pdf|publisher=European Council|date=2016-02-02}}</ref> to bring forward legislation to change [[European Union law|EU law]] to limit the ability of a non-EU national to gain the right to live and work anywhere in the EU (including the UK) by becoming the spouse of an EU citizen. The matter has been subject of a case in the European Court of Justice, which ruled that European law took precedence over any restrictions set by national law of a member state.<ref>{{cite web|title=Right of Union citizens and their family members to move and reside freely in the territory of a Member State – Family members who are nationals of non-member countries – Nationals of non-member countries who entered the host Member State before becoming spouses of Union citizens|url=http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=68145&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=325412|publisher=European Court of Justice|date=2008-07-25}}</ref> This proposed change to the law was expected to bring EU law more in line with desired restrictions by some member states.<ref name=":0" />

This proposed change in law was not intended to deal with deliberate abuses of the immigration policy (sham marriages) for which existing tools exist.<ref>{{cite web|title=Helping national authorities fight abuses of the right to free movement: Handbook on addressing the issue of alleged marriages of convenience between EU citizens and non-EU nationals in the context of EU law on free movement of EU citizens|url=http://ec.europa.eu/justice/citizen/files/com_2014_604_en.pdf|publisher=European Commission|date=2014-09-26}}</ref>

== Legal status and enforcement ==
The EU deal would have been [[international law]], as it was made by European heads of government acting outside the structure of the EU. The UK intended to register it with the United Nations as such.<ref>{{cite web|title=Oral Answers to Questions|url=https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmhansrd/cm160203/debtext/160203-0001.htm#column_927|date=2016-02-03}}</ref> This would have meant that statements and intentions made within it cannot be challenged before the [[Court of Justice of the European Union]]. However, certain aspects of it would need treaty change within the EU<ref name=profpeers>{{cite web
 | url = https://fullfact.org/europe/explaining-eu-deal-it-legally-binding/
 | title = Explaining the EU deal: is it legally binding?
 | last = Peers
 | first = Steve
 | date = 17 February 2016
 | website = fullfact.org
 | publisher = Full Fact
 | access-date = 14 May 2016
 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20160514173344/https://fullfact.org/europe/explaining-eu-deal-it-legally-binding/
 | archive-date = 14 May 2016
 | quote = This is a shorter version of a blog post on the EU Law Analysis blog (referenced below)}}</ref> and certain elements{{specify|date=June 2016}} would need legislation to become part of EU law. The [[European Commission]] had already indicated{{when|date=June 2016}} its intention to bring the legislative requirements to the [[Council of the European Union|EU Council]] and the European Parliament for passage.<ref>{{cite web|title=Draft declaration of the European Commission on the Safeguard Mechanism referred to in paragraph 2(b) of Section D of the Decision of the Heads of State or Government, meeting within the European Council, concerning a new settlement for the United Kingdom within the European Union|url=http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/european-council/president/pdf/Draft-declaration-of-the-European-Commission-on-the-Safeguard-Mechanism-referred-to-in-paragraph-2(b)-of-Section-D-of-the-Decision-of-the-Heads-of-State-or-Government,-meeting-within-the-European-Coun/|publisher=European Council|date=2016-02-02}}</ref> Cameron stated that he had lodged the documents with the [[United Nations]].

== Outcome ==
On 27 June 2016, [[David Cameron]] said in his statement to the House of Commons on the result of the referendum to "Leave the European Union": "The deal we negotiated at the European Council in February will now be discarded and a new negotiation to leave the EU will begin under a new Prime Minister."<ref>{{cite web|last1=Prime Minister's Office|title=PM Commons statement on the result of the EU referendum|url=https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/pm-commons-statement-on-the-result-of-the-eu-referendum-27-june-2016|website=Gov.uk|access-date=28 June 2016|date=27 June 2016}}</ref>

{| class="wikitable"
!Summary<ref name=profpeers /><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://eulawanalysis.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/the-final-ukeu-renegotiation-deal-legal.html|title=EU Law Analysis: The final UK/EU renegotiation deal: legal status and legal effect|website=eulawanalysis.blogspot.co.uk|date=21 February 2016|access-date=2016-05-14}}</ref>
! colspan="3" |Approval requirements
! colspan="2" | Implementation and enforcement
|-
|'''Renegotiated area'''
|'''EU Commission'''
|'''EU Council'''
|'''EU parliament'''
|'''Conditions for implementation'''
|'''Type of law'''
|-
|"Ever closer union"
|
|
|
|Remain vote and Treaty
|International law
|-
|"Red card"
|
|
|
|Remain vote
|International law
|-
|Protection for non-eurozone countries
|
|Yes
|
|Remain vote and rules changed
|EU law
|-
|Child benefit
|Yes
|Yes
|Yes
|Legislation
|EU law
|-
|Bringing family to the EU
|Yes
|Yes
|Yes
|Legislation
|EU law
|-
|Free movement
|Yes
|Yes
|Yes
|Legislation
|EU law
|-
|"Emergency brake"
|Yes
|Yes
|Yes
|Legislation
|EU law
|}

==See also==
*[[Balance of Competences Review]]
*[[Bloomberg speech]]
*[[European Union law]]

== References ==
{{reflist|30em}}

== External links ==
* [https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52016XG0223(01)&from=EN.pdf EU: A New Settlement for the United Kingdom within the European Union]
* [https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/502291/54284_EU_Series_No1_Web_Accessible.pdf UK: The best of both worlds: the United Kingdom's special status in a reformed European Union]

{{United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016|state=expanded}}
{{Navboxes
|title=Articles relating to the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016
|list1=
{{United Kingdom elections}}
{{2015 United Kingdom general election}}
{{2017 United Kingdom general election}}
{{Gibraltar elections}}
{{Stock market crashes}}
{{United Kingdom European Communities membership referendum, 1975}}
{{Members of the European Union (EU)}}
{{EU treaties and declarations}}
{{European Union secession}}
}}
{{EU treaties and declarations}}
{{British elections}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:United Kingdom renegotiation of European Union membership, 2015-16}}
[[Category:2016 United Kingdom European Union membership referendum]]
[[Category:Politics of the United Kingdom]]
[[Category:Premiership of David Cameron]]
[[Category:Juncker Commission]]