|
|
Mr. Tusk’s plan would create a special mechanism to protect non-euro members — Britain never adopted the euro and proudly uses its own currency — from any unfair advantage eurozone countries may have. It would allow Britain to reduce welfare payments to non-British European citizens living in Britain. It would formally recognize the “opt-out” clause that allows Britain to reject some European Union measures, such as taking in a set quota of refugees. And it would acknowledge Britain’s right to sovereignty.
Britain benefits enormously from membership in the union’s common market and, as a member, it is also able to influence European policies. It would lose on both counts if it were to withdraw, and that would affect Britain’s ties to NATO and to the United States. The Tusk proposal gives Britain leeway to distance itself from policies it finds onerous. As Mr. Cameron accurately argues, Britain would then have the “best of both worlds.”
Now he must make that case to Britain’s skeptics, which will not be easy in a nation worried about the sanctity and safety of its borders. [...] More than 67,000 refugees have arrived in Europe by sea since the start of this year. [...] This has been of serious concern in Britain. But if it pulls out of the union, it will have no more say on European migration policies and no right to help in policing the tunnel entrance in Calais, France, where thousands of migrants trying to reach its shores have massed.
Mr. Tusk’s job now is to persuade the other 27 members of the union to accept the concessions to Britain; his proposal is being debated in the European Parliament ahead of the European Summit meeting in Brussels on Feb. 18 and 19. One controversial point is the provision allowing Britain to curb social benefits for European workers in Britain. But not to compromise, Mr. Tusk warns, “would be compromising our common future.” And that would be a tragedy for Britain, other European nations, and for a world that needs a united and prosperous Europe.
Full article on New York Times