Commission looks to sideline Parliament on UK reforms

Brussels considers ways to move Brexit talks forward more quickly.

European Commission officials are looking for work-arounds to avoid Parliamentary meddling in possible legislative reforms leading up to the U.K.’s referendum on EU membership.

Not content to wait for British Prime Minister David Cameron to spell out his reform demands to EU leaders in early November, Commission officials on a special “Brexit” task force are exploring legal scenarios in which they could make changes without direct input from the European Parliament, according to sources familiar with the effort.

The task force “is looking at how far they can go without involving the European Parliament legally,” said an EU official who requested anonymity.

The Commission — worried that the escalating refugee crisis is worsening the chances of a British In vote — is pushing for the U.K. to hold its referendum as soon as May of next year. Since Cameron has been reluctant to put forward his proposals for reform, Commission officials led by task force head Jonathan Faull have had little to work with in laying the groundwork for negotiations.

Reading the tabloids

Until actual talks can begin, Faull’s team has kept itself busy trying to guess what Cameron will want by parsing the Conservative party manifesto, as well as political speeches and articles in British papers, according to sources.

The task force has also been looking at legal options officials consider do-able outside of treaty changes — which, because they require the consent of all 28 EU countries, take a long time to approve.

In particular, officials said, they’ve been focusing on immigration. This is a contentious topic for the EU, but one where Cameron’s demands have not been vague: He’s clearly stated his desire to curb welfare benefits for EU migrants.

Sources said Faull’s team is hoping to avoid changing EU regulations and directives on immigration because doing so involves a complicated codecision procedure requiring approval of EU member countries and the European Parliament.

“Parliament is going to take a long time,” said a source familiar with the discussions. “The Commission and the Parliament will start debating and it waters down legislation. You can’t control the timeline when it goes through the Parliament.”

Commission officials said a non-legislative political resolution would be the ideal outcome for immigration reform, an issue on which the Parliament tends to be divided when it comes to workers’ rights and social welfare. Economic reforms are seen as easier to get through the Parliament, where majorities can usually be cobbled together by the center-right European People’s Party and European Conservative and Reformists Group and the centrist Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

“It’s the sensible thing to do,” a Parliament source said of the decision to look for ways to avoid legislative conflicts. “It’s difficult to find a majority in the Parliament on immigration. It’s very sensitive when it comes to the non-discrimination of other EU citizens.”

Since early September, Cameron has been courting Parliament by sending emissaries to explain the British agenda and explore areas of possible compromise. However, he has yet to respond to an invitation to debate the referendum issue in a full plenary session of the assembly.

Many of the clearest options for reforming immigration through legislation would require a majority vote in Parliament as part of the codecision procedure, or would require outright changes to the Lisbon Treaty.

Any treaty change would be unlikely to happen before the end of 2017, the deadline Cameron has set for the referendum vote. Conditional promises from EU leaders for future treaty changes could be used to influence the referendum debate.

It is not clear whether any of the proposed changes would be enough to sway a referendum vote.

“On immigration it’s going to be difficult for the British government to go into a referendum unless they have concrete change,” said Stephen Booth of the U.K.-based think tank Open Europe, an organization that EU disclosure records show met with Faull in September. “You wouldn’t know how the Parliament would react to it, you’re going to have to have in practice all of the other member states on board.”

Cameron hired the director of Open Europe Mats Persson in May to work on the British requests for EU reform at Downing Street. Persson has been sent as an emissary to the Parliament to explain the British position. Open Europe has also been talking to EU countries for Downing Street in an unofficial capacity about changes to the way the EU is run.

A Downing Street official said the U.K. government was pleased to learn that the Commission is looking at “smart ways” to get reforms through quickly.

Immigration is a legally tricky area, because any reforms could push the limits of the Lisbon Treaty by possibly impeding freedom of movement in the Union, one of the EU’s core values.

Booth said one idea that has been floated at the U.K. government level is to make changes to British laws, but these would risk being challenged in European courts. Intergovernmental agreements and institutional agreements between the Commission and the Parliament are also under consideration.

Cutting out democratic middleman

Another option being explored is a loophole in the Lisbon Treaty that allows for the use of a special legislative procedure for policy changes related to social security and welfare protections that requires consultation with rather than consent of the Parliament.

Marley Morris, a researcher at the U.K.-based think tank Institute for Public Policy Research, has been looking at whether this procedure could circumvent the requirement of getting a majority vote in Parliament. He noted that the provision requires a unanimous agreement in the Council and can be used only with respect to legislation that supports the right of EU citizens to “move and reside freely” around the EU.

“It would be rather ironic if it’s used as a way to get the legislation through because it was designed for just the opposite,” Morris said. “[The provision is] for legislation regarding rights to live and move freely around the EU.”

Others warned that while cutting out the Parliament could move the process along, it would likely provoke a backlash that the reforms were being forced through without input from the only democratically elected EU institution.

“This can only cause more complications than it is supposed to solve,” said Petros Fassoulas, secretary general of a leading pro-EU group in Brussels, European Movement International. “An inter-institutional battle on Brexit is the last thing we need. Especially if changes in free movement is involved. The EP will raise hell and they will be right to do so.”

Faull declined to comment directly for this article.

Commission spokesman Margaritis Schinas said in an emailed statement that the institution is working closely with Parliament on finding a solution for the British question.

“President Juncker is in permanent contact on this matter with [European Parliament] President Schulz and the leaders of the political groups in the EP,” Schinas said.

“It was him who insisted from the beginning that the Parliament is closely involved in this process. Jonathan Faull is giving very helpful advice in the process and is always loyally and faithfully implementing the strategy laid down by the president.”