Czech government sticks to free movement principles in face of British EU reform agenda

British Prime Minister David Cameron is scheduled to visit Prague on Friday as part of a series of European stops for talks with his counterparts. The Conservative leader is seeking to explore his chances on the package of reforms which will put to the British public on a referendum over continued membership of the European Union. Cameron is seeking concessions across a swathe of areas.

Tomáš Prouza, photo: archive of Czech Government

The most difficult sticking area so far is on the social benefits that other EU citizens working in the UK can claim with the British leader calling for a four year qualifying period.

That looks like it will not fly with the Czech Republic and other countries from Central Europe. However, there are suggestions in the British media that Cameron is making headway on this and other fronts with French and German leaders. One of those due to take part in Friday’s discussions is Czech Secretary of State for European Affairs, Tomáš Prouza.

We asked him first of all what was Prague’s overall position on the reforms being sought by the British Prime Minister.

‘’I think there are two important things that we have got to keep in mind. The first is that the EU is definitely much stronger with the UK in. And the second issue is that whatever changes are being made, all 28 member states should profit from these changes and not only one at the expense of all the others. “

The British demands are basically over four areas, but probably the main problematic area is freedom of movement and the British demand that some social payments, benefits, aren’t eligible for other EU citizens. What is the Czech stand on that and is there any room for compromise on that at all?

I think that discrimination is always discrimination.

“The compromise will depend on what the new proposal from the UK will be. I think it should be the British responsibility to come up with a new proposal. I think Prime Minister Cameron has heard from all of the other 27 EU states that what he originally proposed to discriminate against people based on their nationality is something that will never fly. And this position is not changing. If there is one simple rule in the EU it is that people should not and may not be discriminated against on the basis of what passport they hold.”

On the basic British demand, they are saying that people have to work for four years before they can claim certain types of benefits in Britain. Is that understandable to you? Is there any room for talking about whether it is four years, three years, two years or one, or is that not up for discussion?

“I think that discrimination is always discrimination. Whether you say it’s for six months or for four years, I think there is no difference. On the other hand, I understand that the pressure on the British social services, health services, and educational services are very high because so many people do come in. So, if the discussion is about how the British system can cope with the influx, I understand that. But I don’t think you solve that by simply discriminating against people who come to the UK under the existing rules.”

David Cameron, photo: CTK

I mean the British say that every year there are around 300,000 EU citizens coming in and they can’t deal with that long term. They say there is fairly widespread abuse of their social services system. Do you agree with that, that there is abuse, or do you feel that is not really for you to answer?

“I think there are two different issues. One is freedom of movement and that any citizen of the EU can live where he chooses in the European Union and that should never change. The second issue is abuse of the system. And if we are talking about abuses, I think everyone will support the fight against abuse. You see that not only in the UK but in many other countries that try to prevent the abuse. For me, the simple test is that if people contribute, they should also be able to use the system. If they only take out of the system and never contribute, then I think it should be the right of every country to protect itself. But then if I look at the statistics, people from the other EU countries that come to the UK actually contribute much more to the system than they take out.”

If we look at the Visegrad Four [regional grouping], most Czech positions are aligned or try to be aligned with the other countries in the area, on this issue of free movement of people is the Visegrad Four united at the moment or are there some hints that there could be some fragility in the common position?

“From what I can understand, we are still united on this position. The proposals that we heard from Poland were then walked away from. So, when I look at the discussions we have, and we have them fairly regularly within Visegrad, we all share the simple premise that no discrimination is possible.”

I think that it is simply fair to admit that there is already a multi-speed Europe.

On the other three areas where [prime minister] Cameron has said he wants to see some form of reforms, progress, are there any areas where you think you fundamentally disagree or are all of those areas up for discussion. And will the Czech Republic actually enthusiastically support some of those reforms that London is apparently seeking?

“From all of the other reforms from Prime Minister Cameron, I think there are two things that are very important for us and we will support them very actively. One is improving the competitiveness of the European Union, of the European economy, because we have been losing our competitiveness to the US and also to many Asian economies and we need to fix that. And the second key area for us is more active involvement of national parliaments. You see governments very active in European affairs but many parliaments have been very passive and I think we need to change that and get the national parliaments involved. I would prefer to do that in a positive way so that parliaments can suggest what the European Union deal with, not only block something from happening. I want the positive approach, but whatever the final outcome, national parliaments should be more active.”

I do not know how this parliamentary veto, contribution, or input, would actually work. Have you got any idea, in a more detailed way, how that might work?

Photo: European Commission

“I think it is important for national parliaments to be involved from the beginning of discussions because in the end, most of the agreements of the member states, by the governments, sooner or later come to the national parliaments as new legislation, new topics to address. And it’s much easier for the members of parliament, the parliamentarians, to understand the topic if they are involved from the very beginning of the discussion, not only if they come in at the end with no knowledge of how the discussion has taken place, what was the compromise and why that compromise was reached. So, to make the translation of European into national rules much easier and smoother, I think it would help that the national parliaments are there from the very beginning.

“And technically there are obviously two options: one, letting the parliaments block something from happening, say if one third of the parliaments say we don’t want this to be discussed, we don’t want a directive on X or Z, then they could kill that. Or what I would personally prefer as the positive approach of saying ‘We feel there is something that could be proposed at the European level because national solutions are not enough, so we request the European Commission to come up with a proposal on whatever topic the parliaments agree.”

On one of the other topics, the specific British opposition to the clause or phrase ‘ever closer union,’ is that a problem for the Czech Republic if that somehow disappeared generally or just disappeared for Britain?

The mood still is that we would like to have an agreement in February.

“I think that it is simply fair to admit that there is already a multi-speed Europe. There are some countries that have been staying out of the ever closer integration in many areas. So if Britain wants this taken out or have a specific wording saying that not everybody will be required to keep integrating, frankly just admits to the current status quo. Again, we would like to keep it symbolically in the treaties because we being part of the centre of Europe we will always want to integrate more. But again the UK or other parts of Europe do not feel they have that push or they have other options.”

And the British are also demanding that there should be no discrimination between countries with the euro and countries without the euro. The Czech Republic does not have the euro though is supposed to have it sometime eventually. So is this regarded as useful this demand from Britain given the current Czech position, or not really?

“This will very much depend what is the specific phrasing for the solution for this particular topic. In principle we prefer that one group does not outvote the other and that is a very dangerous precedent. But on the other hand, it does not mean that the non-euro zone countries should have a veto on what the Eurozone wants to do. On this we will have to see the specific legal text. Our general philosophy is that all possible things should be agreed by all of the 28 and only those which are euro zone only should be decided by the euro zone. Again, as much as possible should be done by the 28.”

David Cameron is apparently looking to tie this up in February at the next summit devoted to this. Is that at all realistic given that he probably said that in December and did not get very far. Is February just too optimistic? He is even talking about the possibility of the referendum being held in the summer, which might suit him quite well but maybe not everyone else…

Photo: Filip Jandourek

“Even the mood, not just at the December European Council, but also this week when I spoke with some of my colleagues, the mood still is that we would like to have an agreement in February because I do not think that things will change that much if you protract that to March or June, I do not think that much would change. And I think the longer the discussions take the more you would see media stories on how badly the negotiations go etc. So, I think our preference is the same as David Cameron’s and we should try to wrap it up in February and try to have the referendum in the UK in June, I think it will be much better than do it sometime in September or October.”

Or even in 2017?

Or even in 2017. I do not think you can negotiate more if you simply keep protracting the discussions because the discussions are very clear and David Cameron has been very specific on the topics. So I think everybody has an opinion on how to address these four areas. And if the discussions go into 2017, it will be very complicated for countries like France and Germany, with their upcoming elections, to have room to maneuver.