There's a quality of smoke and mirrors to David Cameron's letter to European Council President Donald Tusk, ostensibly something for everyone, but less than meets the eye. On closer study a low level of ambition that will frustrate the UK's angry eurosceptics. "Thin gruel," was how one put it. In essence the British prime minister was saying to other member states that he wishes the UK to stay in the EU and just needs a bit of help crafting a sellable package of symbolic changes to the UK-EU relationship. Not, please note, the "transformation" of the relationship of which he previously spoke.
The well-flagged demand for a British opt-out from long-standing EU treaty ambition for “ever closer union” is a case in point. Try as they may, lawyers will find it difficult to show how the aspiration imposes any concrete obligation on the UK at the moment – any more than a written opt-out would relieve it of the same. But perhaps the voters might be persuaded otherwise.
The idea that the Union is a multispeed organism, in which flexibility is inherent, and which has the possibility of differing currency or justice regimes has been firmly established in the last two if not three treaties. Cameron wants it reaffirmed and the Union as a whole both to re-acknowledge the UK’s opt-outs and to promise not to do anything to interfere with them. And he wants reaffirmation of commitments to subsidiarity and competitiveness. Fair enough.
Such aspirations, if helpful to Cameron, may be accommodated reasonably straightforwardly by most of his partners. And there is an undoubted willingness to go some of that distance, as Taoiseach Enda Kenny promised in London on Monday; "insofar as we can, we will be constructive and supportive in respect of what the prime minister has been asking for". Brexit is "a major risk", says Kenny, and it is in our interest and that of the EU and of Britain, that the latter's membership be preserved.
However, there are at least a couple of icebergs in the midst of Cameron’s demands. Because he has declined to be specific about how EU partners should tackle the problems he wishes addressed, Cameron avoids explicit reference to treaty changes which may be necessary if he is to get his way – a serious problem for many member states, this one included. Some of his proposals on curbing migration may impinge on the fundamental EU principle of free movement. And in setting out an aspiration for a new relationship between euro states and non-euro states, with particular guarantees for the latter, he appears to hint at changes in governance rules that could undermine the Union’s voting system.
There are lines that should not be crossed. But then, if Cameron is sincere about this being a negotiation and not an ultimatum, there should be scope for discussion among friends.