LONDON AGAINST EVERYONE

At the plenary session of the European Parliament held in Strasbourg at the beginning of February Schengen-zone rescue measures and the migration crisis that continues to remain the most burning topic for the Old World were discussed. Moreover, the differences between Brussels and London, which has its own view on resolving the migration crisis in Great Britain itself, are only further emphasizing the acuteness of these issues. 

Albert Gerard Koenders, the foreign minister of the Netherlands, who is currently chairing the Council of the European Union, stated in his speech at the European Parliament session that it was exceedingly important for the fate of the European Union that the Schengen zone should be preserved in its entirety, providing for the free movement of peoples among countries, unhindered by internal borders. At the same time, he acknowledged that, owing to the migration crisis, this principle cannot be observed unless monitoring of the European Union's external frontiers is stepped up. 

It is precisely the migration crisis that is largely promoting the currently growing differences within the European Union. European Commission head Jean-Claude Juncker has said that every day the refugee crisis is increasingly becoming a crisis threatening European solidarity. He called upon the European member-states to meet their commitments regarding the reception and distribution of refugees on their territory.

Great Britain, which has even posed the question of its possible exit from the European Union unless its demands are fulfilled, is taking a particular stand on the migration problem. In November last year United Kingdom Prime Minister David Cameron announced London's demands regarding reforms in Pan-European legislation. In particular, these related to protection of the rights of states that are not members of the Euro-zone and restraining excessive immigration.

Cameron's government is proposing the introduction of a statute, according to which refugees arriving in the country will only be able to access welfare benefits after they have resided in the British Isles for four years. But London's rejection of a strengthening EU supra-state structures and of transforming the European Union into a so-called "United States of Europe" may have even greater consequences for future European integration. Britain is insisting that the euro should not be the sole currency inside the EU and that member-states should be granted the right of veto in the course of adopting decisions.

The European Union is opposed to London's demands, seeing in them a threat to the organisation's unity. At the same time, Brussels recognises the need to achieve an agreement with Great Britain, without which the EU may lose one of the most powerful centres of European politics and economy. Therefore European Council President Donald Tusk has tabled a special draft agreement that primarily envisages the creation of a mechanism according to which the national parliaments can review Pan-European draft laws.

Besides this, the European Parliament's decisions may be blocked, if 55 per cent of the EU member-states' national parliaments are not in agreement with them and when "their national sovereignty is being encroached upon". According to Tusk's plan, Great Britain has the right to refrain from further political integration into the Union, including the right to remain outside the Euro-zone and outside the Schengen zone. This approach essentially means that the European Union is retaining the status of a multi-currency union and is suspending further political integration within the organisation.

The outcome of Donald Tusk's talks in London does in fact mean that the possibility of Britain delaying the inclusion of working migrants in the country's social security system for four years has been fully discussed. Moreover, the amount of benefits and allowances paid out will depend on how long a given migrant has resided on United Kingdom territory and paid tax there. It is not surprising that Prime Minister David Cameron has described Tusk's plan as real progress in resolving the issues worrying London.

He even let it be understood that the concessions made by Brussels will allow the British government to find arguments to encourage the United Kingdom's citizens to vote against leaving the EU in the referendum which may be held as early as summer this year.

There are moreover two important elements in Brussels' stand, which may impact negatively in coming to an agreement with London on disputed issues. Firstly, in expressing its willingness to make reasonable compromises in order to prevent Britain from leaving the Union, the EU has given it to be understood that it will not tolerate infringement of fundamental principles like the free movement of workers and violation of their rights in the countries of Europe. Secondly, Brussels' standpoint envisages discussion of the accords with London by all EU member-states. There is much concern that the agreement reached with London by the European Union leadership will not be accepted by individual countries.

The fact is that the British approach to resolving the migration crisis is neither in the interests of the refugees crowding into Europe from the war-torn countries of the Muslim East nor in the interests of migrants from other EU member-states. This applies mainly to the countries from the so-called "Visegrad Four" consisting of Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovakia which are the main providers of manpower to Great Britain. Therefore these countries have already signalled their intention to block the possible accords between Brussels and London. This particularly applies to Poland which is consistently realising its geopolitical ambitions as a key European country on the eastern flank.

Poland's government has warned Great Britain that it does not back the plans to withdraw in-work welfare benefits from working migrants from other EU countries. Polish Prime Minister Beata Szydlo has frankly stated that the proposal is not to her liking, noting that her government will consistently defend the interests of Poles working in Great Britain. According to Beata Szydlo, one of Warsaw's priorities is that the changes in the social security system should not affect the 700,000 Polish citizens residing and working legally in Great Britain at the present time.

Warsaw's standpoint is evidence of the fact that, at the EU summit scheduled for 18 February, British Prime Minister Cameron will have to apply considerable effort to get the agreed plan for reform of the European Union adopted and the migrant crisis resolved. He has therefore hastened to the Polish capital [Warsaw] to persuade Beata Szydlo to support the abolition of in-work benefits for migrants for four years. One of the methods of persuasion that Cameron has used is a purely English political move.

The British prime minister stated in Warsaw that Britain wanted "a full strategic partnership" with Poland, since the two countries have interests in common in the field of security and defence, especially taking into account the threat from Russia. In saying this, he was essentially recalling how vulnerable Poland is when confronting "Russian expansion in Eastern Europe" and how it needs further support from a powerful ally like Great Britain. Cameron's statement that Great Britain supports Poland in its striving to fortify NATO's eastern flank is indicative of this.

To what extent the British prime minister was able to influence the change, albeit partial, in Warsaw's position, will become clear in the very near future, especially at the EU summit. Beata Szydlo did not say a word about Poland reconciling itself to London's demands regarding the migration issue. She only admitted that she "could not imagine Great Britain leaving the European Union" and that it was important to retain the United Kingdom within the EU for Poland's economy and politics.

Moreover, the head of the country which traditionally rivals Great Britain in expressing its hegemonic ambitions on the continent has stated his intention not to allow London to go on applying further pressure in relation to EU reform. French President Francois Hollande categorically stated his opposition to any kind of follow-up talks on EU reform as demanded by London. Hollande's statement that Great Britain should respect the compromise in the form of the so-called Tusk plan essentially means that London should refrain from possible steps aimed at extracting from Brussels all the new political and economic conditions it prefers.

Thus, it is most likely that a serious struggle will continue within the EU with regard to not only migration, but other issues relating to the political, economic and social future of the Union as well. As the leaders of the European Union, both France and Germany, which are equally integration-minded EU countries, are concerned that meeting London's demands will convince other European countries that they may also be able to impose their will on the Union. This would be a direct threat to the very existence of the European Union, especially in view of the strengthening positions of the Euro-sceptics in a range of its membercountries.