Sources ( 6 total):

1 Book
The European Union: A Very Brief Introduction
2 Magazine/Journal articles from library database
1. http://sks.sirs.com/cgi-bin/hst-article-display?id=SSD117-05514&artno=0000305960&type=ART&shfilter=U&key=European%20Union&title=The
%20Euro%27s%20Fundamental%20Flaws&res=Y&ren=N&gov=Y&lnk=Y&ic=N
2. http://time.com/4229121/brussels-summit-eu-britain-brexit/
3. http://time.com/4113238/paris-attacks-european-union-borders/
2 Newspaper articles from library database
1. Witte, Griff. "A U.K. Vote on Going Solo Could Sink E.U." Washington Post. 04
Jan. 2016: A.1. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 25 Feb. 2016. http://sks.sirs.com/cgibin/hst-article-display?id=SSD117-05514&artno=0000378159&type=ART&shfilter=U&key=Witte%2C%20Griff%2E
%20%22A%20U%2EK%2E%20Vote%20on%20Going%20Solo%20Could%20Sink
%20E%2EU%2E%22&title=A%20U%2EK%2E%20Vote%20on%20Going%20Solo
%20Could%20Sink%20E%2EU%2E&res=Y&ren=N&gov=Y&lnk=N&ic=N
2. Maza, Cristina. "Can Energy Unite a Divided Europe?." Christian Science
Monitor. 02 Feb. 2016: n/a. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 25 Feb. 2016.
http://sks.sirs.com/cgi-bin/hst-article-display?id=SSD117-05514&artno=0000379107&type=ART&shfilter=U&key=Can%20Energy%20Unite%20a
%20Divided%20Europe&title=Can%20Energy%20Unite%20a%20Divided%20Europe
%3F&res=Y&ren=N&gov=Y&lnk=N&ic=N
1 Internet site from a reputable corporation
1. http://labourlist.org/2013/05/better-off-on-the-relay-team-10-reasons-why-the-euis-good-for-britain/
2. http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/euro/index_en.htm

Book: The European Union: A Very Brief Introduction

Magazine/Journal 1
http://sks.sirs.com/cgi-bin/hst-article-display?id=SSD117-05514&artno=0000305960&type=ART&shfilter=U&key=European%20Union&title=The
%20Euro%27s%20Fundamental%20Flaws&res=Y&ren=N&gov=Y&lnk=Y&ic=N

The crisis in Greece and the debt problems in Spain and Portugal have exposed the euro's
inherent flaws. No amount of financial guarantees--much less rhetorical reassurance--from the
European Union can paper them over. After eleven years of smooth sailing since the euro's
creation, the arrangement's fundamental problems have become glaringly obvious.
The attempt to establish a single currency for sixteen separate and quite different countries was
bound to fail. The shift to a single currency meant that the individual member countries lost the
ability to control monetary policy and interest rates in order to respond to national economic
conditions. It also meant that each country's exchange rate could no longer respond to the
cumulative effects of differences in productivity and global demand trends.
In addition, the single currency weakens the market signals that would otherwise warn a country
that its fiscal deficits were becoming excessive. And when a country with excessive fiscal
deficits needs to raise taxes and cut government spending, as Greece clearly does now, the
resulting contraction of GDP and employment cannot be reduced by a devaluation that increases
exports and reduces imports.
Why, then, is the United States able to operate with a single currency, despite major differences
among its fifty states? There are three key economic conditions--none of which exists in
Europe--that allow the diverse U.S. states to operate with a single currency: labor mobility, wage
flexibility, and a central fiscal authority.
When the textile and shoe industries in America's northeastern states died, workers moved to the
West, where new industries were growing. The unemployed workers of Greece, Portugal, and
Spain do not move to faster-growing regions of Europe because of differences in language,
history, religion, union membership, and so on. Moreover, wage flexibility means that
substantially slower wage growth in the states that lost industries helped to attract and retain
other industries. And the U.S. fiscal system collects roughly two-thirds of all taxes at the national
level, which implies an automatic and substantial net fiscal transfer to states with temporarily
falling incomes.
The European Central Bank must set monetary policy for the eurozone as a whole, even if that
policy is highly inappropriate for some member countries. When demand in Germany and France
was quite weak early in the last decade, the European Central Bank reduced interest rates
sharply. That helped Germany and France, but it also inflated real-estate bubbles in Spain and
Ireland. The recent collapse of those bubbles caused sharp downturns in economic activity and
substantial increases in unemployment in both countries.
The introduction of the euro, with its implication of a low common rate of inflation, caused sharp
declines in interest rates in Greece and several other countries that had previously had high rates.

Those countries succumbed to the resulting temptation to increase government borrowing,

driving the ratio of government debt to GDP to more than 100 percent in Greece and Italy.
Until recently, the bond markets treated all euro sovereign debts as virtually equal, not raising
interest rates on high-debt countries until the possibility of default became clear. The need for
massive fiscal adjustment without any offsetting currency devaluation will now drive Greece and
perhaps others to default on their government debt, probably through some kind of International
Monetary Fund-supported debt restructuring.
The euro was promoted as necessary for free trade among the member countries under the slogan
"One Market, One Money." In reality, of course, a single currency or fixed exchange rate is not
needed for trade to flourish. The United States has annual trade turnover of more than $2 trillion,
despite a flexible exchange rate mat has seen sharp ups and downs in recent decades. The North
American Free Trade area increased trade among Canada, Mexico, and the United States, all of
which have separately floating exchange rates. Japan, South Korea, and other major Asian
trading countries have very flexible exchange rates. And, obviously, only sixteen nations within
the twenty-seven-member EU free-trade area use the euro.
Despite its problems, the euro is very likely to survive the current crisis. But not all of the
eurozone's current members may be there a year from now. In retrospect, it is clear that some of
the countries were allowed to join prematurely, when they still had massive budget deficits and
high debt-to-GDP ratios. Moreover, some countries' industrial composition and low rates of
productivity growth mean that a fixed exchange rate would doom them to increasingly large
trade deficits.
For the rest, some mechanism of enhanced surveillance and control may be adopted to limit
future fiscal deficits. But, even with a smaller group of member countries and some changes in
budget procedures, the fundamental problems of forcing disparate countries to live with a single
monetary policy and a single exchange rate will remain.

Magazine/Journal 2
http://time.com/4229121/brussels-summit-eu-britain-brexit/
Stakes are high as European leaders convene in Brussels this week. The next two days will
determine the terms of Britains upcoming referendum on membership in the European Union,
the transnational groups latest and greatest existential crisis.
Leaders are assessing a provisional deal to redefine Britains relationship with Brussels,
hammered out by U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron and European Council President Donald
Tusk. Cameron has spent the last two weeks touring European capitals to drum up support for his
agenda, which needs unanimous approval from the other 27 E.U. members. Rather than going
hat-in-hand, he approached each meeting as a negotiation of equals, a tactic that seems to have

worked. It helps that no one wants Britain, the second-biggest economy in the eurozone, to leave.
But as we roll into Brussels, three key issues remain.
First, the U.K. wants an emergency brake so it can suspend for up to four years some labor
benefits for E.U. migrant working in the U.K. citing excessive pressure on its social system.
Cameron has faced pushback on this front from various European countries, particularly Poland,
Hungary, Slovakia and the Czech Republic, who are worried that the hundreds of thousands of
their citizens working in the U.K. will be unfairly punished under this system.
Second, the U.K. wants to ensure more safeguards are put in place to protect countries that dont
use the euro from the potential ill effects of greater integration of those members who do use the
common currency. But it remains to be seen what exact form these safeguards will take.
Third is the use of the term ever closer union, which is enshrined as a goal throughout common
E.U. law. The idea is to ensure that the E.U. only moves in one direction: towards greater
integration. Without it, Europhiles fear that members will pick and choose which parts of the
union they want to be a part of, weakening the European project overall. Britain has always
bristled at the phrase, and wants it removed from future E.U. treaties.
Theres plenty left to hash out. But the actual text of the proposals leaves much room for
ambiguity, allowing both sides to spin an agreement as they like. What Cameron will call a
victory will be declared defeat by U.K. eurosceptics angling for Britain to leave the E.U.
In reality, the exact terms of the deal arent as important as the four-month campaign that will
follow, leading to a referendum that will give British voters the choice of whether the U.K.
remains in the E.U. Having secured concessions from Brussels, Cameron will return to London
and start campaigning for the In side, which favors remaining in Europe. Cameron has a strong
case to make that the E.U. hasnt undermined U.K. productivity, a key argument of the Out
faction. A recent Bank of England report declared that the U.K. created more than three times as
many new businesses as the U.S., accounting for relative economic weight.
But the strongest argument Cameron can make is that Brexit wont come cheap, neither
politically nor financially. By voting to leave the European Union, the British will jeopardize
their own union. Scotland is fiercely pro-E.U., and a vote in favor for Brexit will surely reignite
the Scottish nationalist cause. Meanwhile, the rest of the E.U. will make Britains exit long,
difficult and costly to ensure that no one else is tempted to take the same routea lesson the
Greeks have learned.
Early signs suggest Britain will end up staying in the E.U.. But the next four months leading up
to the referendum will be tough for both the U.K. and the rest of the E.U. Lets hope the Europe
that emerges on the other end is better off for it.

Magazine/ Journal 3
http://time.com/4113238/paris-attacks-european-union-borders/
Border check-free travel is a bedrock principle of the European Union. But evidence that Paris
attackers crossed borders could change that.

Along with the rising death tollwhich climbed to at least 129 in Fridays terrorist
attacks in Pariscritics of Europes security policies were keeping another tally on Saturday:
How many of the E.U.s internal borders did the attackers cross on their way to the massacre?
Though investigators could take a while to establish that figure, the initial reports dont look
good for one of the bedrock principles of the European Union.
On Saturday evening, the police chief in Greece said the Syrian passport found near one of the
attackers had crossed into Europe via the Greek island of Leros, a prime landing point for this
years influx of hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees. A Greek minister said that the 25year-old Syrian had arrived with a group of nearly 70 refugees. But depending on his route to
Paris from Greece, the gunman would have needed to cross at least a few borders inside the E.U.
So would the weapons they reportedly planned to use in their killing spree. According to German
police, a cache of guns, explosives and hand grenades was intercepted on its way to Paris on
Nov. 5, leaving the German authorities with reasonable grounds to assume that the arsenal was
meant for the Paris attackers. The arrest of the man smuggling these weaponsa 51-year-old
from Montenegrocame down to a lucky spot check on the border between Germany and
Austria.
On a typical day, that frontier would be wide open under the E.U.s travel regulations, much like
all the borders between the 26 European countries that make up the so-called Schengen zone.
Within this area of more than four million square kilometers, home to more than 400 million
people, travelers are usually allowed to pass without so much as slowing down at national
borders.
This marvel of convenience has been one of the proudest achievements of the European Union,
which has long stood as proof that security does not need to come at the cost of openness. Quite
the opposite, after a century that saw two world wars fought on European soil, the E.U. showed
how peace could be achieved not by building walls but destroying them. In 2012, the E.U. was
even awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for [having] contributed to the advancement of peace and
reconciliation, democracy and human rights.
This system has, however, not adapted so well to the insidious security threats that characterize
the age of terrorism. On Friday night, the first reaction of the French government to the
unfolding carnage was to seal off the country, which seemed like a logical step. Open borders
might have helped the terrorists and their accomplices escape, just as it seems to have helped
them bring weapons and explosives into France. But the decision to close the borderswhich
was not done in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo attacks in Januarystill felt like another blow to
architecture of the Schengen zone, which was already starting to crack well before the latest
attacks in Paris.
Over the past few months, as hundreds of thousands of asylum seekers have come pouring into
the E.U. from the war zones of Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan, several E.U. states have begun
building fences and restoring security controls at Schengen borders that had previously been
wide open. In August, nine European countries, including France, demanded tighter security at
borders within the Schengen zone after three American tourists managed to thwart a terrorist
attack on a Paris-bound train.

Following that incident, which saw a well-armed gunman cross two Schengen borders by train
before his attempted attack, the top police official in France, Bernard Cazeneuve, invited the
European Union to tighten its internal bordersor as he put it, to examine a targeted
amendment to the Schengen frontier code allowing controls where necessary and when
necessary.
That invitation was politely dismissed. The E.U.s executive body, the European Commission,
said that the Schengen principle of open borders was non-negotiable. Any participating
country that feels the need for increased security measures could impose them, the Commission
added, if they do not have an effect equivalent to border checks. That means spot checks in or
around the border, and a police presence on trains, but no permanent border posts or checkpoints
where travelers or cars pass control and are searched at random.
The E.U.s insistence on freedom of movement isnt hard to understand. At a time when
Eurosceptic parties are increasingly challenging the wisdom of the grand European project, free
travel remains one of the main arguments for political integration. In an E.U.-wide survey
conducted this spring, more than half of respondents (57%) said the free movement of people
and goods across borders is the most positive outcome of the E.U.s creation; even the benefits of
peace among member states received less praise (55%) from Europeans.
But that same survey, which was conducted before the summers tide of refugees, also found a
spike in public fears over security. Asked to name their main concerns, the greatest number of
respondents (38%) cited immigration, while the threat of terrorism troubled 17% of Europeans, a
jump of six percentage points in the course of a year. In the wake of the worst attack France has
faced in decades, those worries seem likely to grow, and French politicians have already begun
using the tragedy to call for tighter border restrictions.
Among them was the conservative lawmaker Jacques Myard, who declared on Saturday that the
Schengens policy of open borders is a failure when it comes to national defense. Though he
conceded that nothing could ensure total security, Myard told the BBC, We have to be very
conscious that we are at war. His choice of wordsan act of war also came up in the
French Presidents description of the Paris attacks on Saturday. Faced with war, President
Franois Hollande said in a televised address, the country has to take appropriate decisions.
One of these decisions was Frances indefinite suspension of the Schengen rules on open
borders. The countrys security, at least for now, would have to come at the cost of openness.

Newspaper 1
http://sks.sirs.com/cgi-bin/hst-article-display?id=SSD117-05514&artno=0000379107&type=ART&shfilter=U&key=Can%20Energy%20Unite%20a

%20Divided%20Europe&title=Can%20Energy%20Unite%20a%20Divided%20Europe
%3F&res=Y&ren=N&gov=Y&lnk=N&ic=N
Can Energy Unite a Divided Europe?
By Cristina Maza
Brussels is working to ensure that Europe's energy market is more unified than ever.
The European Union is on shaky ground. Debates over migration policy devolve into screaming
arguments in Brussels. Countries threaten to build walls and close borders, sparking fears that the
era of visa-free travel may soon come to an end. Great Britain, one of the union's strongest
members economically, is negotiating ways to distance itself from the EU - if it doesn't decide to
leave the union entirely.
But despite this bleak picture, there is one area in which European countries are inching closer
together: energy. The European Union largely agrees that it needs to produce cleaner energy,
and better connect that energy among its members. Doing so would better protect Europeans
from volatile global energy markets, and it would help curtail the greenhouse gas emissions that
cause global warming.
While Europe's center enjoys a relatively high level of energy security, its periphery is peppered
with "energy islands" where critical infrastructure is often completely cut off from the rest of the
continent.
In January, the European Commission agreed to invest around $236 million in 15 energy
infrastructure projects that would connect isolated parts of Southern and Eastern Europe with the
rest of the continent's energy market. Commission officials say the investment will enhance
Europe's energy security.
"Today, we are targeting those regions in Europe that need it the most," European
Commissioner for Climate Action and Energy, Miguel Arias Canete said during the
announcement. "We must press ahead with the modernization of our energy networks to bring
any country still isolated into the European energy market."
But insiders say the commission is being forced to take a lead role directing EU energy policy in
an increasingly divided Europe. Market forces alone have failed to attract investment to many
parts of Europe's peripheries, prompting Brussels to use grants where the market failed. What's
more, some say the commission's efforts are being met with limited enthusiasm, especially by
EU members to the east.

"Ironically, it's that bureaucracy in Brussels that is the key actor when it comes to maintaining
the whole idea of market creation," says Andreas Goldthau, associate at the Geopolitics of
Energy Project at Harvard University's Belfer Center. "It is no longer necessarily London or
Berlin, and certainly not Eastern Europe."
The push for interconnection Despite its limited ability to dictate national policy, experts say the
commission's efforts to promote energy integration have been admirable. Over the years the
European Union pushed for the creation of a EU Energy Union that would abolish regulatory
barriers that impede the development of an integrated market. The Energy Union also aims to
promote policies that improve energy efficiency and enable the EU to meet its climate
commitments.
Meanwhile, the commission finalized three rounds of energy legislation known as "energy
packages". The third energy package, approved in 2009, put a number of regulations in place to
increase the independence of national energy regulators and transparency in retail markets.
Some, however, worry that not all EU countries are participating wholeheartedly. In order for
Europe's energy market to be fully integrated, the right regulations and infrastructure need to be
put in place. But regulations are ineffective if countries don't comply with them.
"There are a lot of countries across South Eastern Europe, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, for
example, they simply ignore EU regulations," says Dr. Goldthau.
In its latest push for energy integration, the European Commission is focusing on developing
Europe's energy hardware. The Commission has drawn up an ambitious list of 195 energy
projects, known as "projects of common interest" that need to be completed if Europe's energy
market is to be fully integrated.
Many of the fifteen projects funded by this latest round of investments are on the list. The
projects include efforts to modernize Bulgaria's gas transmission network and create
interconnectors that would link gas networks in Austria, Bulgaria, Hungary, and Romania.
The funds will also go into studies on how to secure and improve the Southern Gas Priority
Corridor, which will bring alternative sources of gas from the Caspian basin to the EU via
Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Turkey.
Russian gas
Many of the EU projects are aimed at reducing the union's dependence on Russia. Consequently,
most EU funding is funneled into efforts to ensure gas can flow as smoothly from west to east as

it can from east to west. Electricity and renewable energy sources are getting less attention as a
result.
Many countries on Europe's periphery, like Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Slovakia,
are almost 100 percent reliant on Russia for their natural gas. Energy experts say that improving
gas interconnectors so that gas can flow east would reduce this dependence substantially.
"In Eastern Europe many of the networks were built up during the Soviet era and are configured
mainly to accept Russian gas from one direction and then to pass it on," explains Bud Coote,
senior fellow at the Atlantic Council's Global Energy Center.
"But Lithuania now has a LNG [liquefied natural gas] terminal, and there is a planned pipeline
under the Baltic sea from Estonia to Finland, an active project that would connect Lithuania and
Poland with a gas pipeline," he adds.
Despite the presumed benefits of unification, however, experts point out that countries are
continuing to prioritize their national interests.
"As much as Europe talks about regional cooperation, most of the new security of supply
projects are national endeavors," says Brenda Shaffer, a specialist on energy and foreign policy at
Georgetown University. "The fact that both Lithuania and Poland recently each inaugurated
national LNG terminals, versus one project connected by a pipeline, is an example of the
challenges to cooperation on energy security infrastructure."
Trust needs to be fostered between EU member nations if the commission's efforts are to bear
fruit, insiders say. Moreover, a common energy policy needs to be agreed upon and followed.
That might be difficult as Europe continues to struggle with a variety of other political problems.
"The Brits in the past have been the most important pro-market forces within the EU," says
Goldthau. "Things like the Brexit [a potential British exit from the EU] and the refugee crisis,
they complicate the political agenda."
And Dr. Shaffer agrees that a lack of trust could create future roadblocks.
"The response to the migration crisis will create further challenges to the drive to unite Europe's
energy markets," says Shaffer. "If the countries don't trust each other's border controls anymore,
are they really going to trust each other to transit energy supplies during a time of crisis?"
Credit: Cristina Maza Staff writer

Newspaper 2
http://sks.sirs.com/cgi-bin/hst-article-display?id=SSD117-05514&artno=0000378159&type=ART&shfilter=U&key=Witte%2C%20Griff%2E
%20%22A%20U%2EK%2E%20Vote%20on%20Going%20Solo%20Could%20Sink
%20E%2EU%2E%22&title=A%20U%2EK%2E%20Vote%20on%20Going%20Solo
%20Could%20Sink%20E%2EU%2E&res=Y&ren=N&gov=Y&lnk=N&ic=N
A U.K. Vote on Going Solo Could Sink E.U.
By Griff Witte

UK on the European
Union
(Credit: Reuters
Graphics)
Graphic Selected by
ProQuest Staff
LONDON -- Europe was pummeled by crises from start to finish in 2015, with terrorist attacks,
bankruptcy brinkmanship and an unparalleled refugee influx combining to leave continental
unity in tatters by year's end.
But instead of relief, 2016 could bring an unraveling.
In addition to the flash points of the past year -- all of which are poised to flare again -- Britain is
likely to throw fresh instability into the mix with a referendum on whether to leave the
European Union. Once judged an unlikely prospect, many observers now see a 50-50 chance
that populist-minded, immigration-fearing British voters will elect to cut this island nation adrift
from a continent beset by existential struggles.
If they do, it would mark the first time in the E.U.'s history that a country has chosen to
withdraw, reversing what had been seen as an inexorable expansion of the pact credited with
bringing peace and stability to the historically bloody lands of Europe.

A British exit could hasten a broader E.U. breakup, with continental leaders despairing that an
already strained union may struggle to survive without one of its cornerstone members.
Washington, too, has much to lose if the country that has traditionally bridged the Atlantic divide
opts to sail off into the icy depths of the North Sea. And the United Kingdom itself could fall
apart if Britain chooses to leave, with pro-E.U. Scotland likely to revive its demand for
independence.
But all of that may not be enough to outweigh the anxieties of British voters who gaze across the
English Channel and see nothing but trouble.
As Europe's crises have multiplied over the past year, the once-overwhelming share of British
voters who favor staying inside the E.U. has dwindled -- with some polls showing the contest
dead-even. And the "out" campaign has room to grow if Europe's problems persist, as most
analysts expect they will.
"Given that by any objective measure the E.U. is in a terrible mess, I'm shocked that the 'in'
campaign is still getting half," said Charles Grant, director of the London-based Center for
European Reform.
Grant said he wants to see Britain remain part of the E.U., but he is pessimistic that it will. Fears
about immigration explain why.
"It's always quite easy to scare people," Grant said. "If the British vote to leave the E.U., it will
be because of worries about migration and refugees."
Britain has largely insulated itself from the historic exodus of millions of people fleeing the war
zones that ring Europe. It has opted out of an E.U.-wide refugee-relocation program and has used
the 19 miles of water that separate this nation from the European mainland as a barrier to those
who try to make it here on their own.
But anti-E.U. campaigners have conflated the refugee issue with a record level of net-migration
to Britain, much of which is fueled by European citizens moving here for economic reasons.
Under the E.U.'s free-movement principle, Britain can't stop them, prompting "out" advocates to
argue that the country has lost control of its borders and can only get it back by ditching the E.U.
The more that Europe has struggled with its management of refugee flows - and with other
thorny problems, including terrorism and debt -- the more confident anti-E.U. advocates have
become that they will prevail.

"The momentum is on our side," said Nigel Farage, leader of the U.K. Independence Party and
the country's most prominent E.U. opponent. "For those of us who believe in nation-state
democracy, 2016 is a very bright dawn indeed."
A British vote to leave, Farage proclaimed in a December speech on the floor of the European
Parliament, would mark a "tipping point" that could doom the E.U. -- an outcome that the
bombastic former commodities trader has made clear he would welcome gleefully.
It was political pressure from Farage and from Euro-skeptics within Prime Minister David
Cameron's own Conservative Party that led him to promise a referendum in the first place. At the
time, in January 2013, a British vote to leave seemed improbable.
Now Cameron is locked in delicate negotiations with his fellow E.U. leaders that could
determine whether Britain stays or goes. The prime minister has vowed he will lead the
campaign to keep Britain within Europe "with all my heart and soul," but only if he can extract
meaningful concessions that will give the E.U. less influence over British affairs.
Cameron's demands include permission for Britain to opt out of the E.U.'s founding ambition to
"forge ever closer union"; greater power for national parliaments to block E.U. legislation; and
formal recognition that the euro isn't the union's only currency.
European leaders have signaled that they're willing to deal on those issues. But Cameron's
fourth demand -- a restriction on benefits for immigrants from within the E.U. -- is far trickier.
As German Chancellor Angela Merkel and others have pointed out, such a move would violate
core E.U. principles that bar discrimination on the basis of nationality.
The issue is critical if Cameron wants to show he's serious about reducing immigration to Britain
-- a promise he's repeatedly made but has been unable to fulfill. And yet, with only weeks to go
until a critical E.U. summit, there's little indication of how negotiators can break the deadlock.
"Cameron can't go into the referendum with nothing on this," said Stephen Booth, codirector of
the London-based think tank Open Europe. "But what will the compromise be? We really don't
know."
Despite the uncertainty, Cameron has said he wants to make a deal by February and has hinted
that the referendum could come as soon as this summer.
After making his case for reform to fellow E.U. leaders over dinner in Brussels in late December,
he told reporters that "2016 will be the year we achieve something really vital, fundamentally

changing the U.K.'s relationship with the E.U. and finally addressing the concerns of the British
people about our membership."
But it could also be the year that divides his party -- and costs him the premiership. If Cameron
leads the "in" campaign and loses, he will come under pressure to resign just a year after leading
the Conservatives to a commanding victory in national elections.
Cameron's own cabinet is divided on the Europe question, and at least some of his ministers are
expected to campaign for an exit, although none have shown their hand.
One person who has made his views known is President Obama, who told the BBC last summer
that Britain's E.U. membership "gives us much greater confidence about the strength of the
transatlantic union."
Without Britain, the E.U. would be greatly diminished, having lost the world's fifth-largest
economy and military. It would also take Europe's focus away from its other struggles, which
continue to demand urgent attention.
"The E.U. has got enough on its plate right now," Booth said. "It doesn't need one of its biggest
and most dynamic members leaving."

Internet
http://labourlist.org/2013/05/better-off-on-the-relay-team-10-reasons-why-the-eu-is-good-forbritain/
1. Free trade
As part of the single market, the EU has free trade between all its member states. This is great for
UK businesses, who dont have to worry about quotas or import taxes. As such, almost 50% of
our exports go to the EU. (The EU also has an iron tariff wall against non-members, which we
dont want to be on the wrong side of.)
2. The EU encourages investment in Britain
The EU has attracted millions of pounds in foreign investment. Large manufacturers and
commercial service providers invest in the UK because it is a bridge to the single market. If the
UK walked away, it would become a bridge to nowhere. If youre a multinational company, with
a choice between building a factory in cast-adrift Britain or single-market France, the right
business decision is obvious.

3. Police coordination
How did we get the Spanish police to capture Andrew Moran, the escaped armed robber?
Through the European Arrest Warrant. Thanks to the EU, the Costa del Crime is no longer a
hiding place for UK criminals, and nor is anywhere else in the EU.
4. EU Structural Funds
Structural Funds are the large pot of money that gets distributed among the most deprived areas
in the EU. For many years they have contributed to investment and infrastructure across the UK:
especially in Northern Ireland, Yorkshire and Cornwall. Over the next five years, England alone
will receive over 6 billion in Structural Funds, Wales 2 billion, Scotland 795 million, and
Northern Ireland 457 million.
5. Influence within Europe
If we want the EU to work in Britains interests, then we need to be involved in EU decisionmaking. France and Germany will have no incentive to listen to Britain if were not playing on
the same team. If Britain leaves the EU, there will be no one to stand up for British interests
when decisions are made that affect us, such as changes to trade or investment laws.
6. Influence outside Europe
Strength in numbers is more than just a saying. At the global negotiating table, the UK could be
an insignificant little country with an insignificant loner economy. Or, it could be the leading
partner in the biggest combined economy in the world (with a GDP of just under 13 trillion).
Which is the more influential position to be in? If the UK is competing in the global race, as
David Cameron claims, then were better off on the relay team.
7. Immigration- good for Britain
Immigration, when unchecked, can obviously have a lot of downsides. But immigration
generally has been very good for Britain, and we shouldnt be afraid to say it. The EUs
immigration policy makes it easier for tourists to come and spend money, and it makes it easier
to attract highly skilled workers like doctors or engineers when we suffer from skill shortages.
8. Emigration- good for the British
The other side of the immigration coin is emigration: British people are free to live, work and go
on holiday wherever they want in the EU, without having to get an expensive visa or go through
time-consuming bureaucracy. The Conservatives should love this, really: instead of getting on
your bike, now you can get on a ferry!
9. Market fairness.

This one is a bit more technical: through its extensive competition law, the EU ensures that
capitalism actually works. For example, when a government department contracts out a service,
it has to put it to tender i.e. ensure that several companies bid competitively for the contract.
The contract cant simply be handed over to the company that took the Minister out for a nice
dinner; and thats because of EU competition law.
10. The EU safeguards workers rights.
This might just be the most important reason to stay in the EU. Four weeks paid holiday a year,
the 48 hour working week, anti-discrimination law, guaranteed rights for agency workers,
guaranteed worker consultation- all of these protections exist because of the EU. If we took away
the steel shield of EU employment law, workers rights would be at the mercy of a Tory
government. Anyone who thinks they would in safe hands is, quite frankly, having a laugh.