126 / 145
THE STATE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION
126
organisations, such as the International
Monetary Fund and the World Bank, is without
a doubt the worst nightmare for Eurosceptics,
who fear the extent to which such circumstanc-
es would weaken the UK. As such, it is under-
standable that a UK that has abandoned any
intention of forming part of the euro wants to
see guarantees to ensure that such an outcome
does not weaken its position in terms of the op-
eration of the Single Market. However, it is also
clear that the Eurozone countries wish to move
forward without the UK and other non-Euro-
zone members such as Denmark and Sweden
standing in the way, a concern that was not suf-
ficiently voiced in the run-up to the European
Council in February 2016.
The UK could be a strong ally of the Eurozone
when it comes to resolving the most important
economic problems that affect the European
economy as a whole, related to the stagnation
of productivity and the loss of competitiveness.
The modernisation of the European economy in
all its dimensions (industrial, services, finance
and trade) must be done with the participation
of the UK, which has much to contribute.
The European Council in February 2016
Economic governance of the euro
The UK demanded protection from the conse-
quences of progress towards both the econom-
ic and political integration of the Eurozone. In
specific terms, it requested guarantees that fu-
ture laws and regulations will not create disad-
vantages for countries that are not part of the
euro, by introducing a mechanism to allow any
country to halt Eurozone regulations by arguing
that these also affect non-Eurozone countries,
and reopening discussion of these regulations in
the European Council if necessary. The aim of this
measure is none other than to protect the City of
London from regulations that could challenge its
leadership as the financial centre of the EU.
This issue, which the UK had argued was
non-negotiable but which was at one point re-
garded as impossible, was one of the main
achievements secured by David Cameron in his
negotiations. It will now suffice for one non-
euro country to raise its concerns regarding new
legislation for the Eurozone to force a debate
among EU leaders. A majority of leaders agreed
to this request, since in practice neither the UK
nor any other Member State will have the pow-
er of an absolute veto. This change is also set to
be included in the treaties when they are next
reformed, guaranteeing that the reservations of
a single country regarding a decision can also be
brought to the Court of Justice, as requested by
David Cameron.
While it seems reasonable that progressive
economic and fiscal integration –political, when
all is said and done– should offer guarantees to
prevent legislative effects on Member States
that have a legal opt-out from the euro (Mangas
2016),
2
the agreement goes much further, since
the planned treaty change will modify second-
ary legislation by allowing recourse to the Court
of Justice to settle these disputes. It should also
be noted that, in exchange for the principle of
non-interference in the affairs of non-Eurozone
Member States, members of the Eurozone ob-
tain an undertaking that non-euro countries will
facilitate and not block economic and monetary
union. It is also clearly stated that, except for the
UK and Denmark, all states that do not yet form
part of the euro are required to make progress
2
Mangas, Araceli: “Brexit: Europa al rescate de Reino Uni-
do”.
El País
22.02.2016.