To that end, he has spent months negotiating a deal that allows the UK a 'special status' and freedom from the principle of 'ever closer union'.
He has also negotiated proposals to cut red tape, allow member states to overrule Brussels – the so-called 'red card' – and the non-discrimination of non-Eurozone members. Controversially, he has also won a four-year "emergency brake" enabling the UK to withhold in-work benefits to EU migrant workers in the UK.
Critics say that the overall deal does not go far enough and that any parts of it could be overturned — either by the member states themselves or by the European Court of Justice. Cameron says the deal is "legally binding and irreversible".
The map showing which countries want the UK to stay in the EU https://t.co/I03VUUvKmk #Europe #Brexit pic.twitter.com/hCW0WQMlE2
— World Economic Forum (@wef) February 25, 2016
Lawyers are split over the issue. Sir Francis Jacobs, Professor of Law at King’s College London and former Advocate General at the European Court of Justice (1988-2006), has written to the EU Scrutiny Committee saying:
"Any such procedure, designed to introduce, in advance, a legally binding and irreversible commitment to amend the Treaty at a future date, however the procedure is devised, would seem questionable: it would seem to be rightly open to the objection that, if effective, it would totally subvert the constitutional and democratic guarantees provided by the treaty amendment procedure laid down in the Treaty itself."
Vague Details
Professor of EU law at Britain’s Essex University, Steve Peers, however says: "The answer to those questions is complicated, because there are several different parts of the deal, taking different legal forms.
For each part, the legal status depends on several different factors: when the text would be adopted; who would have to approve it; whether the EU courts have power to overturn it, and whether they are likely to do so; and whether the text could be repealed or amended in future."
Peers says that the deal is complicated in that it refers to all member states, in a series of 'declarations' a 'decision' and a 'statement' – all of which have to be taken differently in law, in particular the 'emergency brake' allowing the UK to withhold in-work benefits for EU migrant workers.
Writing in EU Law Analysis, Peers says: "It’s a bit vague about the exact details of this process, to avoid irritating the European Parliament, but it’s clear that the Council would decide on the UK application. The voting rule isn’t specified, but it would be legally dubious if the vote had to be unanimous on this (because it concerns an issue on which vetoes don’t apply)."
"A Commission declaration states that the Commission is willing to make this implementing proposal; but there is no commitment from the Member States to support it."
Cameron has staked his reputation on having won a "legally binding and irreversible" deal for Britain to remain in a reformed union. But cracks are beginning to appear in the legality of what he has won.
