Stephen Booth: We must debate the unavoidable question of the UK’s future relationship with the EU now

Stephen Booth is Research Director for Open Europe.

We are told that work has begun in Whitehall on how the UK might return powers from Brussels to Westminster, but the question is how can this be achieved and what, exactly, should the Government be looking to repatriate?

In the first of a series of reports looking at the major EU policy areas, Open Europe has this week published its first attempt to offer some answers to these increasingly important questions. ‘Repatriating EU social policy: the best choice for jobs and growth?’ (pdf) examines the nature of EU social and employment law and the costs and benefits of deciding these regulations at the EU-level.

Using Government impact assessments, we estimate that EU social law currently costs UK business and the public sector £8.6bn a year. But more importantly, cutting the cost of these regulations by 50% could result in a boost in economic output equivalent to the creation of 140,000 new jobs in Britain. Under a scenario where the benefits of deregulation would be split between higher employment and increased productivity, which is more likely, a 50% cut could generate the equivalent of 60,000 new jobs in the UK in addition to adding £4.3bn to economic output. Savings could be achieved without significantly compromising on workers’ protection: for example, by exempting low-risk working environments from aspects of health and safety legislation or overturning EU court rulings on the Working Time Directive (pdf), which have made hospital rota systems unworkable.

Stephen Booth: EU regulations on agency workers should be resisted at the 11th hour

Stephen Booth is Research Director for Open Europe.

As if the eurozone crisis wasn’t already sufficiently threatening UK growth and jobs, soon another EU-conceived measure will provide another heavy blow. Unless the Government intervenes, on Saturday 1 October, new EU regulations will come into force which will make life yet harder for UK businesses. The Agency Workers Directive, as it’s called, gives agency workers the same rights as permanent staff after only 12 weeks, making it more expensive for employers to take on temporary staff. This is particularly critical, as agency work provides many young people with a way into the labour market, something which is increasingly difficult in the current economic climate.

As a result of the new rules, thousands of young workers will be faced with either being out of a job or in search of a new assignment within the next three months. New Open Europe research estimates that, in the UK, around 28,000 temporary employment contracts for those aged between 16 and 24 are under threat.

Stephen Booth: Vigilance is required if we are to stop the trickle of policing and criminal justice powers to the EU

Stephen Booth is a research analyst at Open Europe.

The Government’s recent decision to opt in to negotiations on the controversial European Investigation Order has provided us with an early opportunity to see the coalition’s pledge to “approach forthcoming [EU] legislation in the area of criminal justice on a case-by-case basis” in action.

The coalition has made civil liberties a cornerstone of its programme. “We need to restore the rights of individuals in the face of encroaching state power,” the coalition agreement tells us. Perhaps with this at the back of her mind, Home Secretary Theresa May described the EIO as a “simplification” or a tidying-up exercise and rejected any concerns that it might threaten civil liberties or impose further burdens on the police.

But the truth is that, although the Home Secretary did her best to push the 'nothing to see here line', the Government cannot guarantee how the final directive will look until after negotiations with other member states and MEPs in the European Parliament, which under the Lisbon Treaty now have powers to co-decide in justice and home affairs.

Theresa May has already admitted that there are aspects of the current proposal the Government does not like. The final outcome will be decided by qualified majority voting, meaning the UK is powerless to veto the EIO either if these unwanted elements are retained or if new and unforeseen amendments are added along the way. John Redwood made the crucial point that if the Government doesn't have the ability (which it doesn't) to opt out of the EIO, if it “proves to be not as advertised” then this must imply a loss of sovereignty. For a government committed to “protecting Britain’s civil liberties” the approach taken to the EIO seems careless – although the jury will be out until the negotiations are concluded.