LONDON — Last year, Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain used his appearance at the World Economic Forum to vent frustration with the European Union, listing some of the policies he would ditch if he could throw off Europe’s regulatory shackles.
“In the name of social protection, the E.U. has promoted unnecessary measures that impose burdens on businesses and governments, and can destroy jobs,” he argued, adding a list of directives that he would like to scrap.
One year later, Mr. Cameron is following through on that pledge. He is promising to renegotiate Britain’s ties to the 27-nation bloc, forge a new and looser relationship, and is expected to say on Wednesday that he would put the outcome of those talks to a referendum.
A speech on Europe, planned for last week, was postponed because of the crisis in Algeria. It has been rescheduled for Wednesday, ahead of a possible visit by Mr. Cameron to Davos, Switzerland.
It was unclear whether Mr. Cameron would attend Davos this year and speak on the same theme. But his tough line on Europe echoes growing British disenchantment with a bloc whose single currency union, which the British never joined, has been in crisis for three years.
Yet, supposing Mr. Cameron were to succeed in scaling down Britain’s involvement, some central questions will arise. Can Britain play a more limited role in Brussels and still retain significant influence there? And what might that mean for Britain’s full participation in one of the world’s biggest single markets?
In their 40-year history of engagement with a unifying Europe, Britons have never embraced the ideal of unity; instead they have seen their ties to the Continent in pragmatic terms. Increasingly, London’s conclusion seems to be that the costs in terms of regulatory burdens and financial contributions are not outweighed by clear benefits.
Mr. Cameron argues that to stabilize support for the European Union in Britain, the relationship must be loosened and focused more on the bloc’s single market of almost 500 million people.
Britain, which is in the second tier of European Union membership, not only stayed out of the euro — and unlike most of the others on the sidelines has no intention of joining — but also does not participate in Europe’s Schengen passport-free travel zone. The British government also announced last year that it would opt out of a range of justice and security policy areas.
A group of Conservative lawmakers argued last week for five treaty changes, including those that would allow any country to block new European Union legislation on financial services, and would repatriate social and employment laws to national capitals. Britain’s euro skeptics are also blunt in their criticism of the bloc’s agricultural, fisheries and regional aid programs
Many would ideally like to keep just one element of European Union membership, access to the single market, though achieving such status looks highly improbable.
Even those who sympathize with Mr. Cameron’s stance argue that a more detached position comes at the price of reduced influence, though they contend the cost of not changing would be higher. They also argue that leverage in some of the policy areas is of limited value anyway.
“There is a trade-off, there is no doubt,” said Mats Persson, director of Open Europe, a research organization that favors a change in Britain’s relationship with the union. “If you reduce the level of E.U. influence in the British economy and society, you will lose some influence over some policy areas.”
But Mr. Persson argues that “if there is no change in Britain’s E.U. relationship, its membership is in question, which would really reduce its influence.”
Others worry that Britain is weakening its own position. Charles Grant, director of the Center for European Reform, a research institute in London, says that already “British influence in Brussels is at its lowest level in the 25 years I have been following the E.U.”
And critics argue that standing back from more policy arenas would increase the country’s sense of alienation from the bloc and fuel popular sentiment that things are stacked against Britain. A more detached relationship could also prove a disadvantage in the deal-making culture that prevails in Brussels.
Officially, decisions on legislation in Brussels are made by national governments under a complex series of rules before going to the European Parliament, whose approval is also required. In some cases, like tax policy, all 27 national governments need to agree, though in many others a weighted majority is required.
But relatively few decisions are actually put to a vote by governments. In practice, countries strike informal agreements and compromises, often trading support on one issue for a reciprocal agreement, sometimes in an unrelated area of policy.
For example, Britain once supported Germany, which wanted to water down planned rules on takeovers, in exchange for help from Berlin to soften new European Union legislation on workers’ rights.
The fewer areas in which a country participates, the less influence it has to barter.
Something similar affects another area of unofficial influence: control of crucial positions in Brussels. When the last round of top European Union jobs was decided, Tony Blair, a former British prime minister, was a contender to become the president of the European Council, the body in which national governments meet. But Britain’s absence from the euro currency and the Schengen zone made this a nonstarter.
The prime minister at the time, Gordon Brown, wanted a top economic post for Britain in the European Commission, the executive of the bloc. Instead, he got a foreign policy position for Catherine Ashton, reflecting the fact that Britain remained an engaged player in that area.
The euro has dominated the agenda in Brussels for the last three years, but Britons have reduced prospects of making big careers in this policy area because London has no power to lobby for them.
“If you are in the Treasury in London, why the hell would you go to Brussels?” said one European Union official not authorized to speak publicly.
That trend now looks likely to extend to justice and security policy. Britain recently held the most senior position in the justice and home affairs directorate of the European Commission, partly because the British used to be enthusiastic about cooperation in that forum. A Briton, Rob Wainwright, is currently the director of Europol, the bloc’s law enforcement agency.
But given the government’s decision to distance itself, it will be harder for Britons to get such top jobs in the future.
Declining career prospects for British officials are reflected in staff recruitment figures, released in April 2011. They showed that the European Commission now employed more Poles than Britons, though Britain has a larger population and joined the European Union’s forerunner more than 30 years before Polish accession in 2004.
Britain has fewer than half France’s number of European Commission officials, and the situation seems destined to deteriorate because relatively few Britons are applying for entry-level jobs.
All this risks creating a downward spiral in British influence, which the country would need to counter by being more effective in the areas in which it remains.
“I think Britain still could have clout in more limited areas if it keeps friends and allies,” Mr. Grant said. “But the fact that we are not, for example, so engaged in justice and home affairs weakens our bargaining power across policy areas and weakens the career prospects of British officials.”
Mr. Grant added, “There has been a steady diminution in the last few years, which you could plot on a graph: the more you distance yourself the less influence you have.”
