David Cameron claims he made “real progress” today in negotiations aimed at securing a better deal for Britain in the EU.

The Prime Minister made it clear that his support for Britain’s continued membership of the bloc rests on the outcome of crunch talks with European Council president Donald Tusk.

Now Mr Tusk has published draft documents laying out a possible deal on four key areas. The proposals will have to be agreed by the leaders of all 28 EU states later this month.

The Prime Minister offered an upbeat assessment of the documents, saying his team had won concessions from Brussels that critics said were impossible, and that the deal represents “substantial change”.

Eurosceptics say it amounts to “tinkering” with Britain’s relationship with the EU. Let’s look at what Mr Cameron said he wanted to achieve, and what is on the table.

Benefits

What Cameron wanted: “So we have proposed that people coming to Britain from the EU must live here and contribute for four years before they qualify for in-work benefits or social housing. And that we should end the practice of sending child benefit overseas.” (10 November 2015)

What’s on the table: A new power to limit new migrants’ in-work benefits for up to four years from the start of employment.

BUT: “The limitation should be graduated, from an initial complete exclusion but gradually increasing access to such benefits to take account of the growing connection of the worker with the labour market of the host Member State.”

And the wording suggests the European Council has to grant permission for countries to restrict benefits only in an “exceptional situation” where high immigration is putting unusual pressure on public services.

The documents say Britain does meet the criteria for such a situation now, but the power to change migrant benefits in the future still appears to rest ultimately with the EU.

On child benefits, the draft document doesn’t stop all such payments going to migrants’ families overseas, but includes an option “to index such benefits to the standard of living in the Member State where the child resides”.

In other words, child benefits could still be paid to children in other countries, but at the local rate, not the UK rate.

Verdict: Mr Cameron’s opponents will surely feel the proposed changes have been watered down considerably.

“Ever-closer union”

What Cameron wanted: “And dealing properly with the concept of “ever closer union”… it is not right for Britain, and we must ensure we are no longer subject to it.” (15 March 2014)

What’s on the table: Recognition that “the United Kingdom, in the light of the specific situation it has under the Treaties, is not committed to further political integration into the European Union”.

This principle will be incorporated into future EU treaties, but there will be a debate over what the practical effects will be, if any.

Today’s documents take pains to say that “ever-closer union” does not mean what eurosceptics take it to mean anyway – an inevitable route to a United States of Europe.

“References in the Treaties and their preambles to the process of creating an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe are primarily intended to signal that the Union’s aim is to promote trust and understanding among peoples living in open and democratic societies sharing a common heritage of universal values.

“They are not an equivalent to the objective of political integration.”

Top EU officials have been signalling for some time that they are pretty relaxed about Britain opting out of “ever-closer union”, probably because there is considerable disagreement over what the principle means and how much impact it has on the day-to-day operations of the EU.

Verdict: a win for the PM, but he may have been pushing against an open door.

Red card

What Cameron wanted: To “bolster national parliaments… not through warm words but through legally binding and irreversible changes”. (10 November 2015)

What’s on the table: A new “red card” system which will allow states to scupper EU laws if 55 per cent of national parliaments object to them.

The current, little-used “yellow card” system only forces Brussels to review the legislation, and has been criticised for being toothless.

The wording suggests that the red card will not apply to all unpopular laws, but only specifically to those that conflict with “subsidiarity” – the principle that decisions should be taken by member states, not at EU level, if possible.

Verdict: arguably another win, but is this a symbolic gesture or a measure with real bite?

Eurozone

What Cameron wanted: “No, it goes without saying, to the euro, to participation in eurozone bailouts…” (15 March 2014)

What’s on the table: Legal recognition that the euro is not the only currency in the bloc.

Non-eurozone countries cannot be discriminated against or forced to take part in bailouts, and countries outside the currency union will be reimbursed if central EU funds are used to prop up the eurozone.

It’s not clear what happens if non-eurozone states object to laws likely to be voted through by members of the single currency. There is a mechanism for discussion, but not much more.

Verdict: some strong points, but stops well short of the kind of powers think-tanks like Open Europe have suggested Britain needs to stop being constantly outvoted by the Eurozone countries.

Competitiveness

What Cameron wanted: “Write competitiveness into the DNA of the whole European Union.” (10 November 2015)

What’s on the table: the EU promises to “increase efforts towards enhancing competitiveness”, cutting unnecessary legislation and driving for increased trade with other major economies.

There is probably less detail here than in any of the four areas, and it’s not clear what is really new, other than building on existing programmes.

A paragraph stressing “the need to maintain high standards of consumer, employee, health and environmental protection” suggests this may not be the bonfire of red tape that eurosceptics had in mind.

Verdict: there is probably less hard detail on this part of the deal than any others. It’s unclear how much is new.