You said they are far right. Which is true regarding their nationalist stance, but economically they are far left.
Printable View
You said they are far right. Which is true regarding their nationalist stance, but economically they are far left.
I agree with your national newspapers. Chances of no deal are bigger than chances for a good deal.Quote:
Originally Posted by earthJoker
I think the Erasmus program was used as a signal to the Swiss government that it's a matter of principle for the EU. It also happened to be the first one up. As things are materially very little changed, except that the Swiss replacements require more money and effort.
Agreed. I said it as a piece of terminology that I personally hate and think is wildly inaccurate but is the accepted phrasing. If you want to be pedantic I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by earthJoker
Schauble has been quoted to say that there will be no common market access for the UK after a Brexit at all.
He also said, they won't get access because he want's to avoid a domino effect. Really a bad idea to try to avoid countries to leave by threatening them, would be better idea to give them a reason to stay.
Actually what he said makes perfect sense; nobody gets a better deal by leaving.Quote:
Originally Posted by earthJoker
I am not talking about if he is right but about if it is a smart thing to say.
Like appeasing the Little Englanders over 3 decades has been the smart thing to do.Quote:
Originally Posted by earthJoker
Also the persistent lie of those same Little Englanders to their compatriots has been that nothing will change for real if they vote 'out'. If the leaders in other member states say nothing to counter that lie it would mean that they put the interests of Brits over the interests of their own voters. That would be a serious betrayal of trust.
In your own MEI referendum we saw your populists getting away with the fantasy that the EU would somehow be willing to accomodate Switzerland. The reality was, from the very beginning, that the EU would not and could not accomodate the Swiss for the simple reason they'd be selling out their own citizens. It's time to stand up to the populists.
In your post I see only threats as arguments, that is quite weak to be honest.
Too bad for you if you think that telling someone that he's not getting things the way he thinks he will get them is a threath.Quote:
Originally Posted by earthJoker
It's not even a sane threat. "If you vote leave we will make you leave" is about as threatening as telling an employee "if you resign I will fire you". Or a husband telling a wife "if you file for divorce I will leave you".Quote:
Originally Posted by earthJoker
The fact remains the EU is in a worse position if we leave than we are.
Especially if she is leaving because he just isn't that attractive anymore.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
There are many better aspects to if we leave.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
1: We contribute net of rebate about £10 billion to the EU coffers each year. Say goodbye to that if we leave.
2: The EU's protectionist trade tariffs prevent us from signing our own free trade deals with the 93% of the world's population not inside the EU's protectionist bloc. That restriction is gone if we leave.
3: The EU that we're tied to by #2 is a failing non-state, the slowest growing economic region in the world and a fast diminishing export market for us.
4: The EU is increasingly impoverished with mass unemployment.
The question is if the price of remaining in the EU, of sacrificing ten billion pounds a year, of sacrificing our ability to sign independent trade deals etc is worth the benefits EU membership brings. Benefits that Hazir seems unable to name.
He also seems to be totally ignorant of the fact that an independent UK is the rest of the EU's single biggest goods export market. Bigger than the whole of the USA. Every single nation of the EU barring Ireland, Malta and Cyprus runs a trade surplus with the UK.
The impoverished EU would start a trade war with its number one customer at its own peril.
If you leave you're not getting half my stuff and you can forget getting to see the kids.
The European is not a marriage. If you need this kind of explanation it's like telling the members of your commune you won't follow the rules any longer and won't pay into the common funds and them telling you that you then will have to leave the house.Quote:
Originally Posted by earthJoker
And FYI; the breakdown of the relationship is not what a divorce is about. A divorce is about the division of the goods. So even in your wonderful non-analogy it would make perfect sense to point out to your soon to be ex that if he wants to break up you'll have to talk about how to deal with the estate.
If I am not mistaken the Norwegian model would basically mean nothing changes for the Brits except that they loose their voting rights and their rebate. :D
And with their currency predicted to slip by as much as 30% that would mean they'd have to send 500 million a week to Brussels. But this time for real.
The Norwegian model would mean we no longer need to apply almost all EU rules and directives (and those that are applied are generally things like product standards that are globally set anyway, there is a reason electronics are marked both CE and FCC as standard). Norwegian contributions are lower than British contributions even net of rebate.
The Norwegian model would entail, among other things, continuing to respect freedom of movement of persons, tariffs on certain kinds of goods, contributing to the EU budget. I dunno if a post-Brexit govt. will have the mandate to enter any deal that allows the same kind of migration currently required of other third countries that have deals with the EU.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
The only point where you are right is that the Norwegians pay less (see how that works? you make a mistake and you admit you made one). This staying that way assumes that the EU suddenly would want you to have a much better deal than you have (which is unlikely) and that you will be able to hang on to your rebate (for which there is no reason any longer).Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Free movement: I couldn't care less if we keep it. This is my favourite part of the EU. There's a convincing argument to treat 100% of the people fairly rather than 7% but I'm perfectly fine with the status quo here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Tariffs: No, Norway is not a part of the common tariff area. Norway gets to decide its tariff policy so can eliminate tariffs altogether and can sign new free trade deals with the 90% of the world's economic growth, like I want. Not only that but within the EU any tariffs raised are kept by the EU, while outside of the EU Norway keeps any tariffs it raises itself. So even if we don't sign a new deal, the concilation prize is keeping the tariffs for ourselves rather than letting Brussels keep them. Tariffs are most definitely a mammoth bonus for the Norway model.
Contributing to the EU-budget. Yes they do, but less than we do even with a rebate. We would lose the rebate that is perpetually being challenged and instead have a permanently lower contribution that is secure.
That staying that way does not rely upon the rebate, the rebate would be gone but our contributions (sans rebate) would be lower anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
As for what the EU wants if it is even relevant* the choice is not what we have now or a change, the choice is us in the EFTA [if that is what we are seeking] versus the EU's #1 customer being out of the EEA. What we have now would be moot.
* I have seen an argument I don't believe that the EU would get no say if we join the EFTA. I am not a lawyer (and don't believe the argument) but the thinking goes that the UK is already a named signatory of the EEA which requires being a member of either the EU or EFTA. If we leave the EU into the EFTA then under the Venice Treaty our EEA membership would never be in question (as we're still signatories and still in an organisation that permits it) and that this change would simply require the agreement of the EFTA states to let us join under pre-existing EFTA terms.
As for what point[s] I have right, are you denying that Norway is not compelled to implement the overwhelming majority of EU laws and regulations?
I understand that you're okay with free movement of persons but I have to wonder if your fellow voters will be equally keen on that provided they can be arsed to care about the matter one way or the other.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
I'm not sure if we're talking about the same things here. Norway's deal doesn't cover all goods, for example agricultural products which are still subject to high tariffs. Moreover, upon a Brexit, and until it joins EFTA or something similar, the UK would under WTO rules still be obliged to impose tariffs on imports from over 50 countries (and vice versa). I'm sure you'll be swimming in tariff-money but last I heard this kind of situation wasn't exactly desirable. Your membership in the customs union would also not be guaranteed. Speaking of the WTO, you may also have years of negotiations with other members of the WTO to look forward to. None of these things will lead to the annihilation of England but neither are they insignificant costs.Quote:
Tariffs: No, Norway is not a part of the common tariff area. Norway gets to decide its tariff policy so can eliminate tariffs altogether and can sign new free trade deals with the 90% of the world's economic growth, like I want. Not only that but within the EU any tariffs raised are kept by the EU, while outside of the EU Norway keeps any tariffs it raises itself. So even if we don't sign a new deal, the concilation prize is keeping the tariffs for ourselves rather than letting Brussels keep them. Tariffs are most definitely a mammoth bonus for the Norway model.
Fair enough, and it may be worth the expense.Quote:
Contributing to the EU-budget. Yes they do, but less than we do even with a rebate. We would lose the rebate that is perpetually being challenged and instead have a permanently lower contribution that is secure.
Cue years of quibbling over whether or not the EEA agreement lapses as far as the UK is concerned as soon as the UK leaves the EU.Quote:
* I have seen an argument I don't believe that the EU would get no say if we join the EFTA. I am not a lawyer (and don't believe the argument) but the thinking goes that the UK is already a named signatory of the EEA which requires being a member of either the EU or EFTA. If we leave the EU into the EFTA then under the Venice Treaty our EEA membership would never be in question (as we're still signatories and still in an organisation that permits it) and that this change would simply require the agreement of the EFTA states to let us join under pre-existing EFTA terms.
Norway is compelled to implement those laws and regulations that directly pertain to its trade with the EU. Norway chooses to legislate in a way that is largely compliant with EU laws anyway :oQuote:
As for what point[s] I have right, are you denying that Norway is not compelled to implement the overwhelming majority of EU laws and regulations?
The beauty of democracy is that we have a vote every five years at the maximum where my fellow voters can express their pleasure or displeasure. Outside the EU our politicians will have to take responsibility for their policies rather than just blaming the EU so that will be healthy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty provides for a two year window for negotiations upon a nation wanting to exit. I fully expect a deal to be agreed and ratified within that window.Quote:
I'm not sure if we're talking about the same things here. Norway's deal doesn't cover all goods, for example agricultural products which are still subject to high tariffs. Moreover, upon a Brexit, and until it joins EFTA or something similar, the UK would under WTO rules still be obliged to impose tariffs on imports from over 50 countries (and vice versa). I'm sure you'll be swimming in tariff-money but last I heard this kind of situation wasn't exactly desirable. Your membership in the customs union would also not be guaranteed. Speaking of the WTO, you may also have years of negotiations with other members of the WTO to look forward to. None of these things will lead to the annihilation of England but neither are they insignificant costs.
As for rest of the world trade deals even if they take longer than the two years between the referendum and Brexit occuring, at least the starting gun will be fired. There is nothing lost by Brexit as far as this is concerned as the EU hasn't got a deal with any other major economies, so there is only a potential upside here.
Agriculture is a massive reason to leave, the EU compels the heinously evil Common Agricultural Policy and mammothly high tariffs as you mentioned. Under EFTA rules none of that applies to Norway.
If as I expect we join EFTA in at least an intermediary position then I expect it to be moot as I'd expect that deal to be signed and ratified well within Article 50's two year window.Quote:
Cue years of quibbling over whether or not the EEA agreement lapses as far as the UK is concerned as soon as the UK leaves the EU.
Yes and the laws Norway is compelled to implement represent about 6% of laws I believe and apply to the approximately 6% of companies that trade with the EU. As opposed to 100% of laws applying to 100% of companies as of today.Quote:
Norway is compelled to implement those laws and regulations that directly pertain to its trade with the EU. Norway chooses to legislate in a way that is largely compliant with EU laws anyway :o
My company does no EU trade but is compelled to obey 100% of EU laws. Under the Norway solution, only Westminster would be responsible for my laws, so at least democratically we'd know who to hold to account.
My point is that if enough of your fellow voters do not wish to accept the free movement of persons under the same rules that the Swiss recently found so unpalatable there will be no deal with the EU that has free movement of persons as a requirement, at least not for a few years.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
You may expect it and it may be so but if you want to tap into the EEA through EFTA membership and thus get around the relevant WTO rules wrt your trade with the EU, you'll still have to negotiate with the contracting parties of the EEA in accordance with art. 128 of the agreement. I believe therefore that 2 years is an optimistic estimate even if you were willing to bend over backwards to placate the most displeased EU member states.Quote:
Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty provides for a two year window for negotiations upon a nation wanting to exit. I fully expect a deal to be agreed and ratified within that window.
That's a bizarre way to look at it. Even if you ignore the deals that are already in place, the EU is currently--after long negotiations--infinitely closer to a deal with the US and Canada, for example, than the UK looks like it will be upon a Brexit.Quote:
As for rest of the world trade deals even if they take longer than the two years between the referendum and Brexit occuring, at least the starting gun will be fired. There is nothing lost by Brexit as far as this is concerned as the EU hasn't got a deal with any other major economies, so there is only a potential upside here.
I'm no fan of the CAP or of the EU's tariffs, I'm just saying that your farmers may find it difficult to export all of their tasty products to the rest of Europe. Which reminds me, I need to stock up on Little Black Bomber and good Stilton.Quote:
Agriculture is a massive reason to leave, the EU compels the heinously evil Common Agricultural Policy and mammothly high tariffs as you mentioned. Under EFTA rules none of that applies to Norway.
Afaict EFTA membership will not automatically and immediately guarantee participation in the EEA agreement.Quote:
If as I expect we join EFTA in at least an intermediary position then I expect it to be moot as I'd expect that deal to be signed and ratified well within Article 50's two year window.
I have no idea where you've gotten those numbers so I honestly can't comment on them other than to say that I haven't seen them.Quote:
Yes and the laws Norway is compelled to implement represent about 6% of laws I believe and apply to the approximately 6% of companies that trade with the EU. As opposed to 100% of laws applying to 100% of companies as of today.
Well if you're looking to circumvent the working-time directive and still have full access you can forget that, afaict it's been extended to the EEA agreement :oQuote:
My company does no EU trade but is compelled to obey 100% of EU laws. Under the Norway solution, only Westminster would be responsible for my laws, so at least democratically we'd know who to hold to account.
There is a reasonable chance that Parliament would vote to exit via the EEA as a "transition" that ends up becoming permanent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
We already are a member state of the EEA. Thanks for giving that article number and it seems actually Article 128 is clear, a new member needs to apply to become a contracting party (of which we already are).Quote:
You may expect it and it may be so but if you want to tap into the EEA through EFTA membership and thus get around the relevant WTO rules wrt your trade with the EU, you'll still have to negotiate with the contracting parties of the EEA in accordance with art. 128 of the agreement. I believe therefore that 2 years is an optimistic estimate even if you were willing to bend over backwards to placate the most displeased EU member states.
From Google: This actually happened in reverse with your own nation. When Sweden (and Austria and Finland) switched from EFTA to EU they did not apply to become members of the EEA by virtue of the fact they already were members of it. In comparison when the EU expanded eastwards those new nations did need to apply to become members of the EEA.
There is an old saying, fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. There has been talk of a Europe-USA trade deal for a very long time and there is a lot of hate across Europe levelled at the propose TTIP as well as obstructionism in the US.Quote:
That's a bizarre way to look at it. Even if you ignore the deals that are already in place, the EU is currently--after long negotiations--infinitely closer to a deal with the US and Canada, for example, than the UK looks like it will be upon a Brexit.
A unilateral trade would be a lot easier to negotiate. Hence why to pick your example nation of Canada, Switzerland has a deal with them yet we don't.
Perhaps. Oh well. I'm a food purchaser not a seller, I'd be quite OK with cheaper imports due to being outside the CAP.Quote:
I'm no fan of the CAP or of the EU's tariffs, I'm just saying that your farmers may find it difficult to export all of their tasty products to the rest of Europe. Which reminds me, I need to stock up on Little Black Bomber and good Stilton.
No it doesn't, you need to apply to become a signatory nation, but we already are one.Quote:
Afaict EFTA membership will not automatically and immediately guarantee participation in the EEA agreement.
Just searched for the figures and this article says that the EFTA Secretariat says that Norway applies 9% of EU laws: http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/01/w...e-for-britain/Quote:
I have no idea where you've gotten those numbers so I honestly can't comment on them other than to say that I haven't seen them.
As for what proportion of companies trade with the EU, the BBC confirms that it is no more than 6% and probably lower: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politic...endum-36029211
I did not know that. An argument for forming our own bespoke deal.Quote:
Well if you're looking to circumvent the working-time directive and still have full access you can forget that, afaict it's been extended to the EEA agreement :o
And for something a bit light-hearted:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ck3xlFmUYAAmK4E.jpg
I can understand that EU leaders aren't reacting to the latest Johnson gem about Brexit, it goes against protocol to pre-empt a British exit vote, but I must say it takes a cartload of chutzpah to conjure up a plan that delays invoking article 50 TEU, while repealing the European Communities Act. That would make for a situation where the UK could claim to be a member of the EU while refusing to be bound by any of its rules. I can't judge the legality of such a move, but I imagine that is such a flagrant violation of the rules of the EU that the other countries will not put up with it. If the UK really wants economical warfare with the EU that would be the way to get it.
I'm all for a deal which gives the UK full access to the common market, provided that they implement all directives, accept the jurisdiction of the ECJ over these directives and of course pay into the budget in on the basis of the size of their economy. Of course there could be no question of a rebate or that kind of silly exceptionalism. Should be entirely possible to clench that deal in a couple of weeks.
EFTA nations don't accept ECJ rulings so why should we? I'd expect that to be a red line in negotiations.
For a large number of directives (namely those that are essentially identical to EU law at the time the agreement was signed) the EFTA-court is supposed to defer to the case law of the ECJ.
Because I don't think it would effective or efficient to create a new court.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Minx I know.
No need it already exists.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
I think the EFTA court should be absorbed then.
It's not all that clear-cut. While the EEA agreement is a multilateral agreement of which the UK is a signatory, the UK was a signatory also as a member of the EC/EU. The Vienna convention does not preclude one or more of the other parties challenging your continued participation in the EEA agreement--even if you manage to re-join EFTA--due to a substantial change in the circumstances under which your membership was accepted (namely your status as an EC/EU member-state rather than as an EFTA member state).Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Sweden had already submitted its formal application for EU membership when the EEA agreement was first signed so it can be argued that Sweden's accession is not a relevant example as its membership was accepted by the other parties with the understanding that it sought to join the EU. Even then it's conceivable that someone could have challenged Sweden's continued participation in EEA.
A challenge to your continued participation is much more likely if you expect to be able to negotiate some sort of "bespoke" deal with the EU because that would certainly constitute a change in your obligations under the agreement. It would also jeopardise your EFTA-membership if EFTA-states find themselves unwilling to accept a new member who may get a much better deal than they do themselves.
The most consistent post-Brexit strategy would be to join EFTA but not join the EEA.
The EU's deal with Canada is pending ratification.Quote:
Hence why to pick your example nation of Canada, Switzerland has a deal with them yet we don't.
Depending on the method I've seen 11%, 17% and 21% based mostly on EEA regulations and directives.Quote:
Just searched for the figures and this article says that the EFTA Secretariat says that Norway applies 9% of EU laws: http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/01/w...e-for-britain/
Even if less than 5% of your companies (accounting for 40-50% of your exports) trade with the EU, there are many regulations of the EEA that not only bind but also potentially affect almost all of your companies, such as the working time directive.Quote:
As for what proportion of companies trade with the EU, the BBC confirms that it is no more than 6% and probably lower: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politic...endum-36029211
One also should not forget that in an asymetrical international relationship the smaller partner has a significantly smaller chance of making its legalistic sophistry work. Especially if that smaller partner can't refer a comflict to a court with the proper jurisdiction.
It would probably be illegal for the EU members to impose a visa regime on UK citizens during the first two year after the article 50 procedure starts. However, as the Turkish exqmple has shown that need not keep those same EU members from doing exactly that. Just a wild example I know.
I'm wondering if anybody has changed his mind in the almost 2 weeks since the vote. Also I wonder how long people are willing to put up with the UK not invoking article 50. Do you think that EU should increase pressure on the UK by legislating in a punitive way?
Probably almost nobody has changed their mind, once people make their mind up they tend to get more stubborn about it.
How long is probably to just after the end of the German elections. Once the Bundestag election is over I expect it to be invoked not long after that. So by the end of next year.
:D the question wasn't directed at you. And I can understand your desire to do things that way, but we're not on the same side of the negotiations. So your opinions on the matter are hardly relevant.
LOL! :D
Well it is somewhat relevant as if the two sides don't have the same timeframe in mind then somebody is going to get seriously pissed off.
As it happens I think Merkel would be quite OK with seeking to defeat AfD and concentrate on her domestic issues and let this simmer until after the Bundestag vote. And I don't think anyone else matters until then, Juncker can say what he wants but if Merkel is happy waiting then we'll wait.
AfD is quite competent in defeating itself, so I doubt Merkel or anybody needs UK assistance with that. Merkel herself stated that there is no need to rush but that it also shouldn't become a 'hängepartie' and that in my ears doesn't sound like she meant she wants to wait till the end of next year.
We'll see. I expect sane and rational behind the scenes negotiations without public divisions that could stoke further German xenophobia or jingoism (which will boost AfD) will quite suit Merkel. If the last decade has shown us anything it is that she is quite a pragmatist and that will be a pragmatic solution.
There are going to be a lot of technical details that need to be worked out that don't need to be thrashed out in public or be a perpetual drama. So long as something is being done behind the scenes in a productive manner then it is not a "hängepartie" is it?
Merkel is mostly a pragmatist yes, but that also means she knows the EU citizens in the UK are not a bargaining chip, regardless of what your likely future leader thinks. Their interests will have a role in the negotiations but a normal thinking person knows that you couldn't even deport them if you wanted to without incredible damage to your society (not just economy) and even veiled threaths to that effect will have the effect that the negotiations will go off the rails with no deal for you in the end and a hostile EU on the other side of the Channel.