Okay, how close is the EU, in reality, to caving to the Swiss and resuming negotiations without a concession on the matter of free movement? Are they going to cave before 2017?
Give the UK a 'sweet' deal
Give the UK a Swiss/Norwegian deal
Punish the UK
Other
Okay, how close is the EU, in reality, to caving to the Swiss and resuming negotiations without a concession on the matter of free movement? Are they going to cave before 2017?
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Zero chance before June 24. After it, I think it depends upon our result. If as I expect we vote Remain then I think the EU will just tell Switzerland to go away.
If unexpectedly we vote Leave, then I think all bets are off. We will be in what the Chinese call interesting times.
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
The EU isn't even talking with Switzerland at the moment as the Swiss government hasn't figured out yet how to deal with the outcome of the MEI referendum februari last year. The EU has allowed some agreements with Switzerland that needed to be re-affirmed to lapse. The one that comes to mind is Switzerland no longer participating in the Erasmus program.
Congratulations America
That is because Brits confuse the rejection of the Constitution in France with their own homebrewn euro-hate. The main reason why the Constitution was defeated in France (not The Netherlands) was that it was considered too neo-liberal, not social enough. The French have long been in favour of a 'Socio-economic and financial government' on the level of the EU. That would be a huge leap towards federalism.
Congratulations America
No that's not why. I fully understand that the French have their own eccentricities and so I never spoke about the supporters of the other French parties. The French as a whole may be in favour of more EU ...
... But the other French parties are not the FN. The FN is a far right nationalist party that has vehemently opposed the EU ever since it was created. I am shocked the FN supporters are roughly in line with the rest of France given that its leadership and policies are far from it.
Last attempt; the so-called 'extreme right' in mainland Europe in reality is populist and socialist in outlook. It's the leftist myopia that causes people to think that racist policies added on top of that make a party extreme-right.
Congratulations America
Major Swiss newspaper currently write it the opposite way. If the UK leaves they believe that the EU will go 'full retard' and say no to any Swiss demand no matter what. They think the EU would want to play hard against Switzerland as they would have give any offer made for Switzerland to the UK as well.
I am really wondering what exactly the EU was thinking when they tried to use the Erasmus program to make pressure on Switzerland. Not only are we net payer, we also offer some of the top universities. If the EU would really want to drop all deals with the UK and Switzerland they pretty much get rid of many outstanding universities. Or as I said earlier, not in the interest of the EU.The one that comes to mind is Switzerland no longer participating in the Erasmus program.
"Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt
From Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation...t_%28France%29
"A eurosceptic party, the FN has opposed the European Union since its creation in 1993."
Foreign policy
From the 1980s to the 1990s, the party's policy shifted from favouring the European Union to turning against it.[179] In 2002, Jean-Marie Le Pen campaigned on pulling France out of the EU and re-introducing the franc as national currency.[135] In the early 2000s the party denounced the Schengen, Maastricht, and Amsterdam treaties as foundations for "a supranational entity spelling the end of France."[183] In 2004, the party criticised the EU as "the last stage on the road to world government", likening it to a "puppet of the New World Order."[184] It also proposed breaking all institutional ties back to the Treaty of Rome, while it returned to supporting a common European currency to rival the United States dollar.[184] Further, it rejected the possible accession of Turkey to the EU.[184] The FN was also one of several parties that backed France's 2005 rejection of the Treaty for a European Constitution. In other issues, Le Pen opposed the invasions of Iraq, led by the United States, both in the 1991 Gulf War and the 2003 Iraq War.[176] He visited Saddam Hussein in Baghdad in 1990, and subsequently considered him a friend.[185]
Marine Le Pen has advocated that France should leave the euro (along with Spain, Greece and Portugal).[186] She also wants to reintroduce customs borders and has campaigned against allowing dual citizenship.[187] During both the 2010–2011 Ivorian crisis and the 2011 Libyan civil war, she opposed the French military involvements.[177] She has recast the party's image towards Israel, after affirming Israel's right to secure itself from terrorism, and criticising the leadership of Iran.[188]
They are still socialists.
"Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt
Never said otherwise, I just think they're socialists whom I wouldn't expect to want to see more powers transferred to the EU given that they're Nationalists who want the return of the franc.
You said they are far right. Which is true regarding their nationalist stance, but economically they are far left.
"Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt
I agree with your national newspapers. Chances of no deal are bigger than chances for a good deal.
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.
Congratulations America
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.
Schauble has been quoted to say that there will be no common market access for the UK after a Brexit at all.
Congratulations America
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.
"Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt
Actually what he said makes perfect sense; nobody gets a better deal by leaving.
Congratulations America
I am not talking about if he is right but about if it is a smart thing to say.
"Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt
Like appeasing the Little Englanders over 3 decades has been the smart thing to do.
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.
Congratulations America
In your post I see only threats as arguments, that is quite weak to be honest.
"Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt
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.
Congratulations America
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".
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.
"Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt
There are many better aspects to if we leave.
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.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
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.
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.
Congratulations America
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.
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.
Last edited by Hazir; 06-13-2016 at 08:04 AM.
Congratulations America
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.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
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).
Congratulations America
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.
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.
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?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote