Question for non-british Europeans

[Aimless]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Fair enough, and it may be worth the expense.

* 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.

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.

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?

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

[RandBlade]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

[Aimless]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Afaict EFTA membership will not automatically and immediately guarantee participation in the EEA agreement.

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.

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.

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.

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

[RandBlade]

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.

There is a reasonable chance that Parliament would vote to exit via the EEA as a "transition" that ends up becoming permanent.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Afaict EFTA membership will not automatically and immediately guarantee participation in the EEA agreement.

No it doesn't, you need to apply to become a signatory nation, but we already are one.

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.

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/

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

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

I did not know that. An argument for forming our own bespoke deal.

And for something a bit light-hearted:

[Hazir]

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.

[Hazir]

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.

[RandBlade]

EFTA nations don't accept ECJ rulings so why should we? I'd expect that to be a red line in negotiations.

[Aimless]

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.

[Hazir]

EFTA nations don't accept ECJ rulings so why should we? I'd expect that to be a red line in negotiations.

Because I don't think it would effective or efficient to create a new court.

[RandBlade]

Minx I know.

Because I don't think it would effective or efficient to create a new court.

No need it already exists.

[Hazir]

I think the EFTA court should be absorbed then.

[Aimless]

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.

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).

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.

Hence why to pick your example nation of Canada, Switzerland has a deal with them yet we don't.

The EU's deal with Canada is pending ratification.

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/

Depending on the method I've seen 11%, 17% and 21% based mostly on EEA regulations and directives.

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

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.

[Hazir]

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.

[Hazir]

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?

[RandBlade]

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.

[Hazir]

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.

[RandBlade]

LOL!

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.

[Hazir]

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.

[RandBlade]

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?

[Hazir]

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.

[Aimless]

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.

Out of curiosity is there anything particular about either Germany or AfD that makes you think that AfD will "defeat itself" rather than be strengthened by the success of British Euroskeptics?

[Hazir]

Out of curiosity is there anything particular about either Germany or AfD that makes you think that AfD will "defeat itself" rather than be strengthened by the success of British Euroskeptics?

What gives me that idea is that they are already tearing themselves up over whether or not anti-semitism is an acceptable ideology. I didn't follow it too closely, but if I understand latest developements correctly the parliamentary party has split down the middle already in Baden-Wurtemberg.

[Aimless]

What gives me that idea is that they are already tearing themselves up over whether or not anti-semitism is an acceptable ideology. I didn't follow it too closely, but if I understand latest developements correctly the parliamentary party has split down the middle already in Baden-Wurtemberg.

To me it looks like sanitization done for show, in principle similar to the official Leave campaign keeping Farage at a distance and almost identical to the purging of the most blatantly racist and disgusting politicians in the Sweden Democrats that occurred not too long ago as a part of the party's plan to increase its mainstream appeal while minimizing the danger presented by incompetence and idiocy in its ranks. They've been beset by scandals and resignations and firings and criminal investigations etc. but they seem immune to all such problems and their support remains strong. The only thing that seems to have dented their support is the sudden caramelization of mainstream party policies.

Moreover, this may be cast as an anti-Semitism issue, but it can also be cast as a matter of freedom of expression, which makes things more complicated. There are members of this forum who would support the view that Holocaust-denialism should not be a criminal offense.

The politicians who've resigned can be replaced if necessary.

Is there anything to suggest that AfD's current supporters won't continue to support AfD in the next election? Do they have a better alternative to vote for?

[RandBlade]

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.

May said any agreement for Europeans to remain in the UK would have to be reciprocal with an agreement for Brits to remain in Europe.
Her political opponents say that these are people not bargaining chips.

Both are correct. May was tactless, her point was accurate but it didn't need making that way. That's why I don't like her very much.

[RandBlade]

AfD support does not seem to be falling off a cliff. At least the FDP currently seem like they will return to the Bundestag.

[earthJoker]

The next Bundestag election is only going to be interesting if CDU/CSU + SPD fall under 50%. And even then, it is unlikely that Merkel won't be the new Chancellor.

[Hazir]

To me it looks like sanitization done for show, in principle similar to the official Leave campaign keeping Farage at a distance and almost identical to the purging of the most blatantly racist and disgusting politicians in the Sweden Democrats that occurred not too long ago as a part of the party's plan to increase its mainstream appeal while minimizing the danger presented by incompetence and idiocy in its ranks. They've been beset by scandals and resignations and firings and criminal investigations etc. but they seem immune to all such problems and their support remains strong. The only thing that seems to have dented their support is the sudden caramelization of mainstream party policies.

Moreover, this may be cast as an anti-Semitism issue, but it can also be cast as a matter of freedom of expression, which makes things more complicated. There are members of this forum who would support the view that Holocaust-denialism should not be a criminal offense.

The politicians who've resigned can be replaced if necessary.

Is there anything to suggest that AfD's current supporters won't continue to support AfD in the next election? Do they have a better alternative to vote for?

I don't know about better but they seem to be fishing in the same murky waters Die Linke is fishing in. That's the fun of politics these days, extreme right and extreme left actually overlap quite a bit.

It's hard to tell if there will be issues that fire up protest voters next year. It seems like there is no acute crisis, but if the Turkey deal blows up, or Italy blackmails Europe into some scheme to save its banking sector I don't know what will happen.

We have a bit more experience with that kind of parties in Holland, and that experience tells me that they're quite efficient at tearing themselves apart if there isn't a hate-object of sufficient freshness.

[earthJoker]

Why single out experiences of the Netherlands? We got this kind of parties all over Europe. Some have fallen apart, some are still around. It is pretty much unpredictable what will happen, also because the outcome might depend on the good or bad decisions of a few party leaders.

[Flixy]

And good and bad decisions of the other parties, the government, and loads of other factors.

[Aimless]

I'm also uncertain as to whether or not these parties really are best compared to the lunatic fringe. As long as the EU exists, as long as there are Muslims, as long as there is immigration and as long as there is a global economy, there will be something to motivate and mobilize the EU's conservative nationalist protectionist xenophobes and racists.