Why don't we leave the EU? Join the Swiss in EFTA

BetterLisbon

The Corinthian wrote: »

I just can't get over one glaring flaw in the logic being presented here. That we (the Irish) are exactly the same as the Icelanders, Swiss or Norwegians. Or for that matter that our economies or infrastructure are similar in any way. I'd love to see some rational for it here.

It reminds me of the old gag; if the Dutch and Irish had swapped countries, Ireland would be covered by a sea of tulips and Holland would be covered by a sea.

We are not saying we are the same as the other EFTA'ans. We offer them as evidence that there is a world without the EU and a very successful world as that. EFTA isnt a pill for all our ills any more than the EU is.

BetterLisbon

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Ok. Sit down. Get relaxed. I want you to think real hard as I lay it out. I will make it as simple as I can.

BetterLisbon's statement implies that we, the electorate cannot choose to opt-out.

Now. And listen carefully here, cause this is the technical bit. This has nothing to do with whether we --->should<--- opt-out. It has only to do with whether we, the electorate, have the choice at all.

Quick! Stop the internal dialogue! I don't care about your examples above. It is a matter of whether the choice exists.

Do you understand? If you don't, there is really nothing I can do for you. Sorry. In fact, I will not even respond to anything but an understanding of this.

Flamed what is needed is an irish version of the eurosceptic parties in Norway and Iceland for the centre left and Switzerland for the centre right. Until such parties can get going then sceptics like me are stuck.

Flamed Diving

BetterLisbon wrote: »

Flamed what is needed is an irish version of the eurosceptic parties in Norway and Iceland for the centre left and Switzerland for the centre right. Until such parties can get going then sceptics like me are stuck.

Why not form one? How else do you think they get started? The internet is the place to start, and go from there.

BetterLisbon

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

SIS data is available to police & customs officials (and only some of this data is available to Irish police/customs due to their reluctance to take part). There's no real difference between the information within SIS and what the local police have on you, it's just available to law enforcement throughout the common area. An EAW can only be issued if you commit the crime in the 3rd-country. If you break the law in a country, why shouldn't you do the time?

Strong border controls prevents illegal immigration and reduces crime. Anyway - we don't get any of these benefits as Ireland opted out.

A lot of countries have exit-stamps, that's not something specific to Schengen. Isn't it better that we catch criminals before they try to escape the jurisdiction rather than having to try and track them down once they flee?

The EAW isn't perfect, but I'd rather we had ways of tackling criminal behaviour which didn't involve going through the governments.

Well there is the bigger question of what data any state agency should have on me. As a civil libertarian i want that kept to a bare minimum. Hence the sharing of my data across europe is something i have a problem with.
Address the point re the EAW. Before the EAW the "dual criminality" principle was considered non-negotiable in formulating extradition treaties. But when it was proposed at EU level we meekly rolled over. Further to the EAW i dunno if you heard but France has issued an EAW for Ian Bailey despite the fact that he has already been investigated for the crime in question. If their EAW is successful he will effectively be facing a 2nd trial for the same crime.
I dont have a problem with strong border controls per se but the schengen frontier is essentially the 2nd iron curtain and i dont think it makes for healthy relations with the east and with northern africa. Its funny how europhiles credit the EU with bringing down the iron curtain and then the EU builds a new one and they say nothing.
True most countries do have exit controls but it just creeps me. Are they going to say no you cant travel?

simonj

DaBrow wrote: »

Why dont we leave the EU?

because that would be stupid, there is nothing wrong with being in the EU - but Lisbon was a mistake IMHO, we could have held out for a better system for ourselves and the other citizens of the Union.
We now need to work within a more difficult, less answerable framework - but with luck, we can make it better in the future

Scofflaw

DaBrow wrote: »

I can certainly stand up to bullying and attempts at intimidation...

Especially from those that wish to silence debate on something that cheeses them off.

I don't mind if you promote leaving the EU until rising sea levels drown Dublin, personally, but I won't tolerate the constant repetition of proven falsehoods like "the EU stole our fish". Repeating falsehoods on these forums will lead to a ban - expressing your opinion that we should leave the EU won't. Be honest in debate, and there won't be any problems. Since the claim about the fish is false, it does your argument no good in any case.

And that's enough discussion of moderation. You've been told not to repeat a particular false claim - don't repeat that particular false claim, because next time you'll be banned. That goes for all parties.

moderately,
Scofflaw

DaBrow

simonj wrote: »

because that would be stupid, there is nothing wrong with being in the EU - but Lisbon was a mistake IMHO, we could have held out for a better system for ourselves and the other citizens of the Union.
We now need to work within a more difficult, less answerable framework - but with luck, we can make it better in the future

You've just contradicted yourself.

There's nothing wrong with the EU... BUT

Well we're doing great aren't we? : Overpriced & Expensive yet physically poor, Growing Unemployment and Emigration from our brightest & Best, Our Voices Silenced when we object to something and have it rammed down our throats the second time.

EFTA States like Norway, Switzerland and Iceland at least actually stand their ground & take responsibility for their own countries self-sufficiency.... They are sailing while we are sinking along with the rest of the PIIGS.

That is why the average Salary in the EFTA bloc is at least 50% greater than being in the EU, because they focus on trade only and not usurping political control or blackmailing people with false promises of recovery if they accept a treaty.

We have gotten all we are going to get... We have a seat at the table but none of the notice anymore.

maggy_thatcher

BetterLisbon wrote: »

Well there is the bigger question of what data any state agency should have on me. As a civil libertarian i want that kept to a bare minimum. Hence the sharing of my data across europe is something i have a problem with.

They only share the info if they need the info...and your civil liberties are not affected (at least not anything enumerated in the ECHR).

BetterLisbon wrote: »

Address the point re the EAW. Before the EAW the "dual criminality" principle was considered non-negotiable in formulating extradition treaties. But when it was proposed at EU level we meekly rolled over. Further to the EAW i dunno if you heard but France has issued an EAW for Ian Bailey despite the fact that he has already been investigated for the crime in question. If their EAW is successful he will effectively be facing a 2nd trial for the same crime.

No it isn't. The DPP declined to prosecute, therefore there hasn't been a first trial. If the EAW is successful, he will be facing a trial in France for the crime. If anything, it shows they don't share enough information between countries, or the DPP might have more evidence with which to prosecute the first time.

BetterLisbon wrote: »

I dont have a problem with strong border controls per se but the schengen frontier is essentially the 2nd iron curtain and i dont think it makes for healthy relations with the east and with northern africa. Its funny how europhiles credit the EU with bringing down the iron curtain and then the EU builds a new one and they say nothing.
True most countries do have exit controls but it just creeps me. Are they going to say no you cant travel?

Equating the old Iron curtain with the Schengen frontier has to be one of the most bizarre comparisons that I've seen someone come up with. Almost everybody can leave the zone, it's only in very specific scenarios where they'll stop you travelling; the same way that the US have No-Fly lists.

The Corinthian

BetterLisbon wrote: »

We are not saying we are the same as the other EFTA'ans. We offer them as evidence that there is a world without the EU and a very successful world as that. EFTA isnt a pill for all our ills any more than the EU is.

Well that is certainly the implication made by some Eurosceptics, even if not by yourself.

Repeatedly the argument is made that EFTA countries have higher salaries and economies, as if were we to join we would become like Norway or Switzerland. Ireland is drastically different to Norway or Switzerland economically - regardless of EU or EFTA status.

By way of demographics and public transport infrastructure we are more akin to Greece, with the vast bulk of our economy concentrated to a single city.

In terms of industry we are nothing like like Switzerland, that actually has indigenous industry. Irish indigenous industry is negligible - even Lichtenstein has more indigenous industry.

Of natural resources, that would allow us to fuel our economy, we are nothing like like Norway - our fossil fuel deposits are a tiny fraction of those held by them.

Then there is the question national character and your average Irishman does not share the same mentality with a Norwegian or Swiss.

These criticisms are not levied at the idea that Ireland could not necessarily benefit from EFTA membership, but at the simplistic and illiterate parallel that assumes that EU or EFTA membership is the only major defining difference.

It is not.

sirromo

Eurosceptics like myself view Ireland as being in a similar position to a failed entrepreneur who is forced to support himself by working for an employer that he is beginning to hate. The fact that the EFTA exists means that we have the option to change jobs while retaining the long-term benefits of our current job.

Scofflaw wrote:

Since the claim about the fish is false

Can you clarify which claim about the fish is false? If people risk being banned for making false claims about fish then they should be made aware in advance that certain claims made about fish have been proven to be false. The supporting evidence should also be provided.

Or would you advise people to avoid any mention of possible negative affects of EU membership on our fishing industry?

maggy_thatcher

sirromo wrote: »

Eurosceptics like myself view Ireland as being in a similar position to a failed entrepreneur who is forced to support himself by working for an employer that he is beginning to hate. The fact that the EFTA exists means that we have the option to change jobs while retaining the long-term benefits of our current job.

Just to adjust that slightly: The fact that EFTA exists means we have the option to apply for a job which has some of the long-term benefits of our current job. There's no guarantee we'd be admitted into EFTA, and we'd lose some benefits.

The Corinthian

sirromo wrote: »

Eurosceptics like myself view Ireland as being in a similar position to a failed entrepreneur who is forced to support himself by working for an employer that he is beginning to hate. The fact that the EFTA exists means that we have the option to change jobs while retaining the long-term benefits of our current job.

Actually it would be more akin to keeping the same employer, but going from being permanent to contract. Your daily rate might seem a little better, on the surface, until you realize that you don't get holiday or sick pay any more.

DaBrow

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

Just to adjust that slightly: The fact that EFTA exists means we have the option to apply for a job which has some of the long-term benefits of our current job. There's no guarantee we'd be admitted into EFTA, and we'd lose some benefits.

I'd rather lose benefits than lose my soul or freedom as a country; the way the EU is going is toward a sinister a mirror-like federalist image that was the Soviet Union.

If you think about it; the EU could fall into crisis at anytime... It is already aging and alot of the old members are saturated cash-cow economies, they probably support expansion because it bring in new oxygen or blood into a weak body.

Especially when the base of operations is in Belgium, which is a country split on cultural/linguistic and ethnic lines between Dutch Flemish Community and a French Walloon Community who don't interact with one another.

sirromo

maggy_thatcher wrote:

Just to adjust that slightly: The fact that EFTA exists means we have the option to apply for a job which has some of the long-term benefits of our current job.

Access to Europe's markets is the only long-term benefit of our current job. We'll have access to Europe's markets when we join the EFTA.

I used the term "long-term benefits" rather than just "benefits" in case anyone pointed to the handouts. We'll become net contributors to the EU within the next decade and so the handouts are short-term benefits.

maggy_thatcher wrote:

There's no guarantee we'd be admitted into EFTA,

If we don't get the new job then we'll just have to stick with the job we're in. There's no harm applying for the new one and seeing how we get on.

maggy_thatcher wrote:

and we'd lose some benefits.

But in return we'd have greater control over our own affairs.

The Corinthian wrote:

Your daily rate might seem a little better, on the surface, until you realize that you don't get holiday or sick pay any more.

The benefits of the new position probably won't be any better than the benefits of the current one. They won't be massively different though.

Personally, I don't want us to join the EFTA because I think we'd be better off economically. I want Ireland to join the EFTA because I think we'll have greater control over our own affairs under the EFTA than we currently as a member of the EU.

maggy_thatcher

DaBrow wrote: »

I'd rather lose benefits than lose my soul or freedom as a country

I wasn't aware that there was a country called DaBrow...must look for that on the map . Assuming you actually meant that you would lose your soul or freedom living in an EU country, both your soul and your freedom are protected under the ECHR, so unless that changes drastically, you've nothing to be worried about. Even if we pulled out of the EU, we're still signatories of that anyway, so it wouldn't make any difference.

DaBrow wrote: »

the way the EU is going is toward a sinister a mirror-like federalist image that was the Soviet Union.

Eh, no. There is very little in common between the USSR & the EU

DaBrow wrote: »

If you think about it; the EU could fall into crisis at anytime... It is already aging and alot of the old members are saturated cash-cow economies, they probably support expansion because it bring in new oxygen or blood into a weak body.

They only expand into countries that (a) want to be in the EU, and (b) have economies stable enough to support it. That's very different to the expansion policies of old empires that took the weak and feeble.

DaBrow wrote: »

Especially when the base of operations is in Belgium, which is a country split on cultural/linguistic and ethnic lines between Dutch Flemish Community and a French Walloon Community who don't interact with one another.

Belgium is just where the head offices are, but Belgium has no more influence over what happens than any other country in the EU.

The Corinthian

sirromo wrote: »

Personally, I don't want us to join the EFTA because I think we'd be better off economically. I want Ireland to join the EFTA because I think we'll have greater control over our own affairs under the EFTA than we currently as a member of the EU.

Well, not really. EFTA members don't really have greater control over their own affairs any more. As I pointed out earlier, Switzerland could have simply said Nein/Non/No to the EU's demands that they liberalize the visa process for Romanian and Bulgarian EU citizens - that is what greater control means.

Or is it? Because in doing so would have resulted in the EU invoking the "guillotine clause" - terminating all bilateral agreements. On this basis the Swiss federal government promoted acceptance of the referendum on the issue.

Independence is only worth anything if you are in a position to exercise it. Otherwise you might as well be as independent as Monaco, San Marino or Andorra.

maggy_thatcher

sirromo wrote: »

Access to Europe's markets is the only long-term benefit of our current job. We'll have access to Europe's markets when we join the EFTA.

We're going around in circles -- the agreements between the EU and EFTA are by listed country only - if we joined EFTA, the EU would have to explicitly want to open their markets to us, and if we'd just spurned them; getting them to agree might be costly.

sirromo wrote: »

I used the term "long-term benefits" rather than just "benefits" in case anyone pointed to the handouts. We'll become net contributors to the EU within the next decade and so the handouts are short-term benefits.

And what about in two decades time? It's impossible to see that far in the future, and we may need help again, but wouldn't have anybody to go to.

sirromo wrote: »

But in return we'd have greater control over our own affairs.

The benefits of the new position probably won't be any better than the benefits of the current one. They won't be massively different though.

Personally, I don't want us to join the EFTA because I think we'd be better off economically. I want Ireland to join the EFTA because I think we'll have greater control over our own affairs under the EFTA than we currently as a member of the EU.

And is the (significant) cost to our (already battered) economy worth it, in your view?

Scofflaw

sirromo wrote: »

Can you clarify which claim about the fish is false? If people risk being banned for making false claims about fish then they should be made aware in advance that certain claims made about fish have been proven to be false.

Specifically, unsupported claims about the value of value of Irish fish extracted by other EU nations, claims that the Spanish/EU gain more from Irish waters than Ireland does, claims that we fish less from Irish waters than we did before accession, or any other claim that relies on distortion or ignorance of the available data.

sirromo wrote: »

The supporting evidence should also be provided.

All the necessary evidence is available in these forums, or through the www.seaaroundus.org website, where you can find figures covering fishing from Irish waters by Ireland and other nations both pre and post accession.

sirromo wrote: »

Or would you advise people to avoid any mention of possible negative affects of EU membership on our fishing industry?

No, only to stick to the truth. The information is available, and there is no excuse for ignoring it. Regular attempts were made during the Lisbon debate to pretend that the value of Irish fish extracted by other EU nations was in the hundreds of billions of euro - this is not merely false, but grossly false. Repetition of such claims, or allusion to them, is not acceptable.

cordially,
Scofflaw

bonkey

sirromo wrote: »

If we don't get the new job then we'll just have to stick with the job we're in. There's no harm applying for the new one and seeing how we get on.

To continue the analagy, we don't have the option to apply for a new job and see how we get on.

We have the option of resigning from our current job, becoming jobless, and going through the interview process for the new job.

BetterLisbon

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

They only share the info if they need the info...and your civil liberties are not affected (at least not anything enumerated in the ECHR).

No it isn't. The DPP declined to prosecute, therefore there hasn't been a first trial. If the EAW is successful, he will be facing a trial in France for the crime. If anything, it shows they don't share enough information between countries, or the DPP might have more evidence with which to prosecute the first time.

Equating the old Iron curtain with the Schengen frontier has to be one of the most bizarre comparisons that I've seen someone come up with. Almost everybody can leave the zone, it's only in very specific scenarios where they'll stop you travelling; the same way that the US have No-Fly lists.

Only the info the need! Sure the KGB only used the info the needed. My view of civil liberties may not be shared by a majority of the ECHR so thats no comfort.
As for Bailey the DPP has not proceeded with prosecution and has such effectively accepted Bailey is not guilty. Bringing him to France and starting the whole process again breaches double jeopardy. But on the bigger point, the dual criminality principle was a line that couldnt be crossed before EAW so why is it acceptable now.
Well in terms of appearance (barbed wire fence on the eastern front and parts of souther coast plus a glass wall in Gare du Nord) it is the second iron curtain. The facility to prevent someone leaving schengen is creepy a la soviet union.

BetterLisbon

The Corinthian wrote: »

Well, not really. EFTA members don't really have greater control over their own affairs any more. As I pointed out earlier, Switzerland could have simply said Nein/Non/No to the EU's demands that they liberalize the visa process for Romanian and Bulgarian EU citizens - that is what greater control means.

Or is it? Because in doing so would have resulted in the EU invoking the "guillotine clause" - terminating all bilateral agreements. On this basis the Swiss federal government promoted acceptance of the referendum on the issue.

Independence is only worth anything if you are in a position to exercise it. Otherwise you might as well be as independent as Monaco, San Marino or Andorra.

This was an empty threat. It is not in the EU's interest to break the links with Switzerland. It was a bullyboy tactic by the Swiss government.

BetterLisbon

Scofflaw wrote: »

Specifically, unsupported claims about the value of value of Irish fish extracted by other EU nations, claims that the Spanish/EU gain more from Irish waters than Ireland does, claims that we fish less from Irish waters than we did before accession, or any other claim that relies on distortion or ignorance of the available data.
All the necessary evidence is available in these forums, or through the www.seaaroundus.org website, where you can find figures covering fishing from Irish waters by Ireland and other nations both pre and post accession.
No, only to stick to the truth. The information is available, and there is no excuse for ignoring it. Regular attempts were made during the Lisbon debate to pretend that the value of Irish fish extracted by other EU nations was in the hundreds of billions of euro - this is not merely false, but grossly false. Repetition of such claims, or allusion to them, is not acceptable.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scoff you are completely missing the point eurosceptics are making or else you are deliberately misrepresenting it. The argument is as follows:
Had we rejected EEC membership in the 1972 referendum it would have led to a radically different government approach to fishing along the lines of Iceland's and Norway's hugely successful fishing industry. Successful implementation of such an Irish fishing policy would have reaped great rewards.

But we voted yes in 1972 and fisheries and our fishermen were thrown to the wolves to buy our EEC membership and temporary concessions on CAP. As such we missed out on the potential for said great rewards.

Yours and other quoting of fishing data over the last few decades doesnt factor this into account. Again this is the point you are missing or deliberately ignoring i dont know which.

maggy_thatcher

BetterLisbon wrote: »

Only the info the need! Sure the KGB only used the info the needed. My view of civil liberties may not be shared by a majority of the ECHR so thats no comfort.

The list of info available is clearly listed -- what issues do you have with any of them? There's nothing particularly objectionable in anything I see that they distribute.

BetterLisbon wrote: »

As for Bailey the DPP has not proceeded with prosecution and has such effectively accepted Bailey is not guilty. Bringing him to France and starting the whole process again breaches double jeopardy.

No - the DPP decided that they didn't have enough evidence to bring a safe prosecution, so decided against prosecution. Double jeopardy is bringing someone to trial a second time...very different. Going by your definition, if some new evidence appeared that proved someone guilty, they couldn't be prosecuted because the DPP didn't prosecute the first time around!

BetterLisbon wrote: »

But on the bigger point, the dual criminality principle was a line that couldnt be crossed before EAW so why is it acceptable now.

If you commit a crime, be prepared to do the time...and there is a threshold of evidence required before EAWs can be issued, so they can't pick someone random off the street.

BetterLisbon wrote: »

Well in terms of appearance (barbed wire fence on the eastern front and parts of souther coast plus a glass wall in Gare du Nord) it is the second iron curtain. The facility to prevent someone leaving schengen is creepy a la soviet union.

The border controls around the outside of Schengen is appropriate - surely you as someone who hates the EU would appreciate that? How many people do you know have been prevented from leaving?

BetterLisbon

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

The list of info available is clearly listed -- what issues do you have with any of them? There's nothing particularly objectionable in anything I see that they distribute.

No - the DPP decided that they didn't have enough evidence to bring a safe prosecution, so decided against prosecution. Double jeopardy is bringing someone to trial a second time...very different. Going by your definition, if some new evidence appeared that proved someone guilty, they couldn't be prosecuted because the DPP didn't prosecute the first time around!

If you commit a crime, be prepared to do the time...and there is a threshold of evidence required before EAWs can be issued, so they can't pick someone random off the street.

The border controls around the outside of Schengen is appropriate - surely you as someone who hates the EU would appreciate that? How many people do you know have been prevented from leaving?

If not the letter of double jeopardy the spirit for sure. Bailey has been persued for over 10 years and no prima facie case against him has been demonstrated (as he hasnt been prosecuted by the DPP). Bringing him to France for the whole process to start again is unfair.
You still wont address the point re dual criminality. Once again this was a unacceptable before EAW then we rolled over.
The external border controls are effective in that they keep people out (or in!) but that harks back to the iron curtain and i dont think its healthy or desirable.

maggy_thatcher

BetterLisbon wrote: »

If not the letter of double jeopardy the spirit for sure. Bailey has been persued for over 10 years and no prima facie case against him has been demonstrated (as he hasnt been prosecuted by the DPP). Bringing him to France for the whole process to start again is unfair.

If there was more participation between France and Ireland, maybe there wouldn't be (i.e. if Ireland joined Schengen properly). I don't enough about the case in particular to comment.

BetterLisbon wrote: »

You still wont address the point re dual criminality. Once again this was a unacceptable before EAW then we rolled over.

That's because I don't believe it's an issue - dual criminality exemptions only apply in 32 "serious" offences (ones that I'm surprised aren't illegal in both states anyway), with the punishment at over 3 years in prison -- from the EU website:

These include participation in a criminal organisation, terrorism, trafficking in human beings, sexual exploitation of children and child pornography, illicit trafficking in arms, ammunition and explosives, corruption, fraud including fraud pertaining to the financial interest of the European Union, money laundering and counterfeiting of money including the euro

How do you have a problem with this? It doesn't even apply in your example case that you're giving (murder is a crime in both Ireland and France, last time I checked!)

BetterLisbon wrote: »

The external border controls are effective in that they keep people out (or in!) but that harks back to the iron curtain and i dont think its healthy or desirable.

So do you want completely open borders, where anybody can come and go as they please? If the rest of the world joined Schengen, that could be accomplished
There's a choice - either have strong cooperation between law enforcement in each country, or have strong border controls to prevent illegal immigration and fugitives attempting to flee (well you can have strong border controls and strong cooperation too, but that's overkill )

The Corinthian

BetterLisbon wrote: »

This was an empty threat. It is not in the EU's interest to break the links with Switzerland. It was a bullyboy tactic by the Swiss government.

Actually, it was the EU that made it clear that the Swiss can't pick and choose EU policies, so it was hardly a bully-boy tactic by the Swiss government.

And you are making quite a few assumptions when you claim that it was an empty threat. You may want to back those up.

SkepticOne

A pedant, no doubt, will be along to inform us that Switzerland is not identical to Ireland and that therefore comparisons don't apply. Oh wait...

Scofflaw

BetterLisbon wrote: »

Scoff you are completely missing the point eurosceptics are making or else you are deliberately misrepresenting it. The argument is as follows:
Had we rejected EEC membership in the 1972 referendum it would have led to a radically different government approach to fishing along the lines of Iceland's and Norway's hugely successful fishing industry. Successful implementation of such an Irish fishing policy would have reaped great rewards.

But we voted yes in 1972 and fisheries and our fishermen were thrown to the wolves to buy our EEC membership and temporary concessions on CAP. As such we missed out on the potential for said great rewards.

Yours and other quoting of fishing data over the last few decades doesnt factor this into account. Again this is the point you are missing or deliberately ignoring i dont know which.

You're quite welcome to claim that had we not joined the EU we would have developed our fishing industry to a size equivalent to all the other fleets fishing in our waters. However, you're not welcome to misrepresent how much that would actually have brought in - and you'd need to bear in mind that fishing in Irish waters is currently unsustainable.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

SkepticOne wrote: »

A pedant, no doubt, will be along to inform us that Switzerland is not identical to Ireland and that therefore comparisons don't apply. Oh wait...

If we're aiming for the same legal relationship, then we would be rather obviously comparable in legal relationship.

But I'm sure you knew that.

amused,
Scofflaw

SkepticOne

Scofflaw wrote: »

If we're aiming for the same legal relationship, then we would be rather obviously comparable in legal relationship.

But I'm sure you knew that.

I did. Some of the objections raised on this thread to the idea of Ireland joining the EFTA was that member states would be forced to implement a visa scheme against Irish workers in EU states. What the Swiss example shows us is that this need not be a worry as, like the Swiss, we can do a deal with the EU to have free movement of people between Ireland and the EU (we would already have it with the Swiss as part of the EFTA). Of course such a deal is not guaranteed however neither is it precluded by any EU legislation otherwise the Swiss agreement would not have been possible. I think this should ease Views concerns somewhat.