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

SkepticOne

View wrote: »

As of yet, you still haven't established that there is, or ever was, any arrangement "concluded" by the UK wrt Ireland that meet the criteria specified in the clause you partially quoted.

It's well known that there was a free travel and working arrangement between Britain and Ireland at the time of the countries joining the EEC in 1973. Not sure what you're point is here.

maggy_thatcher

SkepticOne wrote: »

It's well known that there was a free travel and working arrangement between Britain and Ireland at the time of the countries joining the EEC in 1973. Not sure what you're point is here.

The point is that once Ireland and Britain joined the EEC, it was required to renegotiate the terms of its work agreement - in accordance with the rules that says EU members are given first preference. They probably never bothered given that they are both EU countries, but if one were to pull out, Britain would be required to adjust that agreement (unless they pulled out of the EU as well).

SkepticOne

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

They probably never bothered given that they are both EU countries, but if one were to pull out, Britain would be required to adjust that agreement (unless they pulled out of the EU as well).

Not adjust, "renegotiate". However presuming they wish to keep the arrangement that renegotiation would merely be a formality because of

Nothing in these principles prevents a Member State from continuing to admit third-country nationals to its territory for the purpose of employment pursuant to arrangements concluded by that Member State by the date of adoption of this resolution for nationals of a third country with which it has especially close links.

I would be very surprised if there was anything in EU legislation that prevented free travel between a member country and another country with close ties that had a long standing arrangement. This piece kindly provided by View shows that whilst there may be various "principles" outlined the member states have made sure that they can be overridden thereby making them meaningless in practice.

BetterLisbon

SkepticOne wrote: »

Not adjust, "renegotiate". However presuming they wish to keep the arrangement that renegotiation would merely be a formality because of I would be very surprised if there was anything in EU legislation that prevented free travel between a member country and another country with close ties that had a long standing arrangement. This piece kindly provided by View shows that whilst there may be various "principles" outlined the member states have made sure that they can be overridden thereby making them meaningless in practice.

Well the very reason for the Republic of Ireland act 1949 was the sheer impossibility of imposing visas and work permits on the Irish in the UK. It would be just as impossible today. Hence and "renegotiation" wouldnt change much.

maggy_thatcher

Regardless of whether or not the Irish can live & work in the UK, what happens to all the current Irish people living and working in the rest of Europe (or at least the ones who don't have an alternative citizenship to fall back on)? Pulling out of the EU could mean that their work permits are effectively no longer valid, and they'll all have to leave their homes and come back here...our unemployment rate would skyrocket if that was the case.

BetterLisbon

View wrote: »

If you note - the "EFTA states" are specified by name (the {7} refers to the fact that Switzerland is not one of them). Likewise, the "Contracting Parties" refers to the EU (as a collective and/or as member states).

If Ireland leaves the EU, it would no longer qualify as one of the "Contracting Parties", nor would it be one of the specified "EFTA States". Hence, Ireland would be in effect fall outside the scope of the EEA agreement.

All that means i that we got in due to our EC membership. But we are now in and a contracting party in our own right. Bear in mind the EC was dissolved on December 1st so do all the EU members now have to negotiate a new membership?
Of course not because treaties allow for changes like that. The EEA agreement has been signed and ratified by Ireland in our own right.

BetterLisbon

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

Regardless of whether or not the Irish can live & work in the UK, what happens to all the current Irish people living and working in the rest of Europe (or at least the ones who don't have an alternative citizenship to fall back on)? Pulling out of the EU could mean that their work permits are effectively no longer valid, and they'll all have to leave their homes and come back here...our unemployment rate would skyrocket if that was the case.

Just how many irish work on the continent? Of those how many work in high skilled jobs and would have no problem getting a work permit?
How many continentals work here? Of those how many work in high skilled jobs and would have no problem getting a work permit?
This is the critical question. I would assume that the irish on the continent are skilled migrants and the continentals here are largely unskilled.

View

SkepticOne wrote: »

It's well known that there was a free travel and working arrangement between Britain and Ireland at the time of the countries joining the EEC in 1973. Not sure what you're point is here.

The point is there is a difference between an agreement/arrangement that has been formally concluded and one that informally exists. It is much easier to defend something that formally exists in law rather than an informal practice.

View

BetterLisbon wrote: »

Well the very reason for the Republic of Ireland act 1949 was the sheer impossibility of imposing visas and work permits on the Irish in the UK. It would be just as impossible today. Hence and "renegotiation" wouldnt change much.

It would be no more "impossible" than that of imposing them on any other immigrant group in the UK. Immigration procedures have evolved a lot since 1949.

View

BetterLisbon wrote: »

All that means i that we got in due to our EC membership. But we are now in and a contracting party in our own right. Bear in mind the EC was dissolved on December 1st so do all the EU members now have to negotiate a new membership?
Of course not because treaties allow for changes like that. The EEA agreement has been signed and ratified by Ireland in our own right.

As I pointed out the EEA agreement has been changed previously. It will - if it hasn't already happened - also be changed to reflect the dissolution of the EC. Such changes have to be unanimously agreed and ratified by all the parties to the agreement.

There is however no guarantee such unanimous agreement would be forthcoming in the case of Irish withdrawal from the EU. Indeed, the weakness of the "Let's leave the EU" case is highlighted by the fact that it is largely rests on the assumption that the other EU member states will go out of their way to help us even though they would gain little benefit from doing so.

View

SkepticOne wrote: »

Not adjust, "renegotiate". However presuming they wish to keep the arrangement that renegotiation would merely be a formality because of I would be very surprised if there was anything in EU legislation that prevented free travel between a member country and another country with close ties that had a long standing arrangement. This piece kindly provided by View shows that whilst there may be various "principles" outlined the member states have made sure that they can be overridden thereby making them meaningless in practice.

1) The EU Treaties - agreed by the member states - states that the EU "shall frame a common policy on asylum, immigration and external border control, based on solidarity between Member States". This is an ongoing but slow moving project.

2) As part of this, the member states have agreed a set of principles that are contained in the resolution that I quoted above. Those principles are - to quote the resolution itself - "Principles governing Member States' policies".

3) When the member states formulate their domestic policies and related legislation, those agreed principles will be taken into account by the member states (i.e. will govern their decisions).

4) There would be absolutely no point in the member states deciding to agree a set of principles if their intention was to make "sure that they can be overridden thereby making them meaningless in practice". Were that the intention of the member states, then it would have been much simpler for the member states not to have agreed the set of principles in the first place!

5) Naturally enough, when a new set of principles and/or policies are agreed by 27 different member states, there will always be previous arrangements that predate the new set of principles/policies. This is usually covered in some sort of transitional clause such as the one I quoted.

6) As that clause (i.e. # vii) states, existing arrangements in place for third-country nationals when the resolution was adopted (a number of years back) can continue, but:

"The Member States will undertake as soon as possible to renegotiate such arrangements in accordance with the terms of this resolution."

In other words, renegotiations will take place, and afterwards, the re-negotiated arrangements will conform to the principles outlined in the resolution.

7) In the case of Ireland, since Ireland was a full EU member state on the date that the resolution was adopted, any arrangements that the UK had previously had for Irish citizens would hardly fall under the terms of clause vii) since:

1. Irish citizens were not third-country nationals on the date the resolution was adopted, and,
2. it specifically refers to "continuing to admit third-country nationals".

8) Starting to admit Irish citizens as third-country nationals - after Ireland left the EU - on the basis of an agreement/arrangement that pre-dated Ireland's accession to the EU, could hardly fall under the category of "continuing to admit third-country nationals" on any sort of an objective basis.

9) Moreover, having already committed itself to an agreed set of principles, why would the UK want to break them?

maggy_thatcher

BetterLisbon wrote: »

Just how many irish work on the continent? Of those how many work in high skilled jobs and would have no problem getting a work permit?
How many continentals work here? Of those how many work in high skilled jobs and would have no problem getting a work permit?
This is the critical question. I would assume that the irish on the continent are skilled migrants and the continentals here are largely unskilled.

Even assuming that's true (which I don't - there are a lot more migrant workers here than the people who fill your sandwich at Spar), to get those work permits the company that they work for would have to first demonstrate that there was nobody in the EU that could do their job. Most countries have a policy where you demonstrated this by showing the position advertised in newspapers. Therefore the procedure would be:

1. Fire all Irish workers (no redundancy), as they are no longer eligible to work
2. Advertise their positions somewhere
3. Assuming nobody suitable applied, the company could then apply to their country for a work permit (which may or may not be granted).
4. Assuming it is granted, rehire the Irish worker.

I know many companies in Ireland who have an EU-worker only policy precisely because the effort of hiring non-EU workers isn't worth it. How many of these "skilled Irish migrant workers" do you think will be able to keep their jobs if this bureaucracy is applied?

SkepticOne

View wrote: »

9) Moreover, having already committed itself to an agreed set of principles, why would the UK want to break them?

The UK could have been one of the countries that insisted on that get out clause that states that prior arrangements with countries that have close ties can continue to exist.

I don't see a huge problem with it being applied to the free travel area between Britain and Ireland. At most they might have to go through some formality of renegotiation but a formality is all it would be, and even this would only happen if the other countries held them to it, and, knowing it is merely a meaningless formality, probably would not.

As for a country agreeing to a set of principles and then seeking to get out of them (even in cases, unlike this one, where there are no exceptions), well while they are principles, I don't think countries run largely on pragmatic grounds are going to treat them religiously.

Look at Germany breaking the stability and growth pact for example. No one cares now that they did that except maybe slightly obsessive euro-enthusiasts. But the rest of the world moves on.

maggy_thatcher

SkepticOne wrote: »

The UK could have been one of the countries that insisted on that get out clause that states that prior arrangements with countries that have close ties can continue to exist.

Prior to joining the EEC, the UK had plenty of arrangements with commonwealth nations (e.g. Australia, New Zealand and India). Citizens of these countries now need to apply for permits like any other foreigner (through the GHSM system), despite the fact that they have very close ties to each other. What makes you think the relationship between Ireland and the UK would be any different?

Scofflaw

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

Prior to joining the EEC, the UK had plenty of arrangements with commonwealth nations (e.g. Australia, New Zealand and India). Citizens of these countries now need to apply for permits like any other foreigner (through the GHSM system), despite the fact that they have very close ties to each other. What makes you think the relationship between Ireland and the UK would be any different?

The same thing, I imagine, that powers the rest of this argument - wishful thinking.

cordially,
Scofflaw

DidierMc

The sooner we are free from the yoke of Brussels tyranny then the better

SkepticOne

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

What makes you think the relationship between Ireland and the UK would be any different?

To avoid opening a can of worms in the North would be the main reason.

PopeBuckfastXVI

DidierMc wrote: »

The sooner we are free from the yoke of Brussels tyranny then the better

That's a largely meaningless statement.

Taken at face value, it's good to not be under a yoke of Brussels tyranny, this is true, however there is no 'yoke of Brussels tyranny', therefore the statement has no real meaning.

One could make the equally valid point that the sooner the tooth fairy stops going round Ballyhaunis at night mixing up people's pairs of socks, the better.

maggy_thatcher

SkepticOne wrote: »

To avoid opening a can of worms in the North would be the main reason.

But it would be Ireland opening this can of worms in the first place by pulling out of the agreement, not the UK.

Henry McConville

DaBrow wrote: »

This is serious, What is wrong with the Ireland of Today?

Our loyalty to Europe has been taken for granted by Brussels and I doubt we have our interests represented now in the EU; Is there anyone else who feels cheated?

We were bullied into voting again on the Unfair Lisbon Treaty... Where are these Jobs and Recovery we were promised?

The Euro rate of exchange is too strong for Irish Exports to Grow... Everything here apart from fuel is at least 10% more expensive than in the North or Britain. Why are we holding onto a currency we have no control over?

Ireland has very little idigenous Industry... Our entire Economic Power relies on the UK & America whom we trade with on a higher level than our EU Neighbours. We cannot compete because we are too expensive to purchase goods & services from but we are importing like crazy! Why has no-one realised?

The EU bans us from actively controlling our Immigration Rates... The number of people that have arrived here since the early 90's is equal to half a century's worth of people that arrived in France. Jobs are very Scarce for our own Citizens, why can't we restrict the number and help prevent Emigration?

Our Natural Resources have been exploited dreadfully... We have Oil off the Coast of Mayo and Galway which could benefit the country and its people but Shell has exclusive use of this. Spain has been raiding our Fisheries for Years with EU Protection, why can't we tell these people to Get Lost?

Most of our Laws are now distated to us from Brussels and are policies we have had no democratic voice in influencing, this to me is very wrong and sinister. Why does all this bureaucracy have to be obeyed when we don't agree with alot of the ideas?

---

I think we need a change that is better for us and a recovery.

The European Free Trade Association (EFTA) Allows:

• Member States to Protect and Exclusively Maintain their own Natural Resources
• Adopt and Veto EU Legislation of their choosing without External Authority
• Trade, Travel and Working Rights Throughout EFTA/EU States without Restriction under EEA/Bilateral Aggreements
• Exclusive Business Relationships with External Countries and Trade Blocs without Barriers
• Each Member State to contral and Maintain their own currency & Interest Rates
• Trade Only Relations.... Not Political Power Grabbing

http://www.efta.int/about-efta/history.aspx

Alot of EU Nations were once EFTA Members


So There We have it:

We cannot Devalue to boost exports like in 1992, because we got rid of the Punt and our own interest rates.

We cannot build a strong idigenous business base or use our natural resources for our own benefit, because that is seen as Anti-Competitive.

We have no control over laws that we wish to veto or prevent from being ratified, because our soverignty is weakened or no longer existant.

Our Immigration Policy is a joke, thousands of non-nationals can legally arrive in Ireland and work without having the ability to speak English and or Irish.


Please Discuss

Ireland has benefited perhaps more than any other country from EU handouts – a net gain of £32 billion at the last count – which have helped transform it from one of the poorest countries in the EEC in 1973, when it joined, to the second richest per capita.

SkepticOne

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

But it would be Ireland opening this can of worms in the first place by pulling out of the agreement, not the UK.

There would no doubt be difficulties of various sorts if Ireland pulled out of the EU, no one is denying that. But what I'm wondering is why the UK would open a largely unnecessary can of worms when they don't have to.

Ireland had this arrangement prior to the entry into the EEC and eventually the EU. It survived entry and we don't need passports to travel between the two countries.

Should Ireland leave, I can't see why the UK would want to terminate the arrangement and cause a load of problems. This is an arrangement, remember that survived IRA bombings in London, Birmingham etc. At any stage they could have insisted on passport control but did not.

Exactly what would terminating it achieve? The EU legislation kindly provided by View allows for an opt-out from the principles. I doubt if other countries particularly care either about Ireland's right to travel and work in the UK. They are free to prevent access to Shengen countries or other countries that require visas should they so wish.

DidierMc

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

That's a largely meaningless statement.

Taken at face value, it's good to not be under a yoke of Brussels tyranny, this is true, however there is no 'yoke of Brussels tyranny', therefore the statement has no real meaning.

One could make the equally valid point that the sooner the tooth fairy stops going round Ballyhaunis at night mixing up people's pairs of socks, the better.

A bunch of unelected technocrats forcing economic policies upon the people that they despise? That's tyranny as far as I'm concerned.

BetterLisbon

View wrote: »

It would be no more "impossible" than that of imposing them on any other immigrant group in the UK. Immigration procedures have evolved a lot since 1949.

Which would be impossible aswell.

BetterLisbon

View wrote: »

It would be no more "impossible" than that of imposing them on any other immigrant group in the UK. Immigration procedures have evolved a lot since 1949.

Would you foresee nationalists in the north being collectively expelled or would you see the "as soon as possible" clause invoked?

BetterLisbon

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

Prior to joining the EEC, the UK had plenty of arrangements with commonwealth nations (e.g. Australia, New Zealand and India). Citizens of these countries now need to apply for permits like any other foreigner (through the GHSM system), despite the fact that they have very close ties to each other. What makes you think the relationship between Ireland and the UK would be any different?

Citizens of Commonwealth countries always had to apply for work permits that isnt new. What i believe you are thinking of is when Thatcher imposed trade restrictions on commonwealth goods. This was not because of the EEC but a selfish decision by the UK. The EEC got blamed in Commonwealth countries for this but this was not justified.

BetterLisbon

Henry McConville wrote: »

Ireland has benefited perhaps more than any other country from EU handouts – a net gain of £32 billion at the last count – which have helped transform it from one of the poorest countries in the EEC in 1973, when it joined, to the second richest per capita.

Henry you fail to note that the overwhelming majority of those funds went to a small section of society and those funds were bona fide compensation for the handicap of market regulation. We also had to give up our fisheries too.
You say we were one of the poorest when we joined, well that wouldnt be too difficult as there were only 9 members including all the european members of the G7. We reached 2nd richest per capita, exactly per capita and built on personal debt.

DaBrow

Henry McConville wrote: »

Ireland has benefited perhaps more than any other country from EU handouts – a net gain of £32 billion at the last count – which have helped transform it from one of the poorest countries in the EEC in 1973, when it joined, to the second richest per capita.

Yes, we've been such good boys and girls.

We are so valued as members were bullyingly forced to vote on Lisbon Again, before that vote on the Nice Treaty TWICE.

It really seems the EU treats us like Children by neglecting us with faux affection or their favourite concubine where if we make a demand we get a slap; the EU was good when it was for trade.

Now it is about complete control.... More worryingly it rests in the hands of Countries that have had a long Imperial Past.

Belgium with the Congo

France with Napoleon

Germany... Where to Begin?

maggy_thatcher

DaBrow wrote: »

We are so valued as members were bullyingly forced to vote on Lisbon Again, before that vote on the Nice Treaty TWICE.

The EU didn't force us to vote twice, the Irish government did. There's no difference between it and the multiple divorce/abortion referenda that we've had in the past? Just because we answered one way once doesn't prevent the government from asking the same question again at a point in the future. The gap between the two referenda was a little shorter than other cases, but there's no law that prevents that.

BetterLisbon

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

The EU didn't force us to vote twice, the Irish government did. There's no difference between it and the multiple divorce/abortion referenda that we've had in the past? Just because we answered one way once doesn't prevent the government from asking the same question again at a point in the future. The gap between the two referenda was a little shorter than other cases, but there's no law that prevents that.

Bogus comparison. 16 months between Nice1&2 and Lisbon1&2 whereas approx 10 years between referenda on abortion and divorce. Of course its legally possible to have a referendum every day if the government wants.
The scaremongering, hatchetjobs and backroom dealings that coloured the rerun referenda has shown how unhealthy our relationship with the EU is.

Scofflaw

BetterLisbon wrote: »

Henry you fail to note that the overwhelming majority of those funds went to a small section of society and those funds were bona fide compensation for the handicap of market regulation. We also had to give up our fisheries too.
You say we were one of the poorest when we joined, well that wouldnt be too difficult as there were only 9 members including all the european members of the G7. We reached 2nd richest per capita, exactly per capita and built on personal debt.

We didn't "give up our fisheries" - we agreed EU access to them, just as we reciprocally gained access to other EU fisheries (mostly the UK). As it happens, we now fish a lot more (both absolutely and relatively) from Irish waters than we did before we joined the EU - the figures were all gone over at the time of the Lisbon debates, so please don't go around repeating old lies.

regards,
Scofflaw