Why are the British so anti Europe?

dlouth15 · 05-07-2014 12:08pm

MarkK wrote: »

The main anti-EU bellyaching we hear from the Brits is about immigration.
If they stay in the EEA, there will be no change to immigration rights.

http://www.efta.int/eea/policy-areas/persons

Sure but I think it is important to distinguish between what certain sections (for example UKip) want and what is likely to happen if a vote to exit the EU was successful. There's a lot of variation of opinion in the UK. At one end, there's a dislike of any form of sharing of power, full control over immigration etc. At the other end, there are those who want full integration within the EU and for the EU to take over more and more powers. If the UK votes to leave then it is likely to be by quite a narrow margin. Those who want to stay in the UK will have lost and so won't get their way, but likewise, those who want full disconnection from Europe in every respect will most probably also not get their way.

View · 05-07-2014 1:47pm

dlouth15 wrote: »

I still think it is unlikely that the UK would be outside any sort of trade arrangement should they leave the EU.

If the UK leaves the EU, they have NO trade arrangement with the EU. They would need to negotiate one from scratch.

dlouth15 wrote: »

They are likely to remain in the EEA

No, they are not. No part of the EEA covers a non-EU UK, so exiting the EU means exiting the EEA (and indeed each and every EU-non-EU country trade arrangement that the UK has access to as an EU member).

dlouth15 wrote: »

Remember that the EU also wants to benefit from free trade with non-EU countries including financial services.

Very true but despite the desirability of such arrangments, the EU does not have such arrangments with larger trade partners than the UK.

dlouth15 wrote: »

If Europe currently benefits from UK's financial services they are going to want to continue to do so.

Will they?

There is no interest for the EU member states in a majority of their financial transactions being carried out and dependent on an off-shore financial centre, particularly one that would be politically hostile to the EU in the event of a UK EU exit.

dlouth15 · 05-07-2014 5:41pm

View wrote: »

If the UK leaves the EU, they have NO trade arrangement with the EU. They would need to negotiate one from scratch.

Sure but I don't see any problem in that. Most likely the arrangements will be made during the two years after such a vote is made.

No, they are not. No part of the EEA covers a non-EU UK, so exiting the EU means exiting the EEA (and indeed each and every EU-non-EU country trade arrangement that the UK has access to as an EU member).

The UK are members of the EEA currently in their own right as are most but not all EU countries. If they choose to leave the EU they remain in the EEA. I would therefore see them continuing their membership of the EEA after separation.

Very true but despite the desirability of such arrangments, the EU does not have such arrangments with larger trade partners than the UK.

Well the EU are currently negotiating with the US, so I don't see the the relatively large size of the UK as being a particular issue. In any case, if the UK remains as an EEA member, there will be free trade in those areas in which the UK wishes to have free trade.

Will they?

There is no interest for the EU member states in a majority of their financial transactions being carried out and dependent on an off-shore financial centre, particularly one that would be politically hostile to the EU in the event of a UK EU exit.

I don't see any particular hostility in the UK to the EU as a trading partner. Sure there might be a desire for more sovereignty over their own affairs, repatriation of powers within the EU and so forth but I think it is a mistake to construe this as hostility.

Jim2007 · 05-07-2014 7:38pm

dlouth15 wrote: »

If they choose to leave the EU they remain in the EEA. I would therefore see them continuing their membership of the EEA after separation.

Which would mean they would have to adapt the the EU rules to gain access to the internal market! So it is hard to see how they'd settle for that given their starting point.

Jim2007 · 05-07-2014 7:58pm

dlouth15 wrote: »

If Europe currently benefits from UK's financial services they are going to want to continue to do so.

As someone who has worked in the European financial services sector for the twenty years I'd love to hear how you think we benefit from the UK financial services??? For most European players, the City is handy for unloading the most risky operations on it, doing some trading and that is about it!

If London was out of commission this Monday morning, it would take about 6 to 8 hours for the other major European players to bring up an alternative market, if London, Frankfurt and Zurich were down it might take 8 to 12 hours for them to come alive on an another continent! Having this capability is a require of the ECB, The Fed and the BIS, if you want to play in the markets. And since 9/11 it is a plan that has been tested on a regular basis under the supervision of one o these bodies. It is a basic requirement these days to ensure that couple of well placed bombs can not bring the world markets to stand still.

dlouth15 · 05-07-2014 7:59pm

Jim2007 wrote: »

Which would mean they would have to adapt the the EU rules to gain access to the internal market! So it is hard to see how they'd settle for that given their starting point.

Only for those aspects of the single market in which they choose to participate (I think they may well exempt themselves from agriculture). This I think most people would regard as fair enough. And they wouldn't have to adopt any EU legislation that is not involved in the single market. So the move would mean the restoration of a considerable amount of sovereignty.

dlouth15 · 05-07-2014 8:12pm

Jim2007 wrote: »

As someone who has worked in the European financial services sector for the twenty years I'd love to hear how you think we benefit from the UK financial services??? For most European players, the City is handy for unloading the most risky operations on it, doing some trading and that is about it!

If you are not benefiting from it, why are you paying for it? I presume a fair amount of the City's earnings come from Europe as well as worldwide.

View · 05-07-2014 10:22pm

dlouth15 wrote: »

Sure but I don't see any problem in that. Most likely the arrangements will be made during the two years after such a vote is made.

Trade arrangements typically take 5-10 years to negotiate and put into force. Two years won't do it.

Also the EU has a in-tray full of ongoing negotiations. The EU is not going to insult other countries by sticking their negotiations on ice to facilitate another non-EU country (the non-EU UK).

dlouth15 wrote: »

The UK are members of the EEA currently in their own right as are most but not all EU countries.

The EEA is a series of bilateral arrangements between the EU (and its member states) and SPECIFIED non-EU countries. It takes the form of "The EU will do..." and "Country X will do..."

A non-EU UK would belong to neither category. It would not be an EU member state nor would it be a specified non-EU country.

dlouth15 wrote: »

If they choose to leave the EU they remain in the EEA. I would therefore see them continuing their membership of the EEA after separation.

Leaving the EU means losing access to all trade arrangments negotiated by the EU. You can't use, for instance, the EU-Korea trade agreement to trade with Korea if you are not an EU member. That also applies to the EEA agreement.

dlouth15 wrote: »

Well the EU are currently negotiating with the US, so I don't see the the relatively large size of the UK as being a particular issue.

The USA doesn't have a free trade agreement with the EU decades after the EU/ECs were set up but a non-EU UK is going to secure one within 24 hours. :-)

Not very likely, is it?

dlouth15 wrote: »

I don't see any particular hostility in the UK to the EU as a trading partner. Sure there might be a desire for more sovereignty over their own affairs, repatriation of powers within the EU and so forth but I think it is a mistake to construe this as hostility.

If Euro-sceptics are in power in the UK, as would be the case in the event of a UK exit, they certainly aren't going to be neutral much less friendly to the EU.

They most certainly are hostile both to the idea of abiding by EU rules (unless the EU agrees with their view) and to the idea of paying monies to the EU budget (which the EEA states do/have had to do to secure market access).

The EU member states have no interest in giving a non-EU UK's financial services free access to the EU - a scenario which means the UK would get all the tax revenue and their FS industry could engage in reckless practices with the EU secure in the knowledge that the EU member states would pick up any future bill and would have no regulatory recourse to stop such behaviour.

McDave · 06-07-2014 12:01pm

View wrote: »

If Euro-sceptics are in power in the UK, as would be the case in the event of a UK exit, they certainly aren't going to be neutral much less friendly to the EU.

They most certainly are hostile both to the idea of abiding by EU rules (unless the EU agrees with their view) and to the idea of paying monies to the EU budget (which the EEA states do/have had to do to secure market access).

The EU member states have no interest in giving a non-EU UK's financial services free access to the EU - a scenario which means the UK would get all the tax revenue and their FS industry could engage in reckless practices with the EU secure in the knowledge that the EU member states would pick up any future bill and would have no regulatory recourse to stop such behaviour.

If the UK leaves the EU, I think we're looking at a sea change in attitudes. While there will be basic respect, and trade will continue, some of the competitive advantages the Eurozone in particular will enjoy will be asserted and leveraged against the UK. Not least in the financial sector.

Over time political contact will loosen, and the continent will progressively integrate its infrastructures and economies, with all the research and industrial benefits that will stimulate. Foreign policy will also be realigned, with the EU focussing anew on the eastern lands, the near east and north Africa, at the expense of Atlanticism. I'd expect the EU would slowly drift away from the US, loosening military ties and cultural bonds.

All these developments will have fundamental ramifications for us. In an EU without the UK, we'd really have to stand up for ourselves on all accounts, and we'd have to invest heavily in language skills. Personally I think this would be beneficial and help us mature as a society and economy, but I'm not convinced we have it in us to take the strain so comprehensively. There will be many here who in reality would prefer Britain to do the heavy policy and strategic heavy lifting.

dlouth15 · 06-07-2014 1:11pm

View wrote: »

Trade arrangements typically take 5-10 years to negotiate and put into force. Two years won't do it.

Also the EU has a in-tray full of ongoing negotiations. The EU is not going to insult other countries by sticking their negotiations on ice to facilitate another non-EU country (the non-EU UK).

The EEA is a series of bilateral arrangements between the EU (and its member states) and SPECIFIED non-EU countries. It takes the form of "The EU will do..." and "Country X will do..."

A non-EU UK would belong to neither category. It would not be an EU member state nor would it be a specified non-EU country.

Before I proceed to deal with these points, do you agree that the UK is a member of the EEA in its own right and not merely by virtue of being an EU member? You seemed to be arguing on a different basis in your earlier post.

Jim2007 · 06-07-2014 8:44pm

dlouth15 wrote: »

Before I proceed to deal with these points, do you agree that the UK is a member of the EEA in its own right and not merely by virtue of being an EU member? You seemed to be arguing on a different basis in your earlier post.

If you take the time to read the actual agreement on access to the internal market, you will see that it states that the agreement is between the EU, it's member states and Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway. So no the UK is not a party to the agreement in it's own right.

At this point it is time to call a halt because the argument is flawed!

dlouth15 · 07-07-2014 12:13am

Jim2007 wrote: »

If you take the time to read the actual agreement on access to the internal market, you will see that it states that the agreement is between the EU, it's member states and Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway. So no the UK is not a party to the agreement in it's own right.

At this point it is time to call a halt because the argument is flawed!

The question was addressed to View. Before I proceed with the points he raised I want to establish that he agrees that the UK is a member of the EEA in its own right.

Jim2007 · 07-07-2014 11:57am

dlouth15 wrote: »

The question was addressed to View. Before I proceed with the points he raised I want to establish that he agrees that the UK is a member of the EEA in its own right.

Well it is not and discussion based on the assumption that it is is pointless...

dlouth15 · 07-07-2014 1:39pm

Jim2007 wrote: »

Well it is not and discussion based on the assumption that it is is pointless...

That is what you think. I'm nevertheless interested in hearing the answer from View who I think (though it is not entirely clear) believes that the UK is not one of the contracting parties of the EEA and seems to have based some of his arguments on that assumption.

View · 07-07-2014 5:34pm

dlouth15 wrote: »

Before I proceed to deal with these points, do you agree that the UK is a member of the EEA in its own right and not merely by virtue of being an EU member? You seemed to be arguing on a different basis in your earlier post.

With apologies for the slow reponse...

The agreement was negotiated by the then ECs on behalf of its member states. Once the agreement was agreed, It was signed by both the then ECs, the member states of the then ECs (and most but not all EFTA states), hence the UK is a signatory as a result of being an EC member state at the time.

Withdrawal from the EU means, as with every other EU negotiated external agreement, that a non-EU UK would cease to be a party to the agreement.

I am not sure why you doubt this. The agreement is between the EU, its member states and SPECIFIED EFTA member states. A non-EU UK would be none of those.

You are not seriously suggesting that a UK EU exit would be just a "Let's pretend" exercise, are you?

dlouth15 · 08-07-2014 1:32am

View wrote: »

With apologies for the slow reponse...

The agreement was negotiated by the then ECs on behalf of its member states. Once the agreement was agreed, It was signed by both the then ECs, the member states of the then ECs (and most but not all EFTA states), hence the UK is a signatory as a result of being an EC member state at the time.

Withdrawal from the EU means, as with every other EU negotiated external agreement, that a non-EU UK would cease to be a party to the agreement.

I am not sure why you doubt this. The agreement is between the EU, its member states and SPECIFIED EFTA member states. A non-EU UK would be none of those.

The problem is this. If, as you suggest, the EEA is an agreement between the EU and certain external states (Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein), why are accession states required to apply separately to join the EEA? Would, if what you were suggesting were correct, it not be sufficient for an accession country merely to join the EU? Then all external agreements the EU makes externally would apply automatically which is the case with other external agreements.

Additionally, how was it possible for Croatia to be a full member of the EU, but not a member of the EEA for a period of time if being an EU member meant automatic membership of the EEA?

You are not seriously suggesting that a UK EU exit would be just a "Let's pretend" exercise, are you?

The UK is a member of the EU and also a member of the EEA to which they are a signatory. If they leave the EU, they remain a member of the EEA, unless they decide to leave that too.

If you want maintain that a country leaving the EU also automatically leaves the EEA, then I'm going to have to see evidence of that, e.g, some sort of legal opinion on the matter or text from the EEA agreement that states it.

Jim2007 · 08-07-2014 11:41am

dlouth15 wrote: »

If, as you suggest, the EEA is an agreement between the EU and certain external states (Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein), why are accession states required to apply separately to join the EEA?

This is really getting funny now.....

It is not a suggesting, it is a fact - here is the actual agreement, since you seem to be having difficulty finding it.

Now this may come as a shock, but if you look at the first page sections 3, 4 and 6 are the amendment for the participation of the new EU states in the agreement, no requirement for them to be members of EEA etc. Why, because that agreement is between the EU and only 3 states of the EEA.

And even better section 5 on the Financial Mechanism simply mentions the EU and the other three states...

It is about time you started to bring hard facts to the table.

Jim2007 · 08-07-2014 11:46am

dlouth15 wrote: »

If you want maintain that a country leaving the EU also automatically leaves the EEA, then I'm going to have to see evidence of that, e.g, some sort of legal opinion on the matter or text from the EEA agreement that states it.

No problem! Go read the agreement like I have been pointing out to you, it clearly states that the agreement is between the EU and 3 states of the EEA, not the EEA itself.

Like I said too funny....

dlouth15 · 08-07-2014 12:36pm

Jim2007 wrote: »

This is really getting funny now.....

It is not a suggesting, it is a fact - here is the actual agreement, since you seem to be having difficulty finding it.

Now this may come as a shock, but if you look at the first page sections 3, 4 and 6 are the amendment for the participation of the new EU states in the agreement, no requirement for them to be members of EEA etc. Why, because that agreement is between the EU and only 3 states of the EEA.

And even better section 5 on the Financial Mechanism simply mentions the EU and the other three states...

It is about time you started to bring hard facts to the table.

It is the EU that requires member states to apply to join the EEA. The EEA does not have this requirement, hence you would not expect to find it in the EEA agreement.

The question for you then is this: why does the EU require member states to join the EEA? If the EEA were simply an agreement between four parties: the EU, Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein, then when a member state joins the EU they would automatically become a party to that agreement by virtue of EU membership. There would be no need for a further application to another organization.

But this is not the case. So why does the EU require them to join the EEA?

View · 08-07-2014 2:34pm

This is really getting silly now.

The EEA agreement expilictly specifies the agreement applies to the territories to which the then EEC, now EU Treaties applies AND Iceland, Lichtenstein and Norway (Art 126.1).

The agreement would therefore not cover a non-EU UK.

Any attempt to transform the agreement from an EU-EFTA (excluding Switzerland) agreement into something the signatories never signed up for would almost certainly lead to the EEA Treaty's collapse. It would be simpler for the EU states to withdraw en masse and replace it with 3 old fashioned bilateral agreements with the individual EFTA states.

dlouth15 · 08-07-2014 2:45pm

View wrote: »

This is really getting silly now.

The EEA agreement expilictly specifies the agreement applies to the territories to which the then EEC, now EU Treaties applies AND Iceland, Lichtenstein and Norway (Art 126.1).

The agreement would therefore not cover a non-EU UK.

Any attempt to transform the agreement from an EU-EFTA (excluding Switzerland) agreement into something the signatories never signed up for would almost certainly lead to the EEA Treaty's collapse. It would be simpler for the EU states to withdraw en masse and replace it with 3 old fashioned bilateral agreements with the individual EFTA states.

You still seem to be avoiding the question I asked earlier: why are accession countries required by the EU to apply in their own right to membership of the EEA if as you claim it is an external agreement between the EU and a particular set of non-EU countries? If what you were claiming was correct, this would not be necessary.

kult · 08-07-2014 2:47pm

They are not anti Europe but anti European union , and it is a huge difference. + they are right, why not to control immigration in own country? Why to pay other countries debts?

Nodin · 08-07-2014 2:54pm

kult wrote: »

They are not anti Europe but anti European union , and it is a huge difference. + they are right, why not to control immigration in own country?

They signed up to it. They could have had a form of opt out, but didn't take it up.

The problem seems to be that they are indeed anti-Europe, but don't consciously recognise the fact.

kult wrote: »

Why to pay other countries debts?

Why receive EU funding, entry into markets, not pay various tariffs?

kult · 08-07-2014 2:56pm

Nodin wrote: »

They signed up to it. They could have had a form of opt out, but didn't take it up.

The problem seems to be that they are indeed anti-Europe, but don't consciously recognise the fact.

Why receive EU funding, entry into markets, not pay various tariffs?

They sign up so they can leave if they want.

Nodin · 08-07-2014 3:00pm

kult wrote: »

They sign up so they can leave if they want.

Thanks for explaining that to me.

They can indeed. Best for all parties concerned at this stage.

kult · 08-07-2014 3:02pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RjUJy7kDOM - plenty of movies like that... They are anti european union not europe. Anti bureaucracy and idiotic regulations...

kult · 08-07-2014 3:03pm

Nodin wrote: »

Thanks for explaining that to me.

They can indeed. Best for all parties concerned at this stage.

Look at Spain, Greece and many countries which collapsed because of Eu...

Nodin · 08-07-2014 3:10pm

kult wrote: »

Look at Spain, Greece and many countries which collapsed because of Eu...

O they collapsed, but I doubt that the EU was responsible. For instance Greece has had problems with "creative accounting" for many a year, and in reality should not have been allowed in the EU in the first place.

kult · 08-07-2014 3:14pm

Nodin wrote: »

O they collapsed, but I doubt that the EU was responsible. For instance Greece has had problems with "creative accounting" for many a year, and in reality should not have been allowed in the EU in the first place.

It is partially fault of EU, and why should any of counties pay for them now? Why UK should pay for somebody else stupidity? Why UK should not be allowed to control own borders? Like every country in Europe? Island was only the smart country to say no to EU and they were so right...

Nodin · 08-07-2014 3:22pm

kult wrote: »

It is partially fault of EU, and why should any of counties pay for them now? Why UK should pay for somebody else stupidity?
...

Because they benefit from the prevented total collapse, for starters.

kult wrote: »

Why UK should not be allowed to control own borders?...

They opted in, so you might ask them. You realise that free movement only applies to certain countries?

kult wrote: »

Like every country in Europe? .

"every country in Europe" is not in the EU.

kult · 08-07-2014 3:33pm

Nodin wrote: »

Because they benefit from the prevented total collapse, for starters.

They actually spend more than get so...

They opted in, so you might ask them. You realise that free movement only applies to certain countries?

yeah, but still it does not matter what counties, they should have control and right to let people in or not let in, it's call independence

"every country in Europe" is not in the EU.

ok, every country in EU ( EU works exactly like old soviet.... most of guys in e parliament are ex communists , masons or other red parasites ).

btw sorry, messed up editing

Nodin · 08-07-2014 3:48pm

kult wrote: »

ok, every country in EU ( EU works exactly like old soviet.... most of guys in e parliament are ex communists , masons or other red parasites ).

btw sorry, messed up editing

Stuff and nonsense, tbh.

kult · 08-07-2014 3:50pm

Nodin wrote: »

Stuff and nonsense, tbh.

If you lived through communism then you would have different opinion.

View · 08-07-2014 3:56pm

dlouth15 wrote: »

You still seem to be avoiding the question I asked earlier: why are accession countries required by the EU to apply in their own right to membership of the EEA if as you claim it is an external agreement between the EU and a particular set of non-EU countries? If what you were claiming was correct, this would not be necessary.

I am not avoiding it at all.

As I stated earlier, the EEA is an agreement between the EU, its member states and specified non-EU states.

Any new member state also adheres to any and all agreements that the EU and its member states have signed up to.

The reason why is obvious - to take the EU-Korea case again, the agreement is modified as new states join the EU, otherwise Korea would have free trade with some but not all EU member states and the EU clearly would not be a single customs union in that case.

All of which is interesting but hardly alters the situation that a member state that leaves the EU won't, in the case of the EEA (or indeed any other EU external agreement), be covered as either an EU member or an "EFTA" state.

dlouth15 · 08-07-2014 5:03pm

View wrote: »

I am not avoiding it at all.

As I stated earlier, the EEA is an agreement between the EU, its member states and specified non-EU states.

Any new member state also adheres to any and all agreements that the EU and its member states have signed up to.

The reason why is obvious - to take the EU-Korea case again, the agreement is modified as new states join the EU, otherwise Korea would have free trade with some but not all EU member states and the EU clearly would not be a single customs union in that case.

All of which is interesting but hardly alters the situation that a member state that leaves the EU won't, in the case of the EEA (or indeed any other EU external agreement), be covered as either an EU member or an "EFTA" state.

I'm afraid that doesn't make a lot of sense. If it were merely an external agreement between the EU and a small number of external countries, why do countries already members of the EU have to sign up to it individually?

If you read the EU-Korea agreement you can see that there are actually only two parties to the agreement:

"between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Korea, of the other part".

If you want to maintain that the EEA agreement is of the same sort, i.e. between the EU and three non-EU countries, i.e. there are 4 parties to the agreement, then you are going to have to extract similar language from the EEA agreement.

Countries that have joined since 2011, the date of the EU-Korea deal, don't have to separately sign the EU-Korea trade deal, and nor does Korea have to agree to new countries joining the EU and participating in free trade.

If you disagree with that there should be evidence to support your belief. However I think you will find that there isn't any.

Croatia joined in 2013 and as part of their accession treaty were required to join the EEA. There was a delay in their membership of the EEA and were for a time (I'm not sure if they have since joined) members of the EU but not the EEA. The Croatian treaty is here. You will find that there's no mention of Korea or any trade deals of that sort (as expected) but there is mentioned the requirement to apply to join the EEA.

So the question remains: why does the EU require member states to apply in their own right to membership of the EEA?

McDave · 08-07-2014 7:12pm

kult wrote: »

Look at Spain, Greece and many countries which collapsed because of Eu...

For starters, Spain hasn't collapsed.

For information, Greece has always lagged well behind western and other Mediterranean EU states, even before it joined the EEC.

Your assertion is pure nonsense.

McDave · 08-07-2014 7:12pm

kult wrote: »

If you lived through communism then you would have different opinion.

Please demonstrate.

kult · 08-07-2014 8:19pm

McDave wrote: »

Please demonstrate.

Demonstrate living through communism? LOL

kult · 08-07-2014 8:21pm

McDave wrote: »

For starters, Spain hasn't collapsed.

For information, Greece has always lagged well behind western and other Mediterranean EU states, even before it joined the EEC.

Your assertion is pure nonsense.

EU is a pure nonsense when they tell you how straight bananas should be. Also If 54% unemployed people under age of 25 is not a collapse of the country then LOL... If Greece has always lagged behind then EU made it even worse, also let them pay own debt , not other countries paying for their stupidity and laziness...

kult · 08-07-2014 8:24pm

btw have any of you ever read Mein Kampf , the political part of it? No? Try it, then read political program of EU, about 80% matches perfectly. Another strange fact EU commissioners do not want to talk about. Adolf Hitler would be proud of Germany, they took over whole europe without firing a single shot...

MarkK · 08-07-2014 8:25pm

dlouth15 wrote: »

It is the EU that requires member states to apply to join the EEA. The EEA does not have this requirement, hence you would not expect to find it in the EEA agreement.

Actualy, it is part of the EEA agreement.

"The EEA Agreement states that when a State becomes a member of the European Union, it shall also apply to become party to the EEA Agreement (Article 128 EEA), thus leading to an enlargement of the EEA."
http://www.efta.int/eea/eea-agreement/eea-basic-features

kult · 08-07-2014 8:32pm

I also loved watching when EU respected Irish people NO vote on Lisbon treaty. Yep, great democracy, "you will vote till we have yes" - EU definition of democracy. Well, of course after second referendum, when it came out as YES there was no chance to 3rd referendum, because they achieved what they wanted. Wondering why UK is anti EU ( not anti Europe )

dlouth15 · 08-07-2014 9:00pm

MarkK wrote: »

Actualy, it is part of the EEA agreement.

"The EEA Agreement states that when a State becomes a member of the European Union, it shall also apply to become party to the EEA Agreement (Article 128 EEA), thus leading to an enlargement of the EEA."
http://www.efta.int/eea/eea-agreement/eea-basic-features

Thanks. Athough they still have to apply in their own right to join the EEA.

Jim2007 was arguing vigorously against the point I was making that member states were required to apply for membership of the EEA upon entry to the EU:

Jim2007 wrote: »

This is really getting funny now.....

It is not a suggesting, it is a fact - here is the actual agreement, since you seem to be having difficulty finding it.

Now this may come as a shock, but if you look at the first page sections 3, 4 and 6 are the amendment for the participation of the new EU states in the agreement, no requirement for them to be members of EEA etc. Why, because that agreement is between the EU and only 3 states of the EEA.

So thanks MarKK for clearing that up. The fact that member states have to apply separately to the EEA, i.e. that they do not participate in EEA purely by virtue of their EU membership strongly suggests that the EEA is not, as has been suggested, an "agreement is between the EU and only 3 states of the EEA", but rather an agreement between all the EEA states regardless of EU status.

MarkK · 08-07-2014 10:25pm

dlouth15 wrote: »

Thanks. Athough they still have to apply in their own right to join the EEA.

What do you mean by "in there own right"?
They are applying to participate in the EEA as it is a requirement for EU membership.
So the are applying to join as EU members. As I understand it EEA countries participate as either EFTA members or EU members, they do not join merely as individual countries.

The EEA agreement allows the EEA EFTA states to adopt a subset of EU single market regulations.
Whereas EU members negotiate single market regulations at EU level.

oscarBravo · 08-07-2014 10:32pm

kult wrote: »

Yep, great democracy, "you will vote till we have yes" - EU definition of democracy.

Who said that? I don't remember the EU saying that. You wouldn't be joining the tediously overstuffed ranks of people making stuff up to be annoyed about, would you?

dlouth15 · 08-07-2014 11:21pm

MarkK wrote: »

What do you mean by "in there own right"?
They are applying to participate in the EEA as it is a requirement for EU membership.

However the question is why if it is a deal between the EU and three non-EU EEA countries (which is what is being asserted), is there any need for separate application at all? This is the question I put to View some time ago and it hasn't yet been answered.

View also suggested that it was somewhat like the EU-Korea trade deal. However nowhere are EU countries required to sign up individually to deals such as this. If you look at the recent accession treaty of Croatia, they are explicitly required to apply for EEA membership. However they are merely required to abide by any and all EU trade deals unless explicitly exempted.

So the are applying to join as EU members. As I understand it EEA countries participate as either EFTA members or EU members, they do not join merely as individual countries.

But again the example of Croatia goes against this. They were EU members and duly sent in their EEA application. However their membership of the EEA was delayed due to various requirements not being met (I'm not sure if they are actually in the EEA yet). This means that EEA membership is considered on an individual country basis. Merely being in the EU is not a guarantee of entry to the EEA.

The EEA agreement allows the EEA EFTA states to adopt a subset of EU single market regulations.
Whereas EU members negotiate single market regulations at EU level.

It does indeed allow this, but the way they allow it is by "mirroring" EU legislation concerning certain aspects of the single market. Free movement of people, for example, is specified by EU law. EEA countries (both EU and non-EU) agree to adopt this same law separately under the EEA agreement. In the case of EU countries, of course, it doesn't make any difference. But in the case of non-EU countries, it means that they can trade with all the other EEA countries (both EU and non-EU) on the same basis as EU countries trade with each other.

Why exactly it is done this way I don't know. Probably for legal reasons at the time of the agreement. Possibly now it would be done differently and would be more like View's example of the EU-Korea trade deal. However that is not the case with the EEA as it stands.

The point of all this, is that since EU countries are full EEA members with the same standing as non-EU countries, it is not the case that: "If the UK leaves the EU, they have NO trade arrangement with the EU. They would need to negotiate one from scratch", which was stated earlier in the thread by View.

This means that as one of the four freedoms, trade in Financial Services would continue with the EU under the same rules as it currently does which renders false another statement by View: "Alternatively, the EU could propose a free trade agreement for goods only which excludes (financial) services. That would set the cat amongst the pigeons in Westminister at a guess. :-)" Unfortunately they can't do this to an EEA member without renegotiating the entire EEA agreement.

MarkK · 08-07-2014 11:55pm

dlouth15 wrote: »

However the question is why if it is a deal between the EU and three non-EU EEA countries (which is what is being asserted), is there any need for separate application at all? This is the question I put to View some time ago and it hasn't yet been answered.

It has been answered, there is a need, as the EEA agreement requires it.

dlouth15 wrote: »

View also suggested that it was somewhat like the EU-Korea trade deal. However nowhere are EU countries required to sign up individually to deals such as this. If you look at the recent accession treaty of Croatia, they are explicitly required to apply for EEA membership. However they are merely required to abide by any and all EU trade deals unless explicitly exempted.

The EEA is far more than a "trade deal" it also involves adopting ongoing measures decided by the EU, the four freedoms etc.

dlouth15 wrote: »

But again the example of Croatia goes against this. They were EU members and duly sent in their EEA application. However their membership of the EEA was delayed due to various requirements not being met (I'm not sure if they are actually in the EEA yet). This means that EEA membership is considered on an individual country basis. Merely being in the EU is not a guarantee of entry to the EEA.

No, it only means you don't have have completed the procedure to participate in the EEA agreement by the time you join the EU.
There is a transition process for new members. Croatia is in transition and not all EU rules apply yet.

dlouth15 wrote: »

It does indeed allow this, but the way they allow it is by "mirroring" EU legislation concerning certain aspects of the single market. Free movement of people, for example, is specified by EU law. EEA countries (both EU and non-EU) agree to adopt this same law separately under the EEA agreement. In the case of EU countries, of course, it doesn't make any difference. But in the case of non-EU countries, it means that they can trade with all the other EEA countries (both EU and non-EU) on the same basis as EU countries trade with each other.

Why exactly it is done this way I don't know.

The EFTA EEA states are not members of the EU, the EEA agreement is the mechanism used to allow the EFTA EEA states to participate in the single market with the EU states.

dlouth15 wrote: »

The point of all this, is that since EU countries are full EEA members with the same standing as non-EU countries ...

That is not true, the status of EU countries and EFTA countries is different.

It's all there in the link I posted earlier

http://www.efta.int/eea/eea-agreement/eea-basic-features

dlouth15 · 09-07-2014 1:55am

MarkK wrote: »

It has been answered, there is a need, as the EEA agreement requires it.

So according to you the reason it is a requirement is that it is a requirement. Sorry but that doesn't answer the question. Why is it a requirement in the first place if it is as has been suggested a deal between the EU and three EFTA states?

The EEA is far more than a "trade deal" it also involves adopting ongoing measures decided by the EU, the four freedoms etc.

I did not bring up the example of the EU-Korea trade deal. Read what I said.

No, it only means you don't have have completed the procedure to participate in the EEA agreement by the time you join the EU.
There is a transition process for new members. Croatia is in transition and not all EU rules apply yet.

The EU requirement to join apply to join the EEA is in effect and Croatia have duly complied with that requirement. The delay is between Croatia and the EEA and has nothing to do with the EU.

The EFTA EEA states are not members of the EU, the EEA agreement is the mechanism used to allow the EFTA EEA states to participate in the single market with the EU states.

This is just repeating what you said earlier. My response was that it does indeed provide that mechanism but in a certain way in that it is an agreement between a large number of countries comprising the EEA, both EU and non-EU (the EFTA EEA states) that agree to operate under certain EU rules regardless of EU status.

That is not true, the status of EU countries and EFTA countries is different.

In what way? Please quote the original agreement for evidence of you assertion.

Remember the core issue here which is being disputed is whether or not the UK upon leaving the EU automatically leaves the EEA. So far no evidence has been provided that it does in fact leave the EEA automatically though of course it may choose to leave both.

McDave · 09-07-2014 7:18pm

kult wrote: »

Demonstrate living through communism? LOL

Demonstrate how "EU works exactly like old soviet" (as you assert).

It's already obvious you know precious little about "living through communism".

MarkK · 09-07-2014 7:54pm

dlouth15 wrote: »

So according to you the reason it is a requirement is that it is a requirement. Sorry but that doesn't answer the question. Why is it a requirement in the first place if it is as has been suggested a deal between the EU and three EFTA states?

You have changed the question, you are now asking, why was the requirement included in text of the EEA agreement.

That is different to the question I was answering which was:

dlouth15 wrote: »

However the question is why if it is a deal between the EU and three non-EU EEA countries (which is what is being asserted), is there any need for separate application at all?

Pretty much the entire text of the EEA agreement shows that the position of the EU member states and the EFTA EEA states is different, for example.

From the text of the EEA agreement:
Article 126.1
The Agreement shall apply to the territories to which the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community is applied and under the conditions laid down in that Treaty, and to the territories of Iceland, the Principality of Liechtenstein and the Kingdom of Norway.

The issue with Croatia appears to have been resolved, the 2014 enlargement has been agreed:
http://www.efta.int/sites/default/files/documents/legal-texts/eea-enlargement/2014/Agreement-signatures.pdf

Why are the British so anti Europe?

Comments