‘Second-class’ EU status proposed for UK

Scofflaw

A group of senior politicians in Brussels is to propose “second-class” EU status for Britain in a dramatic shift in thinking by the strongest supporters of a united Europe.

They are to suggest that the UK should become an “associate member” under plans which would result in it staying in the EU’s single market but being stripped of its commissioner in Brussels, MEPs, and its right of veto in the European Council.

Source (paywalled): http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article3643929.ece

The group in question is the Union of European Federalists, so this is not an official suggestion, but it does seem to be reflective of a broader wave of thinking, and it's interesting to see more concrete suggestions forthcoming about the UK's possible options in the event of a referendum on EU membership.

The suggested "associate" status doesn't seem to be quite the same thing as EEA/EFTA membership such as Norway's, which itself has been described by an extensive Norwegian review as "three-quarters membership", and which Norwegian senior politicians have warned would result in the UK becoming a "lobby nation":

Britain would become a “lobby nation” if it left the EU, finding itself competing with big corporations and special interest groups to try to influence Brussels, senior figures in Norway have warned.

The oil-rich Nordic country, which twice rejected EU membership in referendums, has taken 75 per cent of all legislation from Brussels since 1992 despite having no say over its content.

The report in question is available here should anyone wish to read it - I would have thought it would be required reading for UK voters, at the least, since it considers in depth EEA membership, and the legislative consequences of access to the single market:

The EEA agreement obliges Norway to adopt all EU law governing the internal market. It was set up to be both ‘dynamic and homogeneous': to automatically integrate single market laws. Norway can, in theory, refuse to adopt EU legislation, but this has never happened – it could trigger the end of the deal. When the EEA agreement was signed, it contained 1,849 legal acts; by the beginning of 2011, there were 4,502 active legal acts – including 1,369 directives and 1,349 regulations.

The authors of “Outside and inside” calculate that EU legislation accounts for one third of Norway's laws – roughly the same as for a fully-fledged member of the EU. But this is legislation that Norway had no say in forming, shaping or deciding, and only a handful of laws have been debated in the country's parliament. In the 1990s, perhaps all that was needed for legislation to be implemented was a fax received in Oslo. These days, as Fredrik Sejersted – one of the report's authors – points out, all the Norwegian government has to do is press the download button.

cordially,
Scofflaw

average_runner

Scofflaw wrote: »

Source (paywalled): http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article3643929.ece

The group in question is the Union of European Federalists, so this is not an official suggestion, but it does seem to be reflective of a broader wave of thinking, and it's interesting to see more concrete suggestions forthcoming about the UK's possible options in the event of a referendum on EU membership.

The suggested "associate" status doesn't seem to be quite the same thing as EEA/EFTA membership such as Norway's, which itself has been described by an extensive Norwegian review as "three-quarters membership", and which Norwegian senior politicians have warned would result in the UK becoming a "lobby nation":



The report in question is available here should anyone wish to read it - I would have thought it would be required reading for UK voters, at the least, since it considers in depth EEA membership, and the legislative consequences of access to the single market:



cordially,
Scofflaw

Another non story. EU needs funding from UK so nothing will happen.

Scofflaw

average_runner wrote: »

Another non story. EU needs funding from UK so nothing will happen.

To be honest, I'm not sure what the relevance of that comment is supposed to be, or what misunderstanding of the situation it represents. The EU doesn't decide on whether the UK continues in the EU, the UK does, and the UK is gearing up for a referendum on membership. The question is what alternative positions might be open to the UK if they reject full EU membership, and this proposal might represent one such possibility. That's an important question, because I doubt the UK government will want to offer a straight in-or-out choice in such a referendum, but a choice between full membership and other associations.

cordially,
Scofflaw

getz

Scofflaw wrote: »

To be honest, I'm not sure what the relevance of that comment is supposed to be, or what misunderstanding of the situation it represents. The EU doesn't decide on whether the UK continues in the EU, the UK does, and the UK is gearing up for a referendum on membership. The question is what alternative positions might be open to the UK if they reject full EU membership, and this proposal might represent one such possibility. That's an important question, because I doubt the UK government will want to offer a straight in-or-out choice in such a referendum, but a choice between full membership and other associations.

cordially,
Scofflaw

no doubt the UKs three big parties will go for that ,but i very much doubt that the british public will except it,latest poll by the canadian firm angus reid say 50% of the british public want out,even in germany half the public say they have no confidence in the EU,also asian banks have warned that to expect the UK to leave,it may be just the start of the EU changes

Solair

Any particular reason why they keep letting countries into the common market without being in the EU itself?

It sort of undermines the whole concept as in makes it pointless.

It's all half / half out stuff.

Same with the Eurozone. How can you have some countries in a common currency with huge burdens placed on them and others with the ability use free-floating currencies all in a single market!

Can you imagine the US having some states using the Dollar and sticking to fiscal limits etc while others were using the Californian Peso or the Texan Mark or whatever.

From an Irish perspective, all it will mean is the UK will be trading in the same market, with its own currency, no obligations to the EU whatsoever and we'll have to compete head-on with it for everything.

We'll have to deal with all sorts of regulatory requirements, contributions to budgets, Eurozone fiscal stuff etc etc etc etc

Seems 100% unfair to me.

If it wants to leave, it should just leave. It's like asking for a divorce, but keeping all the marriage perks.

getz

Solair wrote: »

Any particular reason why they keep letting countries into the common market without being in the EU itself?

It sort of undermines the whole concept as in makes it pointless.

It's all half / half out stuff.

Same with the Eurozone. How can you have some countries in a common currency with huge burdens placed on them and others with the ability use free-floating currencies all in a single market!

Can you imagine the US having some states using the Dollar and sticking to fiscal limits etc while others were using the Californian Peso or the Texan Mark or whatever.

From an Irish perspective, all it will mean is the UK will be trading in the same market, with its own currency, no obligations to the EU whatsoever and we'll have to compete head-on with it for everything.

Seems 100% unfair to me.

the eurozone is a separate issue within the EU,

Solair

getz wrote: »

the eurozone is a separate issue within the EU,

Yeah but it's just more of the same half-in / half-out nonsense.

It just seems instead of a 2-tier Europe, it's more like a 5 or 6 tier Europe.

If the Eurozone wasn't supported by everyone, and many countries refused to join, it should never have happened.

I've been in situations where currency fluctuations i.e. mostly the dropping in value of Sterling vs Euro at various points, resulted in tenders for jobs suddenly being pulled out from under us and our prices being forced way down.

We're expected to compete with UK (and other EU non EZ companies) in a single market and actually forced to compete with them by EU tendering law for public projects. I don't see why they should have the same level of access.

Nor do I see why, if the UK basically storms off that it shouldn't be told best of luck, you're now out of the single market.

As it stands, I don't even see what the point of having the EU is if it's a case that every tom, dick and harry can half this kind of quasi-membership arrangement.

The EU's also now negotiating full open markets with Japan and purposing the same with the USA. While there are some advantages to that, there are also huge risks and huge potential for EU companies to be wiped off the map when those trade barriers are thrown open.

I don't think the EU knows what it's up to to be perfectly honest. It's all a sort of wishy washy notion of expanding markets and keeping everyone on board at all costs.

If the UK continuously says it wants to leave, let it leave. That's up to the UK. However, I don't see why we should have to put up with competing on a level playing field with it in a single market after it's gone.

getz

Solair wrote: »

Yeah but it's just more of the same half-in / half-out nonsense.

it certainly did not help,when they set up a club within a club,then expect non-erozone countries to bail them out.

Solair

getz wrote: »

it certainly did not help,when they set up a club within a club,then expect non-erozone countries to bail them out.

That's just more of the same confused mess though.

I don't think the EU really knows what it is. It's turned into a bit amorphous mess.

I'm not being pro or anti EU here, I just think as the system stands at the moment, it's just directionless and seems to have no idea what it's doing / where it's going with so many layers and tiers and nuances that nobody really knows what's going on anymore.

I just find it worrying that the EU on the one hand tries to be a federal state in some respects, e.g. the Euro, the ECB, the Fiscal Compact Treaty, CAP, Schengen... etc etc..
Yet, on the other hand if anyone dares mention the notion of setting up a proper, democratic, accountable federation everyone throws their toys out of the pram and sulks, so it's never mentioned and we continue marching on into some kind of quasi-democratic, quasi-federal, multi-tier mess instead.

This is probably whey we have had the Euro crisis, i.e. nobody bothered setting the system up properly or thinking of what the economic consequences might be with half a federal fiscal system in place and no ability to agree on a single way to run it.

The banks were let run riot and run rings around the system because the politicians were too busy desperately bolting it together and only looking at one view of what could possibly happen while completely ignoring anyone who thought that it might be a problem!

I've no doubt that if we continue the way we are going, without fixing the system or abandoning it, we are going to run into other major problems too!

I just think the UK leaving is going to create yet another tier of membership, which will just further complicate things and further mess it up.

They should simply be booted out to the EEA if they're not keen on participating.

getz

Solair wrote: »

That's just more of the same confused mess though.

I don't think the EU really knows what it is. It's turned into a bit amorphous mess.

I'm not being pro or anti EU here, I just think as the system stands at the moment, it's just directionless and seems to have no idea what it's doing / where it's going with so many layers and tiers and nuances that nobody really knows what's going on anymore.

I just find it worrying that the EU on the one hand tries to be a federal state in some respects, e.g. the Euro, the ECB, the Fiscal Compact Treaty, CAP, Schengen... etc etc..
Yet, on the other hand if anyone dares mention the notion of setting up a proper, democratic, accountable federation everyone throws their toys out of the pram and sulks, so it's never mentioned and we continue marching on into some kind of quasi-democratic, quasi-federal, multi-tier mess instead.

This is probably whey we have had the Euro crisis, i.e. nobody bothered setting the system up properly or thinking of what the economic consequences might be with half a federal fiscal system in place and no ability to agree on a single way to run it.

The banks were let run riot and run rings around the system because the politicians were too busy desperately bolting it together and only looking at one view of what could possibly happen while completely ignoring anyone who thought that it might be a problem!

I've no doubt that if we continue the way we are going, without fixing the system or abandoning it, we are going to run into other major problems too!

I just think the UK leaving is going to create yet another tier of membership, which will just further complicate things and further mess it up.

They should simply be booted out to the EEA if they're not keen on participating.

i thing the same thing has been said many a time about those countries that got the euro in the mess it is,portugal,spain ,ireland ,ect

Solair

getz wrote: »

i thing the same thing has been said many a time about those countries that got the euro in the mess it is,portugal,spain ,ireland ,ect

No it hasn't, as none of those countries veto everything and constantly threaten to leave nor do the throw endless spanners in the works at every turn !

The Greeks were most definitely helped to get into the Euro though because nobody wanted to look too hard at their accounts. Ireland, Spain and Portugal met all criteria with flying colours.

In fact, one of the biggest shouters for their expulsion were the UK financial media and tabloids! The Germany tabloids too.

Scofflaw

Solair wrote: »

Any particular reason why they keep letting countries into the common market without being in the EU itself?

It sort of undermines the whole concept as in makes it pointless.

It's all half / half out stuff.

Same with the Eurozone. How can you have some countries in a common currency with huge burdens placed on them and others with the ability use free-floating currencies all in a single market!

Can you imagine the US having some states using the Dollar and sticking to fiscal limits etc while others were using the Californian Peso or the Texan Mark or whatever.

From an Irish perspective, all it will mean is the UK will be trading in the same market, with its own currency, no obligations to the EU whatsoever and we'll have to compete head-on with it for everything.

We'll have to deal with all sorts of regulatory requirements, contributions to budgets, Eurozone fiscal stuff etc etc etc etc

Seems 100% unfair to me.

If it wants to leave, it should just leave. It's like asking for a divorce, but keeping all the marriage perks.

Actually, it is quite like divorce, but for different reasons - if the UK wants access to the kids (the single market) it will have to pony up maintenance payments (about half what it currently pays, based on contributions equivalent to Norway's €350m annual payment to the EU) and abide by nearly all the marital obligations (about 75% of existing EU legislation). If it wants any input into those rules, it will have to lobby like a multinational.

Of course, it will be free to make its own trade arrangements with third countries. As a market of 65m people, though, it might not get the same preferential deals the EU arranges - it will have to pay a singles supplement everywhere it goes.

In effect, it seems likely the UK will wind up with two "special relationships" - the US will dictate its foreign policy, and the EU will dictate its commercial policy.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Hmm. More from the British business community, which isn't happy about the apparently inexorable march to Brixit:

The influential business lobby said that the UK had ensured free and open trade in Europe over the last 40 years, adding it was essential for Britain to "stay at the table".

David Cameron, the prime minister, is considering Britain's place in Europe. In the new year, he is expected to outline plans for a referendum in 2015, which would offer voters a choice between a new relationship with Europe and leaving altogether.

However, the CBI warned that businesses "don't want the baby thrown out with the bathwater".

"The debate about our future in Europe in 2013 must be based on an informed, hard-headed analysis of where our long-term economic and financial interests lie and business will need to make its voice heard," said John Cridland, CBI director-general.

“We need global trade deals to drive growth and create jobs, especially when the domestic economy is growing more slowly than required. Businesses don’t want the baby thrown out with the bathwater – not with 50pc of our exports heading to Europe."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/9772519/Britain-must-embrace-EU-to-bang-drum-for-business-says-CBI.html

In the Telegraph, no less...

cordially,
Scofflaw

Solair

Scofflaw wrote: »

Actually, it is quite like divorce, but for different reasons - if the UK wants access to the kids (the single market) it will have to pony up maintenance payments (about half what it currently pays, based on contributions equivalent to Norway's €350m annual payment to the EU) and abide by nearly all the marital obligations (about 75% of existing EU legislation). If it wants any input into those rules, it will have to lobby like a multinational.

Of course, it will be free to make its own trade arrangements with third countries. As a market of 65m people, though, it might not get the same preferential deals the EU arranges - it will have to pay a singles supplement everywhere it goes.

In effect, it seems likely the UK will wind up with two "special relationships" - the US will dictate its foreign policy, and the EU will dictate its commercial policy.

cordially,
Scofflaw

That's not what the general public in the UK seems to understand. They mostly seem to think they can just retain full access without any other commitments.

Facts don't seem to enter into it.

gallag

Solair wrote: »

That's not what the general public in the UK seems to understand. They mostly seem to think they can just retain full access without any other commitments.

Facts don't seem to enter into it.

I think that they are assuming the eu countrys will not want to cut of their nose to spite their face with traid restrictions on a net importer country. Its the piece of the puzzle you guys keep missing out. The eu will crash and burn with or without the uk, country's like spain, Greece and ireland will insure that.

Scofflaw

gallag wrote: »

I think that they are assuming the eu countrys will not want to cut of their nose to spite their face with traid restrictions on a net importer country. Its the piece of the puzzle you guys keep missing out. The eu will crash and burn with or without the uk, country's like spain, Greece and ireland will insure that.

The EU would crash and burn without the UK? So on the one hand the UK can find replacement export markets with no difficulty at all, but the poor old EU countries just couldn't?

No special pleading there, I guess...

cordially,
Scofflaw

gallag

Scofflaw wrote: »

The EU would crash and burn without the UK? So on the one hand the UK can find replacement export markets with no difficulty at all, but the poor old EU countries just couldn't?

No special pleading there, I guess...

cordially,
Scofflaw

So out of "the eu will crash and burn with or without the uk" you take it to mean the eu will crash and burn without the uk? Mabey you read it wrong but to be clear I believe the eu project is on the road to failure with OR without the uk, like a buisness with more and more subsidiarys going bust it will fail.

Scofflaw

gallag wrote: »

So out of "the eu will crash and burn with or without the uk" you take it to mean the eu will crash and burn without the uk? Mabey you read it wrong but to be clear

Thanks, and you're correct, I had misread it!

gallag wrote: »

I believe the eu project is on the road to failure with OR without the uk, like a buisness with more and more subsidiarys going bust it will fail.

The difference between a business and a political project is that political projects don't fail as long as the political will is there to maintain them in existence. In fact, not even companies fail if the political will is there to maintain them - hence our banks (and the UK's). With the exception primarily of the UK, the political will is there, and indeed the main reason for the UK wanting to jump ship at this point is not the difficulties in Europe, but that the response to those difficulties is further EU integration.

cordially,
Scofflaw

getz

at this stage,the UK leaving the EU is speculation,all that has been said is that the goverment will give its citizens a vote on it,but with certain senior EU officials getting themselfs involved [like they did in the irish vote] and telling the people of UK they will be second class citizens,will be like showing a red rag to a bull,many of the not made up my mind yet will now want out, the UKIP must be laughing their heads off.

Fratton Fred

Solair wrote: »

Yeah but it's just more of the same half-in / half-out nonsense.

It just seems instead of a 2-tier Europe, it's more like a 5 or 6 tier Europe.

If the Eurozone wasn't supported by everyone, and many countries refused to join, it should never have happened.

I've been in situations where currency fluctuations i.e. mostly the dropping in value of Sterling vs Euro at various points, resulted in tenders for jobs suddenly being pulled out from under us and our prices being forced way down.

We're expected to compete with UK (and other EU non EZ companies) in a single market and actually forced to compete with them by EU tendering law for public projects. I don't see why they should have the same level of access.

Nor do I see why, if the UK basically storms off that it shouldn't be told best of luck, you're now out of the single market.

As it stands, I don't even see what the point of having the EU is if it's a case that every tom, dick and harry can half this kind of quasi-membership arrangement.

The EU's also now negotiating full open markets with Japan and purposing the same with the USA. While there are some advantages to that, there are also huge risks and huge potential for EU companies to be wiped off the map when those trade barriers are thrown open.

I don't think the EU knows what it's up to to be perfectly honest. It's all a sort of wishy washy notion of expanding markets and keeping everyone on board at all costs.

If the UK continuously says it wants to leave, let it leave. That's up to the UK. However, I don't see why we should have to put up with competing on a level playing field with it in a single market after it's gone.

where do you stop? if all members should join the eurozone so that currency fluctuations do not prevent competition, then surely all countries should have the same level of taxation and even minimum wage.