These two sentences seem to disagree with each other. The former implies an “opt-in” / ratification process while the latter suggests it’s just an “opt-out” option.
I apparently don’t. What all is there to negotiate? New trade agreements? Visa / emigration rules?
It’s not a contradiction, it’s just bad writing – no surprise in today’s journalism. Originally this was supposed to be just a vote of the European Parliament and executive concurrence by the member governments. It’s now been deemed that it should be a ratification process that requires a favorable parliamentary vote in each member nation. This gives the parliament of any one nation effective veto power over the whole thing for all of the EU.
[QUOTE=HurricaneDitka]
What all is there to negotiate? New trade agreements? Visa / emigration rules?
[/QUOTE]
Trade agreements, agreements over various non-trade matters that the UK is subject to as part of the EU, such as over air traffic control. Free movement of labour is another big question, because apparently that was one of the main issues that prompted people to vote Leave.
There are various opinions on the trade question. Some say that, since the UK and the EU countries are bound by World Trade Organisation rules, and already trade quite happily with non-EU countries according to those rules, there is no need to negotiate any special trade deal with the EU; the UK can leave the EU promptly and simply trade with it more or less like it trades with everybody else. The EU’s share of world GDP, and of UK exports, is steadily dwindling, they point out.
Others dispute that, saying that
- The WTO rules are not adequate, and most trade between major economies takes place under some trade agreements or other that go beyond basic WTO rules.
- The WTO-only camp are preoccupied with tariffs, which these days are less important than Non-Tariff Barriers (NTBs), such as product regulations. The WTO provisions relating to NTBs are weak.
- It is not sufficient to merely conform with a target market’s regulations. You must also be able to show that your exports conform. This is automatic for UK exports to the EU, and would have to be replaced with appropriate agreements and mechanisms. Otherwise exports to the EU could be severely hampered.
Basically, there would be a lot of detailed stuff to agree on. People in this camp are either for staying in the EU, or if pro-Leave are for getting an agreement with the EU to stay in the EEA and hence in the single market, at least for however long it takes to implement the necessary agreements, which some say could be ten years. But it’s not clear how the UK could be in the single market and at the same time restrict free movement of labour.
I should say that there are other options in the second camp. There’s the “Switzerland option”, where the UK negotiates various bilateral agreements with the EU. But that would take far longer than two years, and anyway nobody really likes the Swiss arrangement, so the EU is unlikely to want to go that way. Then there’s the Canada option, where the the UK negotiates a single all-encompassing bilateral agreement with the EU, like Canada’s CETA. But that will take ages too. CETA negotiations have taken years, and it has not been ratified yet.
The “stay in the EEA” approach above has been dubbed the Norway option. Its appeal is that it is simpler, since is is similar to existing arrangements, and so could perhaps be concluded within two years.
It’s unlikely in the extreme that the UK is going get free movement of goods, services, & capital without free movement of labor.
[QUOTE=Ximenean]
The “stay in the EEA” approach above has been dubbed the Norway option. Its appeal is that it is simpler, since is is similar to existing arrangements, and so could perhaps be concluded within two years.
[/QUOTE]
Joining the EEA would give the UK the worst of both worlds. They’d still be subject to EU regulations, have to allow free movement of labor, and contribute to the EU budget, but wouldn’t any vote in Brussels on what those regulations are or how that money is spent. True the UK would get to set it’s own agricultural & fisheries policies, but it doesn’t look like either of those were major sticking points with the Leave camp.
I’m not sure it’s necessarily the worst of both worlds. Like Norway, the UK would only be subject to EU law that relates to the single market, not the entire body of EU law as it is now. Norway’s payments to the EU are a lot less than the UK’s too, relative to per-capita GDP.
The UK would also gain the freedom to lower (or raise) tariffs on non-EU imports (subject to WTO rules), to negotiate trade agreements with other countries, and to have independent representation on various global organisations, rather than just being represented as part of the EU.
It’s fairly clear that that’s impossible.
Free movement isn’t some kind of quid pro quo tacked on as the price of access to the single market; it’s an intrinsic part of the single market. If shoemakers (say) from Glasgow aren’t free to go and make shoes in Genoa, and vice versa, then Glasgwegian shoemakers and Genoese shoemakers are not operating in a single market.
So, if you don’t have free movement, you are by definition not participating in the single market. When a British politician calls for access to the single market, but the UK to have control of immigration, what the world hears is “We want to participate in the single market! We don’t want to participate in the single market!” That’s obviously a completely incoherent position from which to try and negotiate; hence (I suspect) the reluctance of the Commission and the other member states to start early, informal negotiations with the UK. The UK needs to articulate a coherent stance or any negotiations will just turn into a complete train wreck. The hope is that waiting until the Art. 50 notice has been served gives the (largely pro-Remain) UK establishment time and space in which to nut out a coherent Brexit position. Because, right now, they don’t really have one.
But I don’t think they’re calculated relative to per capita GDP, are they? I have seen suggestions that, if the Norway formula were applied to the UK as an EEA member, the UK would pay more or less what it now pays as an EU member, taking account of the rebate.
I’m not sure that the UK wants the single market, just free trade.
If so, they need to say so.
I suspect, in fact, their ideal is more than just free trade, but less than the single market. Less than the single market, in that they don’t want to accept free movement. But more than free trade, in that they won’t be satisfied with just no tariffs on UK goods and services. They’ll want few or no non-tariff barriers, meaning that UK producers should not have to go through processes and procedures that EU producers don’t have to go through. But that will require that the UK should undertake to implement and enforce EU legislation on product standards, quality control, etc - all the stuff that the Leave campaign has been deriding as “straight banana” legislation. And that’s what EEA membership involves - still subject to a raft of EU legislation, but less much less say in how it gets formed.
So, yeah, some tough choices to be made on the UK’s part. Control of immigration plus not being subject to EU product legislation is simply not compatible with unfettered access for UK producers to EU markets. The UK will have to prioritise and compromise.
Making those agreements takes years, if not decades, tho. And they are still filled with red tape and concessions everywhere.
Impasse, yes. Not sure I’d go quite as far as “impossible”. Some people have talked about a “Leichtenstein” option, wherein there is some kind of restriction on complete freedom of movement. Also, when I look at rights of EU citizens to work and live in Norway, they seem more restrictive than those available in EU countries. For example, you either have to have a job, or find one in six months, or have substantial personal funds to support yourself. At least, AIUI. If true, that might placate some of the Leavers?
Still, let’s assume that the only way the UK will be allowed into the EEA is if it accepts full freedom of movement. Would this be politically acceptable in the UK? I think it might. Let’s say about half of those who voted Leave were strongly motivated by immigration. That leaves another ~25% of voters from the Leave side, and ~50% from the Remain side (who would obviously prefer not leaving the EU at all, but if we have to leave would presumably settle for EEA as the least bad option). ~70% support for EEA might make it viable. The other half of Leavers would be pissed off and we’d probably be looking at a bloc of UKIP MPs at the next election, though.
I saw an estimate somewhere that the UK’s net contribution would be something like 17% less. Depends on the deal, I suppose. The EU contribution is not that big a deal in the grand scheme of things, anyway. The contribution is something like 0.5% of GDP.
I think much depends upon the economic circumstances of the next few years. Most people assume the UK will suffer temporarily from Brexit, and these people are probably correct. What I am hearing less of are the possible adverse consequences to the continent of Brexit and general economic uncertainty. We are quite likely to see more EU bank bailouts, another sovereign debt crisis or a variety of other crises. In theory this should knock some negotiating heads together. Leaders from the UK and EU may well be pressured into a fast tracked accommodation of mutual self interest.
Well, yeah, sure, if the recession continues and there’s no recovery in Europe, eventually everything’s going to crumble.
It shouldn’t, if the Leavers are well informed, since those are in fact the terms which regulate the UK’s existing freedom of movement obligations.
Norway is a member of the Schengen group, and therefore there are no movement controls of any kind between Norway and other Schengen countries. But of course the UK is not in Schengen, so the position as regards immigration into the UK from all EEA and EU countries (and emigration from the UK to EEA and EU countries) is governed by the Free Movement directive, the terms of which you have summarised in your post.
Standard terms for admission of a new member of the EEA are that it must join the Schengen agreement. I think it’s safe to say that this would not be politically acceptable in the UK. The UK could probably negotiate transition from the EU to the EEA on the basis that it retains its current Schengen opt-out. Would that be politically acceptable? It basically means no change at all from the UK’s current position in regard to free movement.
Nigel Farage is still an active Member of the European Parliament, he has ONLY stepped down as the leader of UKIP
Well, “active” might be putting it a bit strongly. He is ranked 746th (out of 751 MEPs) based on the number of parliamentary votes that he takes part in, and in the present Parliament has produced 0 reports and 0 opinions, and has asked 3 parliamentary questions. He sits on 0 parliamentary committees and has taken part in 0 parliamentary delegations.
I spent the BREXIT campaign out on the streets talking to ordinary people and there was a strong opinion that immigration had to stop and that illegal immigrants must be deported. Legal immigrants who are working, pay their taxes and obey the laws of the UK were considered welcome to stay.
The referendum has opened up the conversation about immigration and people are openly speaking their minds, yes you do have the extremists, BNP, National Front and Combat 18 but they thankfully are in the minority
My experience is not really the same. Many seem to confound ‘illegal’ and ‘legal’ immigrants into the same ‘unwelcome’ category. Seeing as EU migrants are legally here, your argument suggests Free Movement should stay, no?