The Brexit referendum thread: potential consequences for GB, EU and the Brits in CH

[lewton]

	Quote:	Wollishofener
	CH never joined EEA, neither EFTA, only Norway and FL THE Point of EFTA is free trade and controlled movement of people

How is this the point if 3 of the 4 members of the FTA have free movement for EU/EFTA nationals?

[Jim2007]

	Quote:	Pachyderm
	From these fearless journalistic endeavours, we get this sort of stuff disclosed by a Norwegian minister to an obscure newspaper, when asked about the UK joining EFTA (which as far as I know, we have not suggested doing) -- "It’s not certain that it would be a good idea" Thank you @marton. What a fantastically useful quote that is, about a non-existent event. Please keep entertaining us.

So unless it's a newspaper you've heard of it's obscure. I know facts are a terrible nuisance for some people epically when they interfere with your opinion, but the fact is that Aftenposten is anything but obscure.

Oh and I think if you take the time to do a bit of research you'll also find that EFTA membership is being suggested on a serious level as a possible option.

[marton]

	Quote:	Wollishofener
	CH never joined EEA, neither EFTA, only Norway and FL THE Point of EFTA is free trade and controlled movement of people

EFTA was founded in 1960 by the following seven countries: Austria, Denmark, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom.
Finland joined in 1961, Iceland in 1970 and Liechtenstein in 1991. In 1973, the United Kingdom and Denmark left EFTA to join the EC.

Switzerland declined to join EEA but is still an EFTA member.

[Medea Fleecestealer]

And now only 2 original countries left in it - Norway and Switzerland.

And again, no free trade without free movement.

"Free movement of people within the EEA

A citizen of an EFTA country can live and work in all other EFTA countries and in all EU countries, and a citizen of an EU country can live and work in all EFTA countries (but for voting and working in sensitive fields, such as government / police / military, citizenship is often required, and non-citizens may not have the same rights to welfare and unemployment benefits as citizens)."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe...on#Switzerland

The UK will not get free trade without the free movement, the EU will not budge on that point because it brings the whole question of the EU itself into question.

[Wollishofener]

	Quote:	lewton
	How is this the point if 3 of the 4 members of the FTA have free movement for EU/EFTA nationals?

CH refused to join the EEA---Agreements while Norway approved



EFTA is very flexible

[Wollishofener]

	Quote:	Medea Fleecestealer
	And now only 2 original countries left in it - Norway and Switzerland. And again, no free trade without free movement. "Free movement of people within the EEA A citizen of an EFTA country can live and work in all other EFTA countries and in all EU countries, and a citizen of an EU country can live and work in all EFTA countries (but for voting and working in sensitive fields, such as government / police / military, citizenship is often required, and non-citizens may not have the same rights to welfare and unemployment benefits as citizens)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe...on#Switzerland The UK will not get free trade without the free movement, the EU will not budge on that point because it brings the whole question of the EU itself into question.

the UK can negotiate with each country separately

	Quote:	Wollishofener
	the UK can negotiate with each country separately

If you mean EU countries, no they can't. It is illegal under EU law for an EU member state to make (or even negotiate) its own trade deals. On trade the EU must legally operate as a single block.


Nothing else makes sense anyway for a trade block.

[amogles]

	Quote:
	If you mean EU countries, no they can't. It is illegal under EU law for an EU member state to make (or even negotiate) its own trade deals. On trade the EU must legally operate as a single block.

That's the theory.

But in practice, countries do cherry pick. The French have always been very good at this for example.

Furthermore, if the impression arises that Germany is out to punish the UK at the expense of also hurting other EU countries, they may well end up with a rebellion on their hands.

So in effect Germany is going to try to walk the thin line between pretending to be uncompromising and tough, while actually trying to accomodate as many special interests as necessary.

[Jim2007]

	Quote:	amogles
	That's the theory.

No it is the law and the practice, until you show us a concrete example of a member state doing otherwise.

[marton]

	Quote:	amogles
	That's the theory. But in practice, countries do cherry pick. The French have always been very good at this for example. Furthermore, if the impression arises that Germany is out to punish the UK at the expense of also hurting other EU countries, they may well end up with a rebellion on their hands. So in effect Germany is going to try to walk the thin line between pretending to be uncompromising and tough, while actually trying to accomodate as many special interests as necessary.

"countries do cherry pick. The French have always been very good at this for example." Some examples would add to the credibility

Anyway the OP wrote that individual EU countries are not allowed to negotiate deals with non-EU countries; do you have an example of exactly such a non compliant deal?

[amogles]

	Quote:	marton
	"countries do cherry pick. The French have always been very good at this for example." Some examples would add to the credibility Anyway the OP wrote that individual EU countries are not allowed to negotiate deals with non-EU countries; do you have an example of exactly such a non compliant deal?

The UK has plenty of deals with places like the Channel Islands etc. A lot of them concerning trade.

France has plenty of deals with DOM / TOMs and former colonies. Ditto. Back in the 1990s there was even a spat between Germany and France because France was importing bananas from former colonies at advantageous rates.

The Netherlands with the ABCs etc.

And define non compliant. When Spain landed a deal to build high speed trains for Saudi, why did the Spanish king go over to play golf with his Saudi counter part? Wouldn't that have been Junker's job or some other EU commissioner? So it seems to me that not all authority on deals has been centralized.

[marton]

	Quote:	amogles
	The UK has plenty of deals with places like the Channel Islands etc. A lot of them concerning trade. France has plenty of deals with DOM / TOMs and former colonies. Ditto. Back in the 1990s there was even a spat between Germany and France because France was importing bananas from former colonies at advantageous rates. The Netherlands with the ABCs etc. And define non compliant. When Spain landed a deal to build high speed trains for Saudi, why did the Spanish king go over to play golf with his Saudi counter part? Wouldn't that have been Junker's job or some other EU commissioner? So it seems to me that not all authority on deals has been centralized.

The UK relationships with the channel islands are within EU law "The formal relationship between the Channel Islands and the EU is enshrined in Protocol 3 of the UK’s 1972 Accession Treaty, and confirmed in what is now Article 355 (5) (c) of the EU Treaties."

There is no UK free trade agreement with the Channel Islands because they are considered to be part of the EU for trade.

"France was importing bananas from former colonies at advantageous rates." This was not a French trade agreement with former colonies; this was the so called "EU banana import regime" which is part of an EU policy to give preferential trade treatment to former colonies of all EU countries.
Germany did object but not to France rather to the EU but did not veto the policy.

"Spain landed a deal to build high speed trains.." You do not seem to understand what a free trade agreement (FTA) is!
Essentially, FTAs are designed to reduce the barriers to trade between two or more countries, which are in place to help protect local markets and industries.
Trade barriers typically come in the form of tariffs and trade quotas plus often compliance and certification to local technical standards.

It is not a deal where a Govt. places an order with a company in another country for goods or services.

So you do not have any examples of EU countries forming FTAs with non-EU countries?

[amogles]

	Quote:	marton
	The UK relationships with the channel islands are within EU law "The formal relationship between the Channel Islands and the EU is enshrined in Protocol 3 of the UK’s 1972 Accession Treaty, and confirmed in what is now Article 355 (5) (c) of the EU Treaties."

In other words. It is an exception. Thus the rule has at least one exception.

	Quote:	marton
	It is not a deal where a Govt. places an order with a company in another country for goods or services.

Er no, the purchaser was a private company, maybe owned by the Saudi government or by individual members of the Saudi elite, but structured as a private company nevertheless. The company who made the trains or did the construction or whatever was a Spanish company, also a private company. The Spanish King was not an employee of said company. He went there to facilitate a trade deal between two private companies, one of which was in his country and thus in his responsibility as a head of state. He was not as a representative of the company. Therefore the Spanish state was involved in brokering or supporting a trade deal that was advantageous to a Spanish company. No?

If it were true that the EU has a monopoly on dealing with external trade negotiations of any type, then that would have been Junker's job, no?

	Quote:	marton
	So you do not have any examples of EU countries forming FTAs with non-EU countries?

???

Are you tryng to change the question now?

The statement I responded to was:

	Quote:
	If you mean EU countries, no they can't. It is illegal under EU law for an EU member state to make (or even negotiate) its own trade deals. On trade the EU must legally operate as a single block.

	Quote:	amogles
	In other words. It is an exception. Thus the rule has at least one exception.

No, not an exception. The agreement is between the Channel islands and the EU as a block. An agreement between, say, Germany and the Channel Islands would not be allowed.

There are, I believe, a few special arrangements in the treaties that allow some level of special treatment for former colonies. These are clearly stated in the treaties and this does not allow for any additions.

	Quote:	amogles
	If it were true that the EU has a monopoly on dealing with external trade negotiations of any type...

FFS, now you're being deliberately obtuse. As you well know I was referring to individual state-to-state general trade agreements. Which are clearly prohibited. Any member state can sell its goods to the Saudi's (or whoever). What they can't do is negotiate an individual general trade agreement. So the UK, for example, legally cannot open separate negotiations with China on a general trade agreement. But they can still sell them as much Cheddar as they can under the EU conditions.

[marton]

	Quote:	amogles
	In other words. It is an exception. Thus the rule has at least one exception. Er no, the purchaser was a private company, maybe owned by the Saudi government or by individual members of the Saudi elite, but structured as a private company nevertheless. The company who made the trains or did the construction or whatever was a Spanish company, also a private company. The Spanish King was not an employee of said company. He went there to facilitate a trade deal between two private companies, one of which was in his country and thus in his responsibility as a head of state. He was not as a representative of the company. Therefore the Spanish state was involved in brokering or supporting a trade deal that was advantageous to a Spanish company. No? If it were true that the EU has a monopoly on dealing with external trade negotiations of any type, then that would have been Junker's job, no? ??? Are you tryng to change the question now? The statement I responded to was:

"In other words. It is an exception. Thus the rule has at least one exception."

I posted "The formal relationship between the Channel Islands and the EU..." A deal between the EU bloc and a non-EU country; please explain where you see an exception?

"then that would have been Junker's job" It would have been "Junker's job" (Junckers job?) if the deal had involved changes to EU tariffs or quotas; did it?

[amogles]

	Quote:	marton
	"In other words. It is an exception. Thus the rule has at least one exception." I posted "The formal relationship between the Channel Islands and the EU..." A deal between the EU bloc and a non-EU country; please explain where you see an exception?

So the Channel Islands have no closer relationship to the UK than they do to Bulgaria?

	Quote:
	"then that would have been Junker's job" It would have been "Junker's job" (Junckers job?) if the deal had involved changes to EU tariffs or quotas; did it?

Let me help you

trade
noun
the act or process of buying, selling, or exchanging commodities, at either wholesale or retail, within a country or between countries:
domestic trade; foreign trade.

I don't see much about tarrfiffs or quotas there.

So was the Spanish king, or was he not conbtributing to the act of buying or selling?

Are you sure you're not confusing trade with the regulation of tarde?

[marton]

	Quote:	amogles
	So the Channel Islands have no closer relationship to the UK than they do to Bulgaria? Let me help you trade noun the act or process of buying, selling, or exchanging commodities, at either wholesale or retail, within a country or between countries: domestic trade; foreign trade. I don't see much about tarrfiffs or quotas there. So was the Spanish king, or was he not conbtributing to the act of buying or selling? Are you sure you're not confusing trade with the regulation of tarde?

I suggest you read again what the original poster wrote instead of trying trying to spin their post into something else

[Jim2007]

	Quote:	amogles
	The UK has plenty of deals with places like the Channel Islands etc. A lot of them concerning trade.

And if you take the time to actually look at the treaty you would know that it includes a protocol to enable the participants of the CTA to engage in such deals.

	Quote:	amogles
	France has plenty of deals with DOM / TOMs and former colonies. Ditto. Back in the 1990s there was even a spat between Germany and France because France was importing bananas from former colonies at advantageous rates.

I'm not sure but I think think this was originally in the Lome Convention and later included as a protocol to the treaty.

	Quote:	amogles
	And define non compliant. When Spain landed a deal to build high speed trains for Saudi, why did the Spanish king go over to play golf with his Saudi counter part? Wouldn't that have been Junker's job or some other EU commissioner? So it seems to me that not all authority on deals has been centralized.

Of course not! The EU provides the framework, it is up to the individual states and the vendors in those states to avail of the opportunity. It's the same as Ireland's recent deal to export beef to the US and hundreds of other deals done by the various member states. The key question is why the UK felt it was unable to succeed where others have.

[marton]

	Quote:	Jim2007
	And if you take the time to actually look at the treaty you would know that it includes a protocol to enable the participants of the CTA to engage in such deals. I'm not sure but I think think this was originally in the Lome Convention and later included as a protocol to the treaty. Of course not! The EU provides the framework, it is up to the individual states and the vendors in those states to avail of the opportunity. It's the same as Ireland's recent deal to export beef to the US and hundreds of other deals done by the various member states. The key question is why the UK felt it was unable to succeed where others have.

EU countries are forbidden to negotiate FTAs with non EU countries.

Of course they can negotiate trade deals with non EU countries which are with the existing FTAs (i.e. EU tariffs, quotas, etc.); as you write " quite why the UK did not do so is a good question".

[Wollishofener]

	Quote:
	If you mean EU countries, no they can't. It is illegal under EU law for an EU member state to make (or even negotiate) its own trade deals. On trade the EU must legally operate as a single block. Nothing else makes sense anyway for a trade block.

There was no SINGLE BLOCK for Switzerland but CH had to gain approvals for all the bilaterals from all EU countries (THIS is what I mean)