Europe must rediscover 'its own identity, its own unity', says Pope Francis

[Vouthon]

Switzerland, it sounds like, has individual agreements with member EU states.

See:

Swiss option: no passport for banks - InFacts

Switzerland has access to only parts of the single market. A big omission is the vast majority of services, including finance.

infacts.org

Switzerland must adopt the same or equivalent product regulations to the EU – and it gets no vote on what those rules are. There is also no dispute mechanism so, if it gets into a fight with the EU over whether its companies have been fairly treated, there’s nothing it can do. The Swiss government has commented that it is “generally necessary to adopt developments of relevant EU law” to keep regulation equivalent. Switzerland also finds itself reacting to EU law in sectors where there are no agreements so as to keep its firms competitive.

What’s more, Switzerland maintains its access to EU markets only insofar as it keeps up with EU regulation. When Brussels changes its rules, Switzerland loses access – until it changes its laws too. That means its companies often suffer a delay in exporting when EU rules change.

It must also adopt equivalents to EU legislation in areas like employment and the Schengen area. This includes more controversial regulation like the Working Time Directive. Relations between the EU and Switzerland are governed by over 120 agreements. These have created a “complex and sometimes incoherent network of obligations, which are not easy to sustain”.

The agreements are also “static”; they don’t adapt to changes in EU legislation. So Switzerland doesn’t immediately benefit from deepening of the single market.

Switzerland is also required to allow immigration from the EU. Economically, this benefits Switzerland just as it does Britain. But for those who want to stop EU immigration, the Swiss option isn’t a good one.

Meanwhile, Switzerland still ends up paying quite a lot to keep its big neighbour happy. Since 2008, it has contributed SFr 1.3 billion (£880 million at January 2016 exchange rates) for development of eastern Europe. It has also funded major infrastructure projects for the EU’s benefit, most notably a €15 billion (£10.9 billion) transalpine railway network which allows EU countries to transport their goods through Switzerland but doesn’t do much for the Swiss themselves.

Despite all this, Switzerland gets only second-class access to the single market. The absence of a deal on services, which account for 78% of our GDP, would make this option a bad one for Britain.

Rather bizarre that, earlier in the thread, you touted Switzerland and Norway as Brexit examples for the UK that are A-OK “outside” the EU. Ummmm …if voluntary vassalage to a larger neighbour is your thing, I guess.

Personally I’d rather have a say in making the rules I’m required to comply with, as we do within the EU as a member state, but your mileage may vary.

 

[Vouthon]

If you want few or no barriers to your trade, you have to accept whatever people the EU wants you to take in

A good trade deal, like Canada has with the EU under CETA, can provide you with negotiated access to parts of the single market tarrif-free.

Some Brexiteers are down for that, and the EU is happy to negotiate it after our exit on the terms concluded with May (EU council president Donald Tusk Donald Tusk said back in 2018: “From the very beginning, the EU offer has been a Canada+++ deal – much further-reaching on trade”) but the problem is that this would be grossly inferior to the settlement of frictionless trade, complete regulatory convergence within the Single Market and customs union that we have enjoyed for decades.

The British public would like to retain all these benefits of membership outside the EU, including no non-tarriff barriers to trade. That’s what Bojo and Gove promised them. It’s an impossible fiction that no trade deal can or could deliver.

The UK is predominantly a service-based economy. With just a free trade deal outside the EEA, our banks would not enjoy a passport allowing them to offer their services anywhere in the EU.

That’s just one example of many. Canadian exporters still face tariffs on 6.2% of agricultural tariff lines, such as poultry and eggs.

The deeper you want economic relations to be, the more you have to put up with common rules and the institutions designed to enforce that common, standardized system.

See:

What exactly is a Canada-style deal? - InFacts

Commission says UK’s red lines mean future trade deal will be like EU’s agreement with Canada. That would pose problems for our economy.

infacts.org

A CETA-style deal would be a step backwards from the harmonisation of standards and mutual recognition that the UK enjoys as a member of the single market. Some agricultural products are excluded, such as poultry and eggs, while 15 types of fruit and vegetables face tariffs of up to 20%.

The deal also fails to achieve any significant mutual recognition of technical standards. Nothing is established, for instance, on medicines, cars or on the labelling and regulation of agricultural products. Non-tariff barriers in such areas would increase costs for UK exporters and disrupt trade flows.

The UK should expect similar asymmetry in any future free trade agreement with the EU: if it wants to minimise the friction of trading with the single market, it will need to maintain European regulations, just like any other non-EU country.

Still more problematic is the narrow scope of CETA’s liberalisation of services. The agreement would be inadequate for a service-driven economy like Britain’s, where services account for [80%]of output. The British service sector is heavily reliant on the EU market, with which it enjoys a trade surplus of £14 billion. CETA excludes audio-visual and cultural services, as well as public services like health and education. It offers little on aviation, electricity or, crucially, financial services.

 

[DENNYINMI]

And all of this, it appears, is to avoid barriers to trade. If you want few or no barriers to your trade, you have to accept whatever people the EU wants you to take in, as well as laws relating to abortion, homosexual marriage and that sort of thing, it appears. Right now, the EU selection of your population includes a lot of people from the Middle EAst and North Africa, some of whom are a hazard to the indigenous population.

Yes, and all of this. This is the thought processes of the United States. I believe the admonishment of the Pope was to no longer align themselves with any other post industrialized successful countries, to return to their roots, and live in peace without attention to countries that think as in your statement above. Clever Papa~

We need to move beyond extreme focus on “homosexuality” because to bring persons into the fold, Papa says even the Priests must smell like the sheep. Jesus wasn’t a wealthy capitalist focused on stock markets and the color of persons skins, because they were all dark…The pope is telling them to get back to that. Draw in and disregard, cut-off that which is causing you to sin, and that sin is intolerance, the precursor to being uncharitable.

Thank you for the use of your post.

Edited: not just clever, but wise.

 

[Annie]

I want Britain to lead in Europe, not be led by Europe outside her. To “pay” and “obey” but have “no say” is unsustainable for Britain. Within the EU, we are part of the Big Three member states (along with Germany and France) that have the most MEPs by proportion in the European Parliament and influence overall.

To me, it seemed like what Angela Merkel did when she said all the refugees could come to Germany was really key. She allowed a huge number of people in without regard to those in the borderless states around Germany. It seemed crazy.

Overall, this seemed to have a huge effect on the Brexit issue, even tho the UK is not (?) a Schengen state.

Do you think that action on Merkel’s part had anything to do with Brexit or any other exits?

 

[Kaninchen]

Do you think that action on Merkel’s part had anything to do with Brexit or any other exits?

To an extent, it played into the propaganda (the myth of Turkey joining the EU and millions more Muslims turning up) but immigration is two issues in the UK - EU and non-EU.

Neither of these have been dealt with competently by the UK Government and blaming the EU for immigration is a handy tactic - except that non-EU immigration is entirely a UK issue (most of our Muslims - considered very naughty by many Leave voters - are from India/Pakistan, by the way).

 

[AuldP]

Just to muddy the waters further:
I live in the West of Scotland, an area where politics and sectarianism are inextricably linked. So you have one subset of the population that are ‘HardBrexiteer’ - with a ‘no deal is the best deal’ mantra. A wee bit of digging and you find all sorts of links to The Orange Order and various Ultra Right Wing organisations. They are Anti - Scottish Nationalist, Hard Line Unionist, Anti Immigration (see Kaninchen’s post above for the absurdity of this part) and at least in this part of the world (and Northern Ireland) Anti Catholic.
On the other hand you have a subset who are opposed to The Orange Order. So they are then Pro Scottish Nationalist, and Remainers.
Subset B are also (through conflating the Irish right to self determination and the Palestinian issue) Pro Palestinian and therefore anti Israeli, which has sometimes manifested itself in blatant Antisemitism. So Subset A have decided that they are Pro Israeli and anti Palestinian, which has also manifested itself in blatant Islamophobia.
This does not describe the whole political life here but it colours the outlook of a significant amount of people. So while the likes of Vouthon can give a balanced argument for Remaining and some like Costas Lapavitsas argue for leaving from Left Wing perspective. I quote: The European left’s “attachment to the EU as an inherently progressive development prevents it from being radical, and indeed integrates it into the neoliberal structures of European capitalism”, Lapavitsas says. “The left has become increasingly cut off from its historic constituency, the workers and the poor of Europe, who have naturally sought a voice elsewhere.” Sook on that particular ice lolly Ridgerunner! It is clear that the EU question in this neck of the woods is a convoluted mess. To make it even more interesting for our American friends. The two tribes described above carry all this out by supporting two football (soccer) teams…and people ask why I take a drink!

 

[niceatheist]

It’s also useful to remember that Britain was at one point the strongest advocate of Turkey joining the EU.

 

[Vouthon]

It’s also useful to remember that Britain was at one point the strongest advocate of Turkey joining the EU.

And the strongest advocate of the EU expanding to incorporate the formerly communist eastern members.

 

[Ridgerunner]

It’s becoming abundantly clear you know very little about the EU.

Thanks for the compliment. You probably haven’t noticed that I have asked a lot of questions here. Sometimes the responses aren’t very responsive. There is no reason, as near as I can tell, to think the EU cannot legislate in just about any area other than (we’re told) their justice system and a handful of other things. If you’re sure the EU parliament can’t legislate concerning abortion or homosexual rights, show me why I should think that. Don’t just be derisive.

 

[Vouthon]

Again, you evidence a misunderstanding of the constitutional limits to the EU’s legislative competence.

Article 5 of the Treaty on the EU stipulates that “Under the principle of subsidiarity, in areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence, the Union shall act only if and in so far as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States, either at central level or at regional and local level , but can rather, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved at Union level.”

. If you’re sure the EU parliament can’t legislate concerning abortion or homosexual rights, show me why I should think that

I have done this…ad nauseam. Yet you keep repeating this error:

European Commission confirms EU has no competence on abortion policy

During a recent debate at the plenary session of the European Parliament, the European Commission confirmed that the EU has no competence in the areas of abortion and sex education, and that it cannot

archive.christianconcern.com

During a recent debate at the plenary session of the European Parliament, the European Commission confirmed that the EU has no competence in the areas of abortion and sex education, and that it cannot interfere with the policies adopted by Member States on these issues…

In a debate this month, the European Commission reaffirmed the position adopted by the European Parliament, namely that the issue of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights was the sole responsibility of Member States and that "there exists no right to abortion under international law”.

Article 168 § 7of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU states that the ‘‘Union action shall respect the responsibilities of the Member States for the definition of their health policy and for the organisation and delivery of health services and medical care. The responsibilities of the Member States shall include the management of health services and medical care and the allocation of the resources assigned to them.’’

I already noted earlier in this thread, these are not issues that the EU may legislate on.

https://blogs.kcl.ac.uk/kslreuropeanlawblog/?p=292#.XPhub5Ao-yU

Abortion is clearly a matter of national competence and it is not a right defined within the context of Union law. Thus, it falls within the margin of appreciation of the Member States and it should be concluded that the EU has no competence in this area either under the previous Treaty provisions or the current amendments introduced by the Lisbon Treaty.

As for gay marriage specifically, the drafters of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights shared the same view. In the Explanations Relating to the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the article providing the right to marry (Article 9) “ neither prohibits nor imposes the granting of the status of marriage to unions between people of the same sex”.

There is no debate about this, it’s crystal clear legally.

Please give this a rest @Ridgerunner

 

[Lou2U]

I’m sorry to post and run, @Ridgerunner, but this is a reference/ruling as to why the EU cannot legislate same sex marriage in its member states.

58 In this context, the Court has held that marital status and the benefits flowing therefrom are matters which fall within the competence of the Member States and that EU law does not detract from that competence. However, in the exercise of that competence the Member States must comply with EU law, in particular the provisions relating to the principle of non-discrimination (see judgment of 1 April 2008, Maruko , C‑267/06, EU:C:2008:179, paragraph 59).

59 The Member States are thus free to provide or not provide for marriage for persons of the same sex, or an alternative form of legal recognition of their relationship, and, if they do so provide, to lay down the date from which such a marriage or alternative form is to have effect.

http://curia.europa.eu/juris/docume...=en&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=195466

Paragraphs 58 and 59 in the above link. I’m not had chance to read all of it yet, I’m sorry for that. But above is the specific mention.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Wasn’t for lack of wanting to do it. From your article:

"The debate comes shortly after a controversial resolution on “Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights” was rejected by the European Parliament in December.

As well as seeking to establish a right to abortion, the resolution went further in attacking the right to conscientious objection and the rights of parents, and called on the European Union to fund abortion in its Foreign and Development Aid Policy. "

Your European parliament can do what it wants to do. Just because it rejected legislating on abortion lately doesn’t mean it can’t or won’t.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Doesn’t mean they never can.

However, in the exercise of that competence the Member States must comply with EU law, in particular the provisions relating to the principle of non-discrimination

 

[Ridgerunner]

If the EU can dictate to Poland how many hostile aliens Poland has to take in, it can dictate anything it wants to dictate.

 

[Vouthon]

Your European parliament can do what it wants to do.

The Commission explicitly clarified that it cannot legislate on abortion, as per long established EU law, because family law, healthcare and sexual health like outsidevthe remit of European law and are member state only competences.

The Parliament can only pass non-binding resolutions in areas outside it’s scope - not actual law with direct applicability and force.

Your completely wrong. Not even a bit, completely.

Why aren’t you even reading the statements that @Lou2U and myself have been quoting from actual legal precedents?

 

[niceatheist]

Poland willingly joined the Schengen Area. And it really is clear you won’t accept explanations or put anything in to context . Your claims are fundementally disingenuous.

Europe isn’t some sort of proxy for what really is an American culture war. You’ve been shown abortion is not an area of EU competence.

 

[PickyPicky]

Your completely wrong. Not even a bit, completely

But marks for persevering.

 

[niceatheist]

I don’t consider this preservence. RR is in error, it’s that simple. The EU is some sort of American conservative bogeyman.

 

[Vouthon]

You’ve been shown abortion is not an area of EU competence.

And yet he still claims it is, despite the incontestable evidence we’ve provided to the contrary, just “because”.

 

[PickyPicky]

I don’t consider this preservence. RR is in error, it’s that simple

I thought if we gave RR a bonus mark it might be persuasive of shutting up on this point.