Why are the British so anti Europe?

Jim2007

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nodin wrote: »

Stuff and nonsense, tbh.

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

View

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

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

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

kult wrote: »

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

Please demonstrate.

kult

McDave wrote: »

Please demonstrate.

Demonstrate living through communism? LOL

kult

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

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...