Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Why are the British so anti Europe?
Options
Comments
-
Actualy, it is part of the EEA agreement.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 EEA Agreement states that when a State becomes a member of the European Union, it shall also apply to become party to the EEA Agreement (Article 128 EEA), thus leading to an enlargement of the EEA."
http://www.efta.int/eea/eea-agreement/eea-basic-features0 -
I also loved watching when EU respected Irish people NO vote on Lisbon treaty. Yep, great democracy, "you will vote till we have yes" - EU definition of democracy. Well, of course after second referendum, when it came out as YES there was no chance to 3rd referendum, because they achieved what they wanted. Wondering why UK is anti EU ( not anti Europe )0
-
Actualy, it is part of the EEA agreement.
"The EEA Agreement states that when a State becomes a member of the European Union, it shall also apply to become party to the EEA Agreement (Article 128 EEA), thus leading to an enlargement of the EEA."
http://www.efta.int/eea/eea-agreement/eea-basic-features
Thanks. Athough they still have to apply in their own right to join the EEA.
Jim2007 was arguing vigorously against the point I was making that member states were required to apply for membership of the EEA upon entry to the EU: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.
So thanks MarKK for clearing that up. The fact that member states have to apply separately to the EEA, i.e. that they do not participate in EEA purely by virtue of their EU membership strongly suggests that the EEA is not, as has been suggested, an "agreement is between the EU and only 3 states of the EEA", but rather an agreement between all the EEA states regardless of EU status.0 -
What do you mean by "in there own right"?Thanks. Athough they still have to apply in their own right to join the EEA.
They are applying to participate in the EEA as it is a requirement for EU membership.
So the are applying to join as EU members. As I understand it EEA countries participate as either EFTA members or EU members, they do not join merely as individual countries.
The EEA agreement allows the EEA EFTA states to adopt a subset of EU single market regulations.
Whereas EU members negotiate single market regulations at EU level.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
What do you mean by "in there own right"?
They are applying to participate in the EEA as it is a requirement for EU membership.However the question is why if it is a deal between the EU and three non-EU EEA countries (which is what is being asserted), is there any need for separate application at all? This is the question I put to View some time ago and it hasn't yet been answered.
View also suggested that it was somewhat like the EU-Korea trade deal. However nowhere are EU countries required to sign up individually to deals such as this. If you look at the recent accession treaty of Croatia, they are explicitly required to apply for EEA membership. However they are merely required to abide by any and all EU trade deals unless explicitly exempted.
But again the example of Croatia goes against this. They were EU members and duly sent in their EEA application. However their membership of the EEA was delayed due to various requirements not being met (I'm not sure if they are actually in the EEA yet). This means that EEA membership is considered on an individual country basis. Merely being in the EU is not a guarantee of entry to the EEA.So the are applying to join as EU members. As I understand it EEA countries participate as either EFTA members or EU members, they do not join merely as individual countries.
It does indeed allow this, but the way they allow it is by "mirroring" EU legislation concerning certain aspects of the single market. Free movement of people, for example, is specified by EU law. EEA countries (both EU and non-EU) agree to adopt this same law separately under the EEA agreement. In the case of EU countries, of course, it doesn't make any difference. But in the case of non-EU countries, it means that they can trade with all the other EEA countries (both EU and non-EU) on the same basis as EU countries trade with each other.The EEA agreement allows the EEA EFTA states to adopt a subset of EU single market regulations.
Whereas EU members negotiate single market regulations at EU level.
Why exactly it is done this way I don't know. Probably for legal reasons at the time of the agreement. Possibly now it would be done differently and would be more like View's example of the EU-Korea trade deal. However that is not the case with the EEA as it stands.
The point of all this, is that since EU countries are full EEA members with the same standing as non-EU countries, it is not the case that: "If the UK leaves the EU, they have NO trade arrangement with the EU. They would need to negotiate one from scratch", which was stated earlier in the thread by View.
This means that as one of the four freedoms, trade in Financial Services would continue with the EU under the same rules as it currently does which renders false another statement by View: "Alternatively, the EU could propose a free trade agreement for goods only which excludes (financial) services. That would set the cat amongst the pigeons in Westminister at a guess. :-)" Unfortunately they can't do this to an EEA member without renegotiating the entire EEA agreement.0 -
It has been answered, there is a need, as the EEA agreement requires it.However the question is why if it is a deal between the EU and three non-EU EEA countries (which is what is being asserted), is there any need for separate application at all? This is the question I put to View some time ago and it hasn't yet been answered.
The EEA is far more than a "trade deal" it also involves adopting ongoing measures decided by the EU, the four freedoms etc.View also suggested that it was somewhat like the EU-Korea trade deal. However nowhere are EU countries required to sign up individually to deals such as this. If you look at the recent accession treaty of Croatia, they are explicitly required to apply for EEA membership. However they are merely required to abide by any and all EU trade deals unless explicitly exempted.
No, it only means you don't have have completed the procedure to participate in the EEA agreement by the time you join the EU.But again the example of Croatia goes against this. They were EU members and duly sent in their EEA application. However their membership of the EEA was delayed due to various requirements not being met (I'm not sure if they are actually in the EEA yet). This means that EEA membership is considered on an individual country basis. Merely being in the EU is not a guarantee of entry to the EEA.
There is a transition process for new members. Croatia is in transition and not all EU rules apply yet.
The EFTA EEA states are not members of the EU, the EEA agreement is the mechanism used to allow the EFTA EEA states to participate in the single market with the EU states.It does indeed allow this, but the way they allow it is by "mirroring" EU legislation concerning certain aspects of the single market. Free movement of people, for example, is specified by EU law. EEA countries (both EU and non-EU) agree to adopt this same law separately under the EEA agreement. In the case of EU countries, of course, it doesn't make any difference. But in the case of non-EU countries, it means that they can trade with all the other EEA countries (both EU and non-EU) on the same basis as EU countries trade with each other.
Why exactly it is done this way I don't know.
That is not true, the status of EU countries and EFTA countries is different.The point of all this, is that since EU countries are full EEA members with the same standing as non-EU countries ...
It's all there in the link I posted earlier
http://www.efta.int/eea/eea-agreement/eea-basic-features0 -
So according to you the reason it is a requirement is that it is a requirement. Sorry but that doesn't answer the question. Why is it a requirement in the first place if it is as has been suggested a deal between the EU and three EFTA states?It has been answered, there is a need, as the EEA agreement requires it.
I did not bring up the example of the EU-Korea trade deal. Read what I said.The EEA is far more than a "trade deal" it also involves adopting ongoing measures decided by the EU, the four freedoms etc.
The EU requirement to join apply to join the EEA is in effect and Croatia have duly complied with that requirement. The delay is between Croatia and the EEA and has nothing to do with the EU.No, it only means you don't have have completed the procedure to participate in the EEA agreement by the time you join the EU.
There is a transition process for new members. Croatia is in transition and not all EU rules apply yet.
This is just repeating what you said earlier. My response was that it does indeed provide that mechanism but in a certain way in that it is an agreement between a large number of countries comprising the EEA, both EU and non-EU (the EFTA EEA states) that agree to operate under certain EU rules regardless of EU status.The EFTA EEA states are not members of the EU, the EEA agreement is the mechanism used to allow the EFTA EEA states to participate in the single market with the EU states.
In what way? Please quote the original agreement for evidence of you assertion.That is not true, the status of EU countries and EFTA countries is different.
Remember the core issue here which is being disputed is whether or not the UK upon leaving the EU automatically leaves the EEA. So far no evidence has been provided that it does in fact leave the EEA automatically though of course it may choose to leave both.0 -
-
You have changed the question, you are now asking, why was the requirement included in text of the EEA agreement.So according to you the reason it is a requirement is that it is a requirement. Sorry but that doesn't answer the question. Why is it a requirement in the first place if it is as has been suggested a deal between the EU and three EFTA states?
That is different to the question I was answering which was:However the question is why if it is a deal between the EU and three non-EU EEA countries (which is what is being asserted), is there any need for separate application at all?
Pretty much the entire text of the EEA agreement shows that the position of the EU member states and the EFTA EEA states is different, for example.
From the text of the EEA agreement:
Article 126.1
The Agreement shall apply to the territories to which the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community is applied and under the conditions laid down in that Treaty, and to the territories of Iceland, the Principality of Liechtenstein and the Kingdom of Norway.
The issue with Croatia appears to have been resolved, the 2014 enlargement has been agreed:
http://www.efta.int/sites/default/files/documents/legal-texts/eea-enlargement/2014/Agreement-signatures.pdf0 -
Advertisement
-
Essentially that is the question I'm seeking an answer. Why is it a requirement at all, whether it is a requirement of the EEA or a requirement of the EU? My apologies if I was not clear.You have changed the question, you are now asking, why was the requirement included in text of the EEA agreement.
Well this is just establishing the overall area of the treaty. It is simply shorthand for all the individual states making up the treaty area. It does not establish the EU as one party and the three states as another either individually or collectively.Pretty much the entire text of the EEA agreement shows that the position of the EU member states and the EFTA EEA states is different, for example.
From the text of the EEA agreement:
Article 126.1
The Agreement shall apply to the territories to which the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community is applied and under the conditions laid down in that Treaty, and to the territories of Iceland, the Principality of Liechtenstein and the Kingdom of Norway.
I think the problem was with ratification rather than the initial agreement. But whether or not they are now officially members of the EEA, the delay does show that Croatia are individual members of the EEA in their own right and not merely as members of the EU.The issue with Croatia appears to have been resolved, the 2014 enlargement has been agreed:
http://www.efta.int/sites/default/files/documents/legal-texts/eea-enlargement/2014/Agreement-signatures.pdf
Here's what Norway said on completion of negotiations with Croatia:– The expansion of the EEA Agreement to Croatia is crucial for Norwegian business. The agreement ensures market access for Norwegian businesses equal to those of EU Member States. At the same time, the extension of the EEA Grants will strengthen contact and cooperation between Norway and Croatia, says Vidar Helgesen, Minister for EEA and EU Affairs at the Office of the Prime Minister.The Norwegian PM says "The expansion of the EEA Agreement to Croatia is crucial for Norwegian busines". In other words access to Croatia depends on Croatia being in the EEA. It does not depend on Croatia simply being in the EU. If what you and View were saying was correct, this would not be the case. It means that the EEA itself ensures market access between the various EEA countries, both inside and out of the EU. It is not merely an extension of the EU's internal market to three external countries but rather it is an agreement in its own right between a large number of countries regardless of their EU status. Although the same rules apply as they apply to EU countries trading with other, the rules are implemented separately but in parallel by the EEA members.0 -
Demonstrate how "EU works exactly like old soviet" (as you assert).
It's already obvious you know precious little about "living through communism".
Basic fact: EU is controlling everything , even shape of bananas. Referendums like Lisbon Treaty, Irish opted NO but communistic EU said "**** irish vote we want yes", so another referendum and they achieved YES. This is called communism. Also in EU 80% of politicians are ex communists or Maoists. Just look at the history of each member of EU parliament. Many many examples, just google how communism worked and then compare to EU rules. Also EU is a horrible social state, which 70-80% of program matches Mein Kampf. If you ever read Mein Kampl political part of it , it actually matches EU program... But nobody bothers to read and compare, just believe in big nanny state... Btw: I lived in communism for 15 years ( long time ago when probably you weren't even born ) in Eastern Europe when my parents moved there for a contract work. I know exactly how it works.0 -
-
oscarBravo wrote: »I'll ask again, since you ignored my previous question: do you have a source for this EU saying this?
Or are you just inventing stuff to get annoyed about?
Irish people said no, EU did not respect and accept democratic result and made irish vote again... is this a freedom, is this democracy? No, this is the way soviet union used to work, exactly the same.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AuNFBUBYCY0 -
-
oscarBravo wrote: »The EU didn't make Ireland vote again. Stop making stuff up, you're embarrassing yourself.
Actually Germans and French made Irish Government do referendum again. Because Ireland like other countries in EU is just a state with no independence anymore... If you knew recent history and follow and watch EU closely then you would stop embarrassing yourself now.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AuNFBUBYCY watch this and then talk0 -
Your post is absolute nonsense.Basic fact: EU is controlling everything , even shape of bananas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EuromythReferendums like Lisbon Treaty, Irish opted NO but communistic EU said "**** irish vote we want yes", so another referendum and they achieved YES. This is called communism.
So why do you think the first vote was okay and the second one wasn't? Both were the democratic will of the Irish electorate at the time. How can having more democratic votes be less democratic... it makes no sense.Also in EU 80% of politicians are ex communists or Maoists. Just look at the history of each member of EU parliament. Many many examples, just google how communism worked and then compare to EU rules.
Will I wait for the list? Though I probably won't wait since these figures only exist in your head. But let's pretend that these figures are correct for a second... all these politicians were voted in by the people of Europe, either directly or indirectly. How can that not be completely democratic?Also EU is a horrible social state, which 70-80% of program matches Mein Kampf. If you ever read Mein Kampl political part of it , it actually matches EU program... But nobody bothers to read and compare, just believe in big nanny state...
I was going to point out how this is crap but I really can't be bothered. As Oscarbravo said you're angry about stuff that isn't real or isn't happening. I come in and defend the EU because I remember what a backward inward looking ****hole this country was before the EU helped drag us out of it.0 -
Your post is absolute nonsense.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euromyth
it was not a myth, it was the truth, then they have changed it, not many people remember that about 8 years ago...
So why do you think the first vote was okay and the second one wasn't? Both were the democratic will of the Irish electorate at the time. How can having more democratic votes be less democratic... it makes no sense.
- it was a referendum and 1 is enough, they did not respect irish vote, and if the second was YES so why not to have 3rd one? it has no sense at all, and there will be no 3rd referendum because EU achieved what they wanted to achieve, take irish independnece
Will I wait for the list? Though I probably won't wait since these figures only exist in your head. But let's pretend that these figures are correct for a second... all these politicians were voted in by the people of Europe, either directly or indirectly. How can that not be completely democratic?
- if you know the rules of democracy they you would not ask this ridiculous question, also other counties had no referendum about lisbon treaty at all, is that democratic ? Why they did not respect irish NO for the first time? SO lets have referendums, even 20 of them just to get the result EU want?
I was going to point out how this is crap but I really can't be bothered. As Oscarbravo said you're angry about stuff that isn't real or isn't happening. I come in and defend the EU because I remember what a backward inward looking ****hole this country was before the EU helped drag us out of it.
I have been following this red organization for over 20 years, each year something changes or they try to hide things like with bananas... People then search in google or wikilinks which are controlled by some people. People cannot think independently anymore... This is the main issue. Have your EU, we cant even control our borders anymore, we do not have own currency, and we call ourselves independent... I have read lisbon treaty, read it and also read EU political program, then read Mein Kampf political program, then compare, but in order to compare you need to open your eyes wide...
btw "unfollow" you are too narrow minded to understand basic facts and realize what is going on. Keep living in your dream. And remember, we are independent, they said that on TV so it must be true...0 -
To be fair, the Irish people were not forced to vote again, though they were bullied and threatened into voting again and promised that if the vote did not go the right way the country would be finished!0
-
-
Advertisement
-
Well, I've read Mein Kampf and am well able to discuss it on its (de)merits, but IMO your simplistic contentions are formulaic anti-EU rubbish.Basic fact: EU is controlling everything , even shape of bananas. Referendums like Lisbon Treaty, Irish opted NO but communistic EU said "**** irish vote we want yes", so another referendum and they achieved YES. This is called communism. Also in EU 80% of politicians are ex communists or Maoists. Just look at the history of each member of EU parliament. Many many examples, just google how communism worked and then compare to EU rules. Also EU is a horrible social state, which 70-80% of program matches Mein Kampf. If you ever read Mein Kampl political part of it , it actually matches EU program... But nobody bothers to read and compare, just believe in big nanny state.... Btw: I lived in communism for 15 years ( long time ago when probably you weren't even born ) in Eastern Europe when my parents moved there for a contract work. I know exactly how it works.
And I simply don't believe you've lived in a Communist country, let alone paid attention to how the putative host society worked in comparison to democratic EU countries.
Seems to me you're just spoofing.0 -
Presumably is included in the EEA text to ensure that the EFTA EEA countries are consulted when the single market expands.Essentially that is the question I'm seeking an answer. Why is it a requirement at all, whether it is a requirement of the EEA or a requirement of the EU? My apologies if I was not clear.
It does mean that if the UK left the EU it would no longer be part of the territory described and so no longer be part of the territories where the EEA applies.Well this is just establishing the overall area of the treaty. It is simply shorthand for all the individual states making up the treaty area. It does not establish the EU as one party and the three states as another either individually or collectively.
No, just shows it took longer than expected for the expansion to be agreed.I think the problem was with ratification rather than the initial agreement. But whether or not they are now officially members of the EEA, the delay does show that Croatia are individual members of the EEA in their own right and not merely as members of the EU.
Note the wording is "expansion of the agreement", there is no mention of Croatia becoming a "member of the EEA".Here's what Norway said on completion of negotiations with Croatia:– The expansion of the EEA Agreement to Croatia is crucial for Norwegian business. The agreement ensures market access for Norwegian businesses equal to those of EU Member States.
Your choice of words suggests that Norwegian business could not do business with Croatia without the expansion of the EEA, when of course they have access. The EEA enlargement just means Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein's access is to Croatia is equal to those of EU Member States."In other words access to Croatia depends on Croatia being in the EEA.
If the EEA agreement were torn up, the the single market would continue just without the three EFTA EEA countries.It means that the EEA itself ensures market access between the various EEA countries, both inside and out of the EU.
So it only ensures the single market access for the three EFTA EEA countries.0 -
However the UK is currently part of the EEA territory and would remain so if it left the EU. Therefore membership is unaffected.Presumably is included in the EEA text to ensure that the EFTA EEA countries are consulted when the single market expands.
It does mean that if the UK left the EU it would no longer be part of the territory described and so no longer be part of the territories where the EEA applies.
Although I think the problem was with ratification, it does not really matter to the argument.No, just shows it took longer than expected for the expansion to be agreed.
You are just playing with words here.Note the wording is "expansion of the agreement", there is no mention of Croatia becoming a "member of the EEA".
Why does expansion of the EEA to an already EU member matter here if as has been maintained, Croatia is only an EEA member by virtue of its EU membership? If the EEA agreement is between the EU and particular external states, then Croatia's EU membership would be sufficient.Your choice of words suggests that Norwegian business could not do business with Croatia without the expansion of the EEA, when of course they have access. The EEA enlargement just means Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein's access is to Croatia is equal to those of EU Member States."
Likewise if the EU were dissolved, former EU countries could still trade with each other on the basis of the EEA agreement. And with the three non-EU, EEA members.If the EEA agreement were torn up, the the single market would continue just without the three EFTA EEA countries.
So it only ensures the single market access for the three EFTA EEA countries.0 -
To be fair, the Irish people were not forced to vote again, though they were bullied and threatened into voting again and promised that if the vote did not go the right way the country would be finished!
Can you link to show who and where this bullying or threatening happened?
It's pretty reasonable that the rest of EU who did agree the treaty would ask what exactly we wanted changing and why they should all change the treaty just to suit us, especially when there was no coherent argument from the No side.
With democracy comes responsibility. There seems to be a view that there should be no consequences to any vote the Irish electorate take. There are even if the Irish electorate have and do ignore them...
Vote in Fianna Fail -> populist policies that caused economic ruin repeatedly
Vote against abortion -> Women go to UK to get abortion. Women die in our hospitals because of no treatment.
Vote against divorce -> People trapped in potentially violent relationships they don't want.
You seem to be suggesting that there should have been no consequences to our Lisbon No vote, and that the rest of the EU should simply tear it up and stop moving forward because 53% of 53% of less then 1% of the EU population should dictate progress. That is a profoundly undemocratic view of the world. The other members of the EU have rights too and the right to move on with or without us. If we didn't want to move on we could have voted No again, the logical consequence being our seceding from the EU - our choice. That's not bullying, its a fact of life. As it turned out the other member states graciously gave us a number of assurances on items raised during the referendum (unneeded, but a figleaf for the Irish Electorate).0 -
Actually, they didn't. Repeating the same tritely stupid myths several times won't make them true.Actually Germans and French made Irish Government do referendum again.
Ireland, like all the other EU member states, is a sovereign country.Because Ireland like other countries in EU is just a state with no independence anymore...
If you knew what you were talking about, you would produce something more substantial than a video of Nigel Farage running his mouth as evidence.If you knew recent history and follow and watch EU closely then you would stop embarrassing yourself now.0 -
To be fair, the Irish people were not forced to vote again, though they were bullied and threatened into voting again...
As someone who followed both referendum campaigns closely, I say no evidence of bullying or threatening.
I saw plenty of rampant abuse of the word "bullying" to mean "arguments I disagree with", but that I took as a symptom of an inability to counter those arguments.0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »As someone who followed both referendum campaigns closely, I say no evidence of bullying or threatening.
I saw plenty of rampant abuse of the word "bullying" to mean "arguments I disagree with", but that I took as a symptom of an inability to counter those arguments.
Indeed.
The bullying I say was the hysteria of the fringe parties.....
The vote passed & I have yet to be conscripted & forced to have a mandatory abortion.
What gives?0 -
comongethappy wrote: »Indeed.
The bullying I say was the hysteria of the fringe parties.....
The vote passed & I have yet to be conscripted & forced to have a mandatory abortion.
What gives?
It's actually funny. Someone posted (can't recall who) a breakdown of what Sinn Fein had claimed at each referendum on the EU, even when we joined. It was pretty much exactly the same thing each time, none of which has come to pass. How stupid are people. It doesn't mean you have to agree with everything the EU does but it should indicate it's time to stop listening to people who have been repeatedly and utterly wrong about the EU.0 -
Where does the EEA agreement say that?However the UK is currently part of the EEA territory and would remain so if it left the EU. Therefore membership is unaffected.
I'd be very happy for you to point out any mentions in the EEA agreement of "members of the EEA" or "membership of EEA".You are just playing with words here.
I don't have a different answer to this since the last time you asked.Why does expansion of the EEA to an already EU member matter here if as has been maintained, Croatia is only an EEA member by virtue of its EU membership? If the EEA agreement is between the EU and particular external states, then Croatia's EU membership would be sufficient.
EU membership is not sufficient because the EEA agreement says so.
Really? which court would adjudicate in a dispute between Portugal and Poland?Likewise if the EU were dissolved, former EU countries could still trade with each other on the basis of the EEA agreement. And with the three non-EU, EEA members.0 -
Advertisement
-
The Uk is listed as a signatory of the agreement. Therefore it is in the area covered by the agreement. Where does it say in the agreement that the UK or any EU member must leave the EEA if it leaves the EU?Where does the EEA agreement say that?
And so from this you conclude that there's no such thing as a member of the EEA, that the EEA has no member states? You are being silly here with your nit picking.I'd be very happy for you to point out any mentions in the EEA agreement of "members of the EEA" or "membership of EEA".
Correct. And the reason for this requirement is because the EU states are members of the EEA in their own right. Which in turn means that membership is not contingent on membership of the EU. You have not provided any other answer to the question as to why it is a requirement.I don't have a different answer to this since the last time you asked.
EU membership is not sufficient because the EEA agreement says so.
They would have to set up their own system of adjudication. But the agreement in other respects would still remain. It would still be an agreement under international law.Really? which court would adjudicate in a dispute between Portugal and Poland?0
Advertisement