Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2022 16:23:31 GMT
The reality is, a qualified or limited participation in the EU Single Market does not disqualify or negate that participation. It is pointless to reframe reality. Switzerland is, in principle and in practice, a part of the EU SM. Whether the Swiss trade within it fully, selectively or in a limited way or as an EU member or via bilateral agreements is a different discussion. The fact remaints that Switzerland contributes financially to the EU. It applies EU laws. It participates in FoM. The Swiss even voted to keep freedom of movement a couple of years or so ago. All these in exchange for participation in the Single Market. So, what disqualifies Switzerland from being part of the EU Single Market? None. I agree with you that we should have gone for the Swiss model. And it seemed that the EU was receptive to such an arrangement. But BJ & Co and their sov'rentee-chasing, freedom-fighting, control freak supporters insisted that it's either their way, the harder way or the highway. You're willfully ignorant gnome. You will never understand anything because you don't even begin to understand the basics. Switzerland is NOT in the Single Market. That's a fact. It accepts free trade only on certain goods. And it doesn't have to abide by the various "pillars" of EU membership that come with the SIngle Market. And it hasn't signed up to EU laws. It has voluntarily agreed to accept alignment with EU rules on the products they trade, which is entirely reasonable. And it doesn't participate in FoM because people who want to live in Switzerland need residence permits. And it pays a very limited amount to the EU - about £150 million pa, rather than the £18 billion we were paying (we paid over 100 times more). As for the nonsense - "BJ & Co and their sov'rentee-chasing, freedom-fighting, control freak supporters insisted that it's either their way, the harder way or the highway" - did you ever try follow what was going on in the referendum. Or did you get your garbled idea from the BBC and the Guardian. The Switzerland deal was never on the table for the UK. And the EU demanded that the UK sign a withdrawal agreement before they would negotiate trade deals. Since the MPs (of all sides) were not willing to agree to any deal that didn't involve free trade (the Surrender Act) it makes it slightly difficult to opt for the bilateral deal as it would mean leaving without free trade. Like I said, I always find that people who support the EU almost always know SFA about it. So. Switzerland pays into the EU budget and Switzerland allows EU citizens to live there and also, Switzerland adopts EU standards and trading rules. BUT Switzerland is NOT in the Single Market. That is what you are telling me. Is it?  Switzerland has bilateral agreements that allow it to be part of, trade and operate in the EU Single Market albeit in a limited, selective, restrictied, sectoral manner. This makes Switzerland part of the Single Market. Now, why don't you post an authoritative article or link that categorically, emphatically denies or negates this instead of giving me your own take. With regard to the Swiss model as a possibility: I said "mooted". |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Nov 7, 2022 0:14:13 GMT
The reality is, a qualified or limited participation in the EU Single Market does not disqualify or negate that participation. It is pointless to reframe reality. Switzerland is, in principle and in practice, a part of the EU SM. Whether the Swiss trade within it fully, selectively or in a limited way or as an EU member or via bilateral agreements is a different discussion. The fact remaints that Switzerland contributes financially to the EU. It applies EU laws. It participates in FoM. The Swiss even voted to keep freedom of movement a couple of years or so ago. All these in exchange for participation in the Single Market. So, what disqualifies Switzerland from being part of the EU Single Market? None. I agree with you that we should have gone for the Swiss model. And it seemed that the EU was receptive to such an arrangement. But BJ & Co and their sov'rentee-chasing, freedom-fighting, control freak supporters insisted that it's either their way, the harder way or the highway. You're willfully ignorant gnome. You will never understand anything because you don't even begin to understand the basics. Switzerland is NOT in the Single Market. That's a fact. It accepts free trade only on certain goods. And it doesn't have to abide by the various "pillars" of EU membership that come with the SIngle Market. And it hasn't signed up to EU laws. It has voluntarily agreed to accept alignment with EU rules on the products they trade, which is entirely reasonable. And it doesn't participate in FoM because people who want to live in Switzerland need residence permits. And it pays a very limited amount to the EU - about £150 million pa, rather than the £18 billion we were paying (we paid over 100 times more). As for the nonsense - "BJ & Co and their sov'rentee-chasing, freedom-fighting, control freak supporters insisted that it's either their way, the harder way or the highway" - did you ever try follow what was going on in the referendum. Or did you get your garbled idea from the BBC and the Guardian. The Switzerland deal was never on the table for the UK. And the EU demanded that the UK sign a withdrawal agreement before they would negotiate trade deals. Since the MPs (of all sides) were not willing to agree to any deal that didn't involve free trade (the Surrender Act) it makes it slightly difficult to opt for the bilateral deal as it would mean leaving without free trade. Like I said, I always find that people who support the EU almost always know SFA about it. Post rebate we were paying £9bn per year but it was still a lot. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Nov 7, 2022 7:22:55 GMT
So. Switzerland pays into the EU budget and Switzerland allows EU citizens to live there and also, Switzerland adopts EU standards and trading rules. BUT Switzerland is NOT in the Single Market. That is what you are telling me. Is it? Switzerland has bilateral agreements that allow it to be part of, trade and operate in the EU Single Market albeit in a limited, selective, restrictied, sectoral manner. This makes Switzerland part of the Single Market. Now, why don't you post an authoritative article or link that categorically, emphatically denies or negates this instead of giving me your own take. Switzerland pays a nominal amount into the EU for its bilateral deals. I have no idea why it does this because it's not normal for one country to pay another for bilateral deals. However the amount they pay is a very small fraction of what it would pay if it were in the SM - it's small change. And Switzerland allows anyone to live there - provided they have a residency permit. Switzerland - by choice, not by law - adopts EU standards for products it trades with the EU - that's normal with any bilateral deal. But if it were a member of the SM it would have to obey all EU product rules (and other rules). That's one of the problems we had with the SM - every company in the country (no matter how small, or even whether they trade with the EU) has to obey EU rules. This is a big and unnecessary overhead for small companies. You don't understand what the SM is. It's basically "the beating heart of the EU" as someone called it. It came out of the Single European Act and when Thatcher read this document she said the she had "been betrayed". She wanted a free trade area. What the Single Market did was set the foundation for a European superstate, and, with the Customs Union it set up a trade protection zone which effectively prevented trade with poorer countries by raising large tariff barriers. Very "unprogressive". I suggest that, instead of asking people to post articles to educate you, that you buy a few books on the EU and try to learn the history of it. I think you might change your ideas. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Nov 7, 2022 7:35:33 GMT
Post rebate we were paying £9bn per year but it was still a lot. There's a lot of confusion about what we actually paid, but I think the most accurate "Gross" figure was £18 billion. That's what Andrew Neil usually quoted in the debates anyway. The rebate is about £4 billion, but is reviewed every 2 years and only ever comes down. The EU were always very resentful of it. You then have the various "grants" that the EU give - out of our money which can amount to about £5 billion. You can subtract this and come up with a net payment of £9 billion but the problem with these grants is that they're "hypothecated" so you have to spend it on what the EU says - or you get fined. The UK has often been fined. In addition many grants are conditional on the UK providing an equal sum to fund the purpose of the grant. And when you reckon that many of the things that the EU are funding are things that we don't want anyway it's probably worth forgetting about these. |
|
|
|
Post by Dubdrifter on Nov 7, 2022 8:24:55 GMT
What it all boils down to .. whatever the trade deals each Country brokers with a bullying entity like the EU … trade is always conditional on broken borders, forced immigration and subsequent long term defunding.
All countries end up financially worse off after getting within the clutches of these v. Powerful blood sucking vampires in Brussels … being puppeteered by Israeli-passport holders and their stooges both sides of the Pond.
The EU is a criminal Mafia … and needs to be dismantled and ordered to pay all stolen tax haven monies back ….
When we left the EU … we should have got all sorts of compensation ‘for damages’ … not the other way around!🙄
Tories are sh*t negotiators and now proven sh*t at economics under Rishi Sunak… and Labour are back-stabbers and worse. (Pretending to be EU fence-sitters for 6+ years)
|
|
|
|
Post by buccaneer on Nov 7, 2022 9:22:57 GMT
The reality is Switzerland isn't a fully paid up member of the EU; yet is considered the 'richest country in Europe'.
That defies popular opinion of EU-loyalists.
|
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Nov 7, 2022 10:20:45 GMT
The reality is Switzerland isn't a fully paid up member of the EU; yet is considered the 'richest country in Europe'. That defies popular opinion of EU-loyalists. Is Switzerland the richest country in Europe? According to one site, the top 5 richest countries in Europe are: Monaco, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Switzerland and Ireland. The common factor seems to be a small population. I've quickly read two online discussions about why Switzerland is wealthy. Both mention Switzerland's historical neutrality as a major contributor to its comparative wealth (neither was a particularly high-brow source, so I can't vouch for this). www.worldlistmania.com/15-richest-countries-in-europe/ |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Nov 7, 2022 10:49:43 GMT
The reality is Switzerland isn't a fully paid up member of the EU; yet is considered the 'richest country in Europe'. That defies popular opinion of EU-loyalists. Well said. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Nov 7, 2022 10:59:21 GMT
The reality is Switzerland isn't a fully paid up member of the EU; yet is considered the 'richest country in Europe'. That defies popular opinion of EU-loyalists. Well said. I'm not sure how it can be 'well said' if it's factually incorrect. It's difficult to find two sources that agree with each other on which is the richest country, but I've not come across one yet that says Switzerland is the richest in Europe. |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Nov 7, 2022 11:00:45 GMT
What it all boils down to .. whatever the trade deals each Country brokers with a bullying entity like the EU … trade is always conditional on broken borders, forced immigration and subsequent long term defunding. All countries end up financially worse off after getting within the clutches of these v. Powerful blood sucking vampires in Brussels … being puppeteered by Israeli-passport holders and their stooges both sides of the Pond. The EU is a criminal Mafia … and needs to be dismantled and ordered to pay all stolen tax haven monies back …. When we left the EU … we should have got all sorts of compensation ‘for damages’ … not the other way around!🙄 Tories are sh*t negotiators and now proven sh*t at economics under Rishi Sunak… and Labour are back-stabbers and worse. (Pretending to be EU fence-sitters for 6+ years) The EU isn't the only bully in the world, look East. |
|
|
|
Post by bancroft on Nov 7, 2022 13:15:17 GMT
The reality is Switzerland isn't a fully paid up member of the EU; yet is considered the 'richest country in Europe'. That defies popular opinion of EU-loyalists. Is Switzerland the richest country in Europe? According to one site, the top 5 richest countries in Europe are: Monaco, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Switzerland and Ireland. The common factor seems to be a small population. I've quickly read two online discussions about why Switzerland is wealthy. Both mention Switzerland's historical neutrality as a major contributor to its comparative wealth (neither was a particularly high-brow source, so I can't vouch for this). www.worldlistmania.com/15-richest-countries-in-europe/Add to that being a tax haven for so long and attracting hot money. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Nov 7, 2022 14:26:18 GMT
I think Switzerland has been forced to declare all these secret bank accounts now. If you want to look for corruption Luxembourg is a good place. Jean-Claude Juncker (ex president of the EU Commission) was their chief finahce minister for some time and he got up to some interesting activities. The guy is a criminal.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2022 14:27:54 GMT
So. Switzerland pays into the EU budget and Switzerland allows EU citizens to live there and also, Switzerland adopts EU standards and trading rules. BUT Switzerland is NOT in the Single Market. That is what you are telling me. Is it? Switzerland has bilateral agreements that allow it to be part of, trade and operate in the EU Single Market albeit in a limited, selective, restrictied, sectoral manner. This makes Switzerland part of the Single Market. Now, why don't you post an authoritative article or link that categorically, emphatically denies or negates this instead of giving me your own take. Switzerland pays a nominal amount into the EU for its bilateral deals. I have no idea why it does this because it's not normal for one country to pay another for bilateral deals. However the amount they pay is a very small fraction of what it would pay if it were in the SM - it's small change. And Switzerland allows anyone to live there - provided they have a residency permit. Switzerland - by choice, not by law - adopts EU standards for products it trades with the EU - that's normal with any bilateral deal. But if it were a member of the SM it would have to obey all EU product rules (and other rules). That's one of the problems we had with the SM - every company in the country (no matter how small, or even whether they trade with the EU) has to obey EU rules. This is a big and unnecessary overhead for small companies. You don't understand what the SM is. It's basically "the beating heart of the EU" as someone called it. It came out of the Single European Act and when Thatcher read this document she said the she had "been betrayed". She wanted a free trade area. What the Single Market did was set the foundation for a European superstate, and, with the Customs Union it set up a trade protection zone which effectively prevented trade with poorer countries by raising large tariff barriers. Very "unprogressive". I suggest that, instead of asking people to post articles to educate you, that you buy a few books on the EU and try to learn the history of it. I think you might change your ideas. Please. We have already established that Switzerland is part of the the Single Market. You've admitted that it pays into the EU budget; that it follows FoM rules; that it adopts EU standards. All you're telling us now and all you can tell us is that Switzerland has limited participation since it is not an EU member. What you fail to understand is that this limited participation does not mean that Switzerland is not in the Single Market. On the contrary, it means that Switzerland is in the Single Market but in a limited way. Stop letting it be known that you have taken a course in European Studies 101 or something. Really, it is not necessary for you to go on and on and on and on about every single minutiae of the Swiss-European Union bilateral agreements and trade relations. The sensible and helpful thing you can do is to find us an authoritative article or publication that clearly and emphatically supports your claim that Switzerland is not part of the Single Market. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Nov 7, 2022 14:31:42 GMT
I think Switzerland has been forced to declare all these secret bank accounts now. Forced by whom? Was it the EU? I really don't know. But I recall claims that some wanted Brexit because the EU planned to bring transparency to The City. You mentioned that Juncker was a criminal, but some claim that a part of the reason for Brexit was the EU's attempt to make hiding criminals' money more difficult. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Nov 7, 2022 15:35:52 GMT
....and Switzerland is NOT in the EU - and doesn't want to be in the EU. I mention this because I think the history of Switzerland's interaction with the EU is quite instructive - especially for the British. There are a lot of parallels and the EUphiles on this forum don't seem to know much about the EU or its history. It's always a good idea to have studied history - especially as the EU is in the process of bankrupting its members. The Swiss govt had wanted to join the EU for a long time (and still does). Switzerland has land borders with many EU countries and is actually part of Schengen (reluctantly). So in 1992 it had a referendum on whether to join the EEA (basically the EU-lite, with no membership of the CAP or CFP). The referendum was an education in itself, as it was a bit like our Brexit referendum, with the Swiss govt mounting a huge campaign to join the EEA and the smaller "No" campaign being expected to lose. The lies that the govt campaign told followed almost exactly those of our own govt's campaign - i.e. a fear campaign saying that Switzerland would lose all their trade with the EU and they'd all be poorer. However, against all expectations the "No" campaign won a narrow victory by 50.3% to 49.7% and remained out of the EU. And 30 years later Switzerland is the richest nation per capita in Europe and has more trading partners than the EU has (it's easier for one country to agree trade deals than for a big trade protection zone like the EU. For obvious reasons). In short all of the predictions that the govt made in their campaign have proved wrong. Of course the Swiss govt still wants to join the EU but the polls show that the people would vote by a massive margin not to join (over 90%). It's a strange conundrum that the governments of countries always seem to want to join the EU but the people do NOT. I have no idea why this is. Most (75%) of our MPs wanted to remain in the EU and would like to rejoin but the popular vote was not there as the referendum showed. The only reason the UK joined the Common Market is because it was tricked into it by the govt lies that it was simply a trading agreement. Nobody ever voted to give away control of their own country - and never will. That's why there won't be another referendum - they would just lose again. The danger now is that a Left wing govt will take the country back into the EU by stealth. What Labour (or a labour/LibDem/SNP coalition) would do is say that they're going to rejoin the Single Market and/or Customs Union and try to claim that it was simply to smooth trade - but of course it would mean that we're effectively back in the EU and we would have lost control. Again. We would have hitched ourselves again to a doomed union that is fatally flawed and heading for the buffers. Let's not forget that the Swiss enabled WWII to continue by an estimated 2years through their buying up and converting German ill-gotten gold into usable currency. AFAIA the basis of Swiss wealth came from buying German WWII gold. |
|
