Why is there so little support for joining EFTA in the British parliament? Announcing the...
What is "Lambda" in Heston's original paper on stochastic volatility models?
What does 丫 mean? 丫是什么意思?
Calculation of line of sight system gain
French equivalents of おしゃれは足元から (Every good outfit starts with the shoes)
When does a function NOT have an antiderivative?
newbie Q : How to read an output file in one command line
Why can't fire hurt Daenerys but it did to Jon Snow in season 1?
Is this Half-dragon Quaggoth boss monster balanced?
Determine whether an integer is a palindrome
Why complex landing gears are used instead of simple, reliable and light weight muscle wire or shape memory alloys?
Is a copyright notice with a non-existent name be invalid?
Fit odd number of triplets in a measure?
As a dual citizen, my US passport will expire one day after traveling to the US. Will this work?
How to make triangles with rounded sides and corners? (squircle with 3 sides)
Should man-made satellites feature an intelligent inverted "cow catcher"?
Is there a verb for listening stealthily?
malloc in main() or malloc in another function: allocating memory for a struct and its members
Flight departed from the gate 5 min before scheduled departure time. Refund options
The Nth Gryphon Number
Any stored/leased 737s that could substitute for grounded MAXs?
Why did Bronn offer to be Tyrion Lannister's champion in trial by combat?
What is the music which plays over the closing credits of Fleabag series 2 episode 2?
How does TikZ render an arc?
New Order #6: Easter Egg
Why is there so little support for joining EFTA in the British parliament?
Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 23:30 UTC (7:30pm US/Eastern)Does the new EU-Swiss draft deal contain explicit provisions on immigration quotas?Is there a clear statement from the DUP on their position on the post-Brexit border with Ireland?Why is it impossible to leave the Single Market without a hard Irish border?What is the UK government hoping to gain by the continued prevarication on brexit negotiations?Is the UK asking for increased influence over the EU post-Brexit?Could a post-no-deal-Brexit UK urgently join EFTA and access the ESM that way?The thinking behind regulatory alignment for goodsWhy doesn't the UK hold a second Brexit referendum to clarify what the public wants from Brexit?Can the UK deal selectively with Ireland post-Brexit without falling afoul of WTO rules?How do Brexiteers interpret Trump's insistence on a wall?Why don't hard Brexiteers insist on a hard border to prevent illegal immigration after Brexit?
What are disadvantages of joining European Free Trade Association
(EFTA) and negotiating deals similar to the ones between the EU and Switzerland?
It would eliminate the need for a hard border in Northern Ireland (important for supporters of a soft Brexit), let the UK negotiate its own trade agreements and give it control over freedom of movement by making it subject to bilateral agreements (important for supporters of a hard Brexit).
Yet, the indicative votes have shown that this the least supported option in the British parliament. I understand why remainers oppose it, but why is it also opposed by so many Brexiteers?
united-kingdom european-union brexit efta
add a comment |
What are disadvantages of joining European Free Trade Association
(EFTA) and negotiating deals similar to the ones between the EU and Switzerland?
It would eliminate the need for a hard border in Northern Ireland (important for supporters of a soft Brexit), let the UK negotiate its own trade agreements and give it control over freedom of movement by making it subject to bilateral agreements (important for supporters of a hard Brexit).
Yet, the indicative votes have shown that this the least supported option in the British parliament. I understand why remainers oppose it, but why is it also opposed by so many Brexiteers?
united-kingdom european-union brexit efta
The premise of your question is incorrect. The UK's joining EFTA would by itself not allow an open border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, because they would continue to be separate customs territories, and customs controls would be necessary, just as there are customs controls at Switzerland's borders.
– phoog
1 hour ago
@phoog I wrote it would eliminate the need for a hard border. I've crossed the Swiss border a few times, and however one might call this arrangement, it's definitely not a hard border.
– michau
15 mins ago
add a comment |
What are disadvantages of joining European Free Trade Association
(EFTA) and negotiating deals similar to the ones between the EU and Switzerland?
It would eliminate the need for a hard border in Northern Ireland (important for supporters of a soft Brexit), let the UK negotiate its own trade agreements and give it control over freedom of movement by making it subject to bilateral agreements (important for supporters of a hard Brexit).
Yet, the indicative votes have shown that this the least supported option in the British parliament. I understand why remainers oppose it, but why is it also opposed by so many Brexiteers?
united-kingdom european-union brexit efta
What are disadvantages of joining European Free Trade Association
(EFTA) and negotiating deals similar to the ones between the EU and Switzerland?
It would eliminate the need for a hard border in Northern Ireland (important for supporters of a soft Brexit), let the UK negotiate its own trade agreements and give it control over freedom of movement by making it subject to bilateral agreements (important for supporters of a hard Brexit).
Yet, the indicative votes have shown that this the least supported option in the British parliament. I understand why remainers oppose it, but why is it also opposed by so many Brexiteers?
united-kingdom european-union brexit efta
united-kingdom european-union brexit efta
edited 4 hours ago
Brythan
70.9k8150239
70.9k8150239
asked 6 hours ago
michaumichau
1857
1857
The premise of your question is incorrect. The UK's joining EFTA would by itself not allow an open border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, because they would continue to be separate customs territories, and customs controls would be necessary, just as there are customs controls at Switzerland's borders.
– phoog
1 hour ago
@phoog I wrote it would eliminate the need for a hard border. I've crossed the Swiss border a few times, and however one might call this arrangement, it's definitely not a hard border.
– michau
15 mins ago
add a comment |
The premise of your question is incorrect. The UK's joining EFTA would by itself not allow an open border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, because they would continue to be separate customs territories, and customs controls would be necessary, just as there are customs controls at Switzerland's borders.
– phoog
1 hour ago
@phoog I wrote it would eliminate the need for a hard border. I've crossed the Swiss border a few times, and however one might call this arrangement, it's definitely not a hard border.
– michau
15 mins ago
The premise of your question is incorrect. The UK's joining EFTA would by itself not allow an open border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, because they would continue to be separate customs territories, and customs controls would be necessary, just as there are customs controls at Switzerland's borders.
– phoog
1 hour ago
The premise of your question is incorrect. The UK's joining EFTA would by itself not allow an open border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, because they would continue to be separate customs territories, and customs controls would be necessary, just as there are customs controls at Switzerland's borders.
– phoog
1 hour ago
@phoog I wrote it would eliminate the need for a hard border. I've crossed the Swiss border a few times, and however one might call this arrangement, it's definitely not a hard border.
– michau
15 mins ago
@phoog I wrote it would eliminate the need for a hard border. I've crossed the Swiss border a few times, and however one might call this arrangement, it's definitely not a hard border.
– michau
15 mins ago
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
According to the slides by Michel Barnier (also printed below), the 'Switzerland option' has certain requirements that may not fit with UK red lines.
I will quote the point from the slide, which are possible UK red lines, and say how these could be overcome to make the Switzerland option work.
No free movement. To overcome this, the UK must give in that it cannot block free movement of people. In the Swiss case that's covered by this agreement.
No substantial financial contribution. To overcome this, the UK would have to contribute to the EU budget. Consider this article on the website of the Swiss confederation.
Regulatory autonomy. To overcome this, the UK has to implement some EU laws to have and maintain EU market access. For the Swiss case, consider this page by fullfact.org.
The freedom of movement issue is not entirely correct; the Swiss have exceptions allowing them to impose quotas sem.admin.ch/sem/en/home/themen/fza_schweiz-eu-efta.html which led to a big fight with the EU. thelocal.ch/20181213/…
– Fizz
4 hours ago
1
@Fizz but it's free movement of people for citizens of most EU countries, right? The link in my answer only mentions quotas for Croatian, Romanian and Bulgarian citizens and only for a limited time period (which is almost over for Romania and Bulgaria and over for Croatia next July of year). Or is there some more recent development?
– JJJ
4 hours ago
@Brythan it's phrased a bit poorly in the slide. The thing is, if the UK has red line "we want no financial contribution" then they cannot have the Swiss option. The alternative being that they do contribute to the EU budget.
– JJJ
4 hours ago
The fights seems centered on on the Swiss preemption clauses on jobs. But no Swiss job -> no right to reside in Swiss; you can temporarily visit of course.
– Fizz
4 hours ago
@Fizz interesting, perhaps more suitable for a different question. I think it's too nuanced to fully explain here. Also, I'm not sure how it's different from being an EU member. If you have no job as an EU citizen in another EU country they can send you back after a certain period as well. See here.
– JJJ
4 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
Probably because the "Swiss model" is in flux. DW said
After four years of hard-fought negotiations, Switzerland has shrugged off a deadline for a treaty with the EU. It is concerned that freedom of movement requirements will flood the wealthy country with low-wage labor.
Also FT said
Swiss politicians resent what they regard as “blackmail” by Brussels [...]
Also the EU has granted the Swiss an extension of sorts to figure it out. That sounds somewhat familiar...
In the recent past, the Swiss were able impose some temporary immigration quotas on some EU countries (mostly newly admitted members); a few of these quotas are still in place. However it seems the new (draft) deal EU-Swiss doesn't allow for that. There's still some wiggle room in it for Swiss preemption for "at risk" jobs, itself a hard-fought issue in the negotiations. But this must look like a rather weaksauce solution in the UK given the hardline "take back control of our borders" stance.
Also DW suggested a mutual wait-game of the Swiss and the UK:
[T]he Commission [is] wary of going easy on the Swiss for fear of providing ammunition to Brexiteers. Meanwhile, many Swiss are happy to wait and see what sort of deal the British can extract for themselves out of the EU.
Also in the new Swiss-EU deal there will be some role for ECJ e.g. with respect to state aid (see FT article for overview); also an EU law blog explains
The [Swiss-EU] FA [draft Framework Agreement] rules on dispute settlement generally follow typical standards of state-to-state arbitration in public international law, with the exception of disputes where the interpretation of EU law is at stake. Notably, the chosen framework for dispute settlement is exclusive for both parties concerning interpretative disputes (Article 9).
To briefly sketch the procedure, if the relevant joint committee cannot find a solution to a dispute, after three months the EU or Switzerland can ask for the establishment of an arbitral tribunal. If the dispute raises a question of interpretation or application of one of the norms of the FA, the covered agreements or a referenced EU legal act (as provided for in Article 4 (2) FA), the arbitral tribunal turns to the CJEU [ECJ being the supreme instance of that], if the interpretation of that norm is relevant to resolve the dispute and necessary to enable the tribunal to take a decision (Article 10 (3) FA). The judgment of the [EU] Court binds the tribunal. [...]
The FA tribunal system is extremely closely bound to the CJEU, which in turn makes it politically very difficult to sell (in this case in Switzerland).
So the Barnier slide (which dates from a year before the draft EU-Swiss deal) is somewhat out of date. The new deal puts the Swiss in less clearly separate bucket from the rest of the EEA with respect to the "red lines" in that slide.
An article in the Economist written before the Swiss draft deal noted:
As far as Brussels is concerned, [...] Norway is treated as a friend—unlike Switzerland, which in place of the EEA has a laborious set of bilateral deals. The EU hates the Swiss set-up, because it is not dynamically updated to changed single-market rules and there is no agreed dispute-settlement mechanism. Diplomats in Brussels are clear that the Swiss model is not on offer to the British (many say it would not now be given to the Swiss).
And indeed the old Swiss model wasn't offered to the Swiss anymore (in the new draft framework deal).
In contrast the "Norway model" (EEA) appears more stable, so that's probably a reason why there is less reluctance to talk about it.
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "475"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f40895%2fwhy-is-there-so-little-support-for-joining-efta-in-the-british-parliament%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
According to the slides by Michel Barnier (also printed below), the 'Switzerland option' has certain requirements that may not fit with UK red lines.
I will quote the point from the slide, which are possible UK red lines, and say how these could be overcome to make the Switzerland option work.
No free movement. To overcome this, the UK must give in that it cannot block free movement of people. In the Swiss case that's covered by this agreement.
No substantial financial contribution. To overcome this, the UK would have to contribute to the EU budget. Consider this article on the website of the Swiss confederation.
Regulatory autonomy. To overcome this, the UK has to implement some EU laws to have and maintain EU market access. For the Swiss case, consider this page by fullfact.org.
The freedom of movement issue is not entirely correct; the Swiss have exceptions allowing them to impose quotas sem.admin.ch/sem/en/home/themen/fza_schweiz-eu-efta.html which led to a big fight with the EU. thelocal.ch/20181213/…
– Fizz
4 hours ago
1
@Fizz but it's free movement of people for citizens of most EU countries, right? The link in my answer only mentions quotas for Croatian, Romanian and Bulgarian citizens and only for a limited time period (which is almost over for Romania and Bulgaria and over for Croatia next July of year). Or is there some more recent development?
– JJJ
4 hours ago
@Brythan it's phrased a bit poorly in the slide. The thing is, if the UK has red line "we want no financial contribution" then they cannot have the Swiss option. The alternative being that they do contribute to the EU budget.
– JJJ
4 hours ago
The fights seems centered on on the Swiss preemption clauses on jobs. But no Swiss job -> no right to reside in Swiss; you can temporarily visit of course.
– Fizz
4 hours ago
@Fizz interesting, perhaps more suitable for a different question. I think it's too nuanced to fully explain here. Also, I'm not sure how it's different from being an EU member. If you have no job as an EU citizen in another EU country they can send you back after a certain period as well. See here.
– JJJ
4 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
According to the slides by Michel Barnier (also printed below), the 'Switzerland option' has certain requirements that may not fit with UK red lines.
I will quote the point from the slide, which are possible UK red lines, and say how these could be overcome to make the Switzerland option work.
No free movement. To overcome this, the UK must give in that it cannot block free movement of people. In the Swiss case that's covered by this agreement.
No substantial financial contribution. To overcome this, the UK would have to contribute to the EU budget. Consider this article on the website of the Swiss confederation.
Regulatory autonomy. To overcome this, the UK has to implement some EU laws to have and maintain EU market access. For the Swiss case, consider this page by fullfact.org.
The freedom of movement issue is not entirely correct; the Swiss have exceptions allowing them to impose quotas sem.admin.ch/sem/en/home/themen/fza_schweiz-eu-efta.html which led to a big fight with the EU. thelocal.ch/20181213/…
– Fizz
4 hours ago
1
@Fizz but it's free movement of people for citizens of most EU countries, right? The link in my answer only mentions quotas for Croatian, Romanian and Bulgarian citizens and only for a limited time period (which is almost over for Romania and Bulgaria and over for Croatia next July of year). Or is there some more recent development?
– JJJ
4 hours ago
@Brythan it's phrased a bit poorly in the slide. The thing is, if the UK has red line "we want no financial contribution" then they cannot have the Swiss option. The alternative being that they do contribute to the EU budget.
– JJJ
4 hours ago
The fights seems centered on on the Swiss preemption clauses on jobs. But no Swiss job -> no right to reside in Swiss; you can temporarily visit of course.
– Fizz
4 hours ago
@Fizz interesting, perhaps more suitable for a different question. I think it's too nuanced to fully explain here. Also, I'm not sure how it's different from being an EU member. If you have no job as an EU citizen in another EU country they can send you back after a certain period as well. See here.
– JJJ
4 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
According to the slides by Michel Barnier (also printed below), the 'Switzerland option' has certain requirements that may not fit with UK red lines.
I will quote the point from the slide, which are possible UK red lines, and say how these could be overcome to make the Switzerland option work.
No free movement. To overcome this, the UK must give in that it cannot block free movement of people. In the Swiss case that's covered by this agreement.
No substantial financial contribution. To overcome this, the UK would have to contribute to the EU budget. Consider this article on the website of the Swiss confederation.
Regulatory autonomy. To overcome this, the UK has to implement some EU laws to have and maintain EU market access. For the Swiss case, consider this page by fullfact.org.
According to the slides by Michel Barnier (also printed below), the 'Switzerland option' has certain requirements that may not fit with UK red lines.
I will quote the point from the slide, which are possible UK red lines, and say how these could be overcome to make the Switzerland option work.
No free movement. To overcome this, the UK must give in that it cannot block free movement of people. In the Swiss case that's covered by this agreement.
No substantial financial contribution. To overcome this, the UK would have to contribute to the EU budget. Consider this article on the website of the Swiss confederation.
Regulatory autonomy. To overcome this, the UK has to implement some EU laws to have and maintain EU market access. For the Swiss case, consider this page by fullfact.org.
edited 4 hours ago
answered 5 hours ago
JJJJJJ
7,30622661
7,30622661
The freedom of movement issue is not entirely correct; the Swiss have exceptions allowing them to impose quotas sem.admin.ch/sem/en/home/themen/fza_schweiz-eu-efta.html which led to a big fight with the EU. thelocal.ch/20181213/…
– Fizz
4 hours ago
1
@Fizz but it's free movement of people for citizens of most EU countries, right? The link in my answer only mentions quotas for Croatian, Romanian and Bulgarian citizens and only for a limited time period (which is almost over for Romania and Bulgaria and over for Croatia next July of year). Or is there some more recent development?
– JJJ
4 hours ago
@Brythan it's phrased a bit poorly in the slide. The thing is, if the UK has red line "we want no financial contribution" then they cannot have the Swiss option. The alternative being that they do contribute to the EU budget.
– JJJ
4 hours ago
The fights seems centered on on the Swiss preemption clauses on jobs. But no Swiss job -> no right to reside in Swiss; you can temporarily visit of course.
– Fizz
4 hours ago
@Fizz interesting, perhaps more suitable for a different question. I think it's too nuanced to fully explain here. Also, I'm not sure how it's different from being an EU member. If you have no job as an EU citizen in another EU country they can send you back after a certain period as well. See here.
– JJJ
4 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
The freedom of movement issue is not entirely correct; the Swiss have exceptions allowing them to impose quotas sem.admin.ch/sem/en/home/themen/fza_schweiz-eu-efta.html which led to a big fight with the EU. thelocal.ch/20181213/…
– Fizz
4 hours ago
1
@Fizz but it's free movement of people for citizens of most EU countries, right? The link in my answer only mentions quotas for Croatian, Romanian and Bulgarian citizens and only for a limited time period (which is almost over for Romania and Bulgaria and over for Croatia next July of year). Or is there some more recent development?
– JJJ
4 hours ago
@Brythan it's phrased a bit poorly in the slide. The thing is, if the UK has red line "we want no financial contribution" then they cannot have the Swiss option. The alternative being that they do contribute to the EU budget.
– JJJ
4 hours ago
The fights seems centered on on the Swiss preemption clauses on jobs. But no Swiss job -> no right to reside in Swiss; you can temporarily visit of course.
– Fizz
4 hours ago
@Fizz interesting, perhaps more suitable for a different question. I think it's too nuanced to fully explain here. Also, I'm not sure how it's different from being an EU member. If you have no job as an EU citizen in another EU country they can send you back after a certain period as well. See here.
– JJJ
4 hours ago
The freedom of movement issue is not entirely correct; the Swiss have exceptions allowing them to impose quotas sem.admin.ch/sem/en/home/themen/fza_schweiz-eu-efta.html which led to a big fight with the EU. thelocal.ch/20181213/…
– Fizz
4 hours ago
The freedom of movement issue is not entirely correct; the Swiss have exceptions allowing them to impose quotas sem.admin.ch/sem/en/home/themen/fza_schweiz-eu-efta.html which led to a big fight with the EU. thelocal.ch/20181213/…
– Fizz
4 hours ago
1
1
@Fizz but it's free movement of people for citizens of most EU countries, right? The link in my answer only mentions quotas for Croatian, Romanian and Bulgarian citizens and only for a limited time period (which is almost over for Romania and Bulgaria and over for Croatia next July of year). Or is there some more recent development?
– JJJ
4 hours ago
@Fizz but it's free movement of people for citizens of most EU countries, right? The link in my answer only mentions quotas for Croatian, Romanian and Bulgarian citizens and only for a limited time period (which is almost over for Romania and Bulgaria and over for Croatia next July of year). Or is there some more recent development?
– JJJ
4 hours ago
@Brythan it's phrased a bit poorly in the slide. The thing is, if the UK has red line "we want no financial contribution" then they cannot have the Swiss option. The alternative being that they do contribute to the EU budget.
– JJJ
4 hours ago
@Brythan it's phrased a bit poorly in the slide. The thing is, if the UK has red line "we want no financial contribution" then they cannot have the Swiss option. The alternative being that they do contribute to the EU budget.
– JJJ
4 hours ago
The fights seems centered on on the Swiss preemption clauses on jobs. But no Swiss job -> no right to reside in Swiss; you can temporarily visit of course.
– Fizz
4 hours ago
The fights seems centered on on the Swiss preemption clauses on jobs. But no Swiss job -> no right to reside in Swiss; you can temporarily visit of course.
– Fizz
4 hours ago
@Fizz interesting, perhaps more suitable for a different question. I think it's too nuanced to fully explain here. Also, I'm not sure how it's different from being an EU member. If you have no job as an EU citizen in another EU country they can send you back after a certain period as well. See here.
– JJJ
4 hours ago
@Fizz interesting, perhaps more suitable for a different question. I think it's too nuanced to fully explain here. Also, I'm not sure how it's different from being an EU member. If you have no job as an EU citizen in another EU country they can send you back after a certain period as well. See here.
– JJJ
4 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
Probably because the "Swiss model" is in flux. DW said
After four years of hard-fought negotiations, Switzerland has shrugged off a deadline for a treaty with the EU. It is concerned that freedom of movement requirements will flood the wealthy country with low-wage labor.
Also FT said
Swiss politicians resent what they regard as “blackmail” by Brussels [...]
Also the EU has granted the Swiss an extension of sorts to figure it out. That sounds somewhat familiar...
In the recent past, the Swiss were able impose some temporary immigration quotas on some EU countries (mostly newly admitted members); a few of these quotas are still in place. However it seems the new (draft) deal EU-Swiss doesn't allow for that. There's still some wiggle room in it for Swiss preemption for "at risk" jobs, itself a hard-fought issue in the negotiations. But this must look like a rather weaksauce solution in the UK given the hardline "take back control of our borders" stance.
Also DW suggested a mutual wait-game of the Swiss and the UK:
[T]he Commission [is] wary of going easy on the Swiss for fear of providing ammunition to Brexiteers. Meanwhile, many Swiss are happy to wait and see what sort of deal the British can extract for themselves out of the EU.
Also in the new Swiss-EU deal there will be some role for ECJ e.g. with respect to state aid (see FT article for overview); also an EU law blog explains
The [Swiss-EU] FA [draft Framework Agreement] rules on dispute settlement generally follow typical standards of state-to-state arbitration in public international law, with the exception of disputes where the interpretation of EU law is at stake. Notably, the chosen framework for dispute settlement is exclusive for both parties concerning interpretative disputes (Article 9).
To briefly sketch the procedure, if the relevant joint committee cannot find a solution to a dispute, after three months the EU or Switzerland can ask for the establishment of an arbitral tribunal. If the dispute raises a question of interpretation or application of one of the norms of the FA, the covered agreements or a referenced EU legal act (as provided for in Article 4 (2) FA), the arbitral tribunal turns to the CJEU [ECJ being the supreme instance of that], if the interpretation of that norm is relevant to resolve the dispute and necessary to enable the tribunal to take a decision (Article 10 (3) FA). The judgment of the [EU] Court binds the tribunal. [...]
The FA tribunal system is extremely closely bound to the CJEU, which in turn makes it politically very difficult to sell (in this case in Switzerland).
So the Barnier slide (which dates from a year before the draft EU-Swiss deal) is somewhat out of date. The new deal puts the Swiss in less clearly separate bucket from the rest of the EEA with respect to the "red lines" in that slide.
An article in the Economist written before the Swiss draft deal noted:
As far as Brussels is concerned, [...] Norway is treated as a friend—unlike Switzerland, which in place of the EEA has a laborious set of bilateral deals. The EU hates the Swiss set-up, because it is not dynamically updated to changed single-market rules and there is no agreed dispute-settlement mechanism. Diplomats in Brussels are clear that the Swiss model is not on offer to the British (many say it would not now be given to the Swiss).
And indeed the old Swiss model wasn't offered to the Swiss anymore (in the new draft framework deal).
In contrast the "Norway model" (EEA) appears more stable, so that's probably a reason why there is less reluctance to talk about it.
add a comment |
Probably because the "Swiss model" is in flux. DW said
After four years of hard-fought negotiations, Switzerland has shrugged off a deadline for a treaty with the EU. It is concerned that freedom of movement requirements will flood the wealthy country with low-wage labor.
Also FT said
Swiss politicians resent what they regard as “blackmail” by Brussels [...]
Also the EU has granted the Swiss an extension of sorts to figure it out. That sounds somewhat familiar...
In the recent past, the Swiss were able impose some temporary immigration quotas on some EU countries (mostly newly admitted members); a few of these quotas are still in place. However it seems the new (draft) deal EU-Swiss doesn't allow for that. There's still some wiggle room in it for Swiss preemption for "at risk" jobs, itself a hard-fought issue in the negotiations. But this must look like a rather weaksauce solution in the UK given the hardline "take back control of our borders" stance.
Also DW suggested a mutual wait-game of the Swiss and the UK:
[T]he Commission [is] wary of going easy on the Swiss for fear of providing ammunition to Brexiteers. Meanwhile, many Swiss are happy to wait and see what sort of deal the British can extract for themselves out of the EU.
Also in the new Swiss-EU deal there will be some role for ECJ e.g. with respect to state aid (see FT article for overview); also an EU law blog explains
The [Swiss-EU] FA [draft Framework Agreement] rules on dispute settlement generally follow typical standards of state-to-state arbitration in public international law, with the exception of disputes where the interpretation of EU law is at stake. Notably, the chosen framework for dispute settlement is exclusive for both parties concerning interpretative disputes (Article 9).
To briefly sketch the procedure, if the relevant joint committee cannot find a solution to a dispute, after three months the EU or Switzerland can ask for the establishment of an arbitral tribunal. If the dispute raises a question of interpretation or application of one of the norms of the FA, the covered agreements or a referenced EU legal act (as provided for in Article 4 (2) FA), the arbitral tribunal turns to the CJEU [ECJ being the supreme instance of that], if the interpretation of that norm is relevant to resolve the dispute and necessary to enable the tribunal to take a decision (Article 10 (3) FA). The judgment of the [EU] Court binds the tribunal. [...]
The FA tribunal system is extremely closely bound to the CJEU, which in turn makes it politically very difficult to sell (in this case in Switzerland).
So the Barnier slide (which dates from a year before the draft EU-Swiss deal) is somewhat out of date. The new deal puts the Swiss in less clearly separate bucket from the rest of the EEA with respect to the "red lines" in that slide.
An article in the Economist written before the Swiss draft deal noted:
As far as Brussels is concerned, [...] Norway is treated as a friend—unlike Switzerland, which in place of the EEA has a laborious set of bilateral deals. The EU hates the Swiss set-up, because it is not dynamically updated to changed single-market rules and there is no agreed dispute-settlement mechanism. Diplomats in Brussels are clear that the Swiss model is not on offer to the British (many say it would not now be given to the Swiss).
And indeed the old Swiss model wasn't offered to the Swiss anymore (in the new draft framework deal).
In contrast the "Norway model" (EEA) appears more stable, so that's probably a reason why there is less reluctance to talk about it.
add a comment |
Probably because the "Swiss model" is in flux. DW said
After four years of hard-fought negotiations, Switzerland has shrugged off a deadline for a treaty with the EU. It is concerned that freedom of movement requirements will flood the wealthy country with low-wage labor.
Also FT said
Swiss politicians resent what they regard as “blackmail” by Brussels [...]
Also the EU has granted the Swiss an extension of sorts to figure it out. That sounds somewhat familiar...
In the recent past, the Swiss were able impose some temporary immigration quotas on some EU countries (mostly newly admitted members); a few of these quotas are still in place. However it seems the new (draft) deal EU-Swiss doesn't allow for that. There's still some wiggle room in it for Swiss preemption for "at risk" jobs, itself a hard-fought issue in the negotiations. But this must look like a rather weaksauce solution in the UK given the hardline "take back control of our borders" stance.
Also DW suggested a mutual wait-game of the Swiss and the UK:
[T]he Commission [is] wary of going easy on the Swiss for fear of providing ammunition to Brexiteers. Meanwhile, many Swiss are happy to wait and see what sort of deal the British can extract for themselves out of the EU.
Also in the new Swiss-EU deal there will be some role for ECJ e.g. with respect to state aid (see FT article for overview); also an EU law blog explains
The [Swiss-EU] FA [draft Framework Agreement] rules on dispute settlement generally follow typical standards of state-to-state arbitration in public international law, with the exception of disputes where the interpretation of EU law is at stake. Notably, the chosen framework for dispute settlement is exclusive for both parties concerning interpretative disputes (Article 9).
To briefly sketch the procedure, if the relevant joint committee cannot find a solution to a dispute, after three months the EU or Switzerland can ask for the establishment of an arbitral tribunal. If the dispute raises a question of interpretation or application of one of the norms of the FA, the covered agreements or a referenced EU legal act (as provided for in Article 4 (2) FA), the arbitral tribunal turns to the CJEU [ECJ being the supreme instance of that], if the interpretation of that norm is relevant to resolve the dispute and necessary to enable the tribunal to take a decision (Article 10 (3) FA). The judgment of the [EU] Court binds the tribunal. [...]
The FA tribunal system is extremely closely bound to the CJEU, which in turn makes it politically very difficult to sell (in this case in Switzerland).
So the Barnier slide (which dates from a year before the draft EU-Swiss deal) is somewhat out of date. The new deal puts the Swiss in less clearly separate bucket from the rest of the EEA with respect to the "red lines" in that slide.
An article in the Economist written before the Swiss draft deal noted:
As far as Brussels is concerned, [...] Norway is treated as a friend—unlike Switzerland, which in place of the EEA has a laborious set of bilateral deals. The EU hates the Swiss set-up, because it is not dynamically updated to changed single-market rules and there is no agreed dispute-settlement mechanism. Diplomats in Brussels are clear that the Swiss model is not on offer to the British (many say it would not now be given to the Swiss).
And indeed the old Swiss model wasn't offered to the Swiss anymore (in the new draft framework deal).
In contrast the "Norway model" (EEA) appears more stable, so that's probably a reason why there is less reluctance to talk about it.
Probably because the "Swiss model" is in flux. DW said
After four years of hard-fought negotiations, Switzerland has shrugged off a deadline for a treaty with the EU. It is concerned that freedom of movement requirements will flood the wealthy country with low-wage labor.
Also FT said
Swiss politicians resent what they regard as “blackmail” by Brussels [...]
Also the EU has granted the Swiss an extension of sorts to figure it out. That sounds somewhat familiar...
In the recent past, the Swiss were able impose some temporary immigration quotas on some EU countries (mostly newly admitted members); a few of these quotas are still in place. However it seems the new (draft) deal EU-Swiss doesn't allow for that. There's still some wiggle room in it for Swiss preemption for "at risk" jobs, itself a hard-fought issue in the negotiations. But this must look like a rather weaksauce solution in the UK given the hardline "take back control of our borders" stance.
Also DW suggested a mutual wait-game of the Swiss and the UK:
[T]he Commission [is] wary of going easy on the Swiss for fear of providing ammunition to Brexiteers. Meanwhile, many Swiss are happy to wait and see what sort of deal the British can extract for themselves out of the EU.
Also in the new Swiss-EU deal there will be some role for ECJ e.g. with respect to state aid (see FT article for overview); also an EU law blog explains
The [Swiss-EU] FA [draft Framework Agreement] rules on dispute settlement generally follow typical standards of state-to-state arbitration in public international law, with the exception of disputes where the interpretation of EU law is at stake. Notably, the chosen framework for dispute settlement is exclusive for both parties concerning interpretative disputes (Article 9).
To briefly sketch the procedure, if the relevant joint committee cannot find a solution to a dispute, after three months the EU or Switzerland can ask for the establishment of an arbitral tribunal. If the dispute raises a question of interpretation or application of one of the norms of the FA, the covered agreements or a referenced EU legal act (as provided for in Article 4 (2) FA), the arbitral tribunal turns to the CJEU [ECJ being the supreme instance of that], if the interpretation of that norm is relevant to resolve the dispute and necessary to enable the tribunal to take a decision (Article 10 (3) FA). The judgment of the [EU] Court binds the tribunal. [...]
The FA tribunal system is extremely closely bound to the CJEU, which in turn makes it politically very difficult to sell (in this case in Switzerland).
So the Barnier slide (which dates from a year before the draft EU-Swiss deal) is somewhat out of date. The new deal puts the Swiss in less clearly separate bucket from the rest of the EEA with respect to the "red lines" in that slide.
An article in the Economist written before the Swiss draft deal noted:
As far as Brussels is concerned, [...] Norway is treated as a friend—unlike Switzerland, which in place of the EEA has a laborious set of bilateral deals. The EU hates the Swiss set-up, because it is not dynamically updated to changed single-market rules and there is no agreed dispute-settlement mechanism. Diplomats in Brussels are clear that the Swiss model is not on offer to the British (many say it would not now be given to the Swiss).
And indeed the old Swiss model wasn't offered to the Swiss anymore (in the new draft framework deal).
In contrast the "Norway model" (EEA) appears more stable, so that's probably a reason why there is less reluctance to talk about it.
edited 2 hours ago
answered 3 hours ago
FizzFizz
16.2k241105
16.2k241105
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Politics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f40895%2fwhy-is-there-so-little-support-for-joining-efta-in-the-british-parliament%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
The premise of your question is incorrect. The UK's joining EFTA would by itself not allow an open border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, because they would continue to be separate customs territories, and customs controls would be necessary, just as there are customs controls at Switzerland's borders.
– phoog
1 hour ago
@phoog I wrote it would eliminate the need for a hard border. I've crossed the Swiss border a few times, and however one might call this arrangement, it's definitely not a hard border.
– michau
15 mins ago