The EU debate

Generali

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Ouch.

Norway paying more per capita than the UK, having to implement EU rules anyway, but having no say on what they are.

Well that sounds lovely.....

It sounds extraordinarily similar to the model the SNP has in mind for trade between Scotland and England.

Correct me if I'm wrong here please Hamish.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Generali wrote: »

It sounds extraordinarily similar to the model the SNP has in mind for trade between Scotland and England.

Correct me if I'm wrong here please Hamish.

No correction required.

Although I'm sure Conrad will be along shortly muttering about the global economic powerhouse that is New Zealand, while telling us we'd all be better off splintering into the smallest possible countries so as to be more 'local' in nature.

GeorgeHowell

Presumably Norway and Switzerland choose to implement a number of laws relating to free trade because they want to maintain the free trade status with the EU. EU members have to abide by all EU laws -- they have no choice. Also presumably Norway and Switzerland do not have to implement EU and associated European laws that have nothing directly to do with trade in the realms of criminal justice, human rights, immigration, health and safety, and environment. Nor are Norway and Switzerland being progressively subsumed into an undemocratic, corrupt, and backward thinking superstate from which there is no escape other than to withdraw from the whole thing altogether.

antrobus

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

Presumably Norway and Switzerland choose to implement a number of laws relating to free trade because they want to maintain the free trade status with the EU. EU members have to abide by all EU laws -- they have no choice. Also presumably Norway and Switzerland do not have to implement EU and associated European laws that have nothing directly to do with trade in the realms of criminal justice, human rights, immigration, health and safety, and environment. Nor are Norway and Switzerland being progressively subsumed into an undemocratic, corrupt, and backward thinking superstate from which there is no escape other than to withdraw from the whole thing altogether.

Both Norway and Switzerland are members of the Council of Europe (human rights and other stuff), Both Norway and Switzerland are signatories to the Schengen Agreement (immigration and border controls)

The poster doth presume to much.:)

GeorgeHowell

antrobus wrote: »

Both Norway and Switzerland are members of the Council of Europe (human rights and other stuff), Both Norway and Switzerland are signatories to the Schengen Agreement (immigration and border controls)

The poster doth presume to much.:)

We were founder members of the Council of Europe in 1949. But we didn't have this human rights fiasco until Blair enshrined European human rights jurisdiction into UK law. The issue of whether that can be reversed whilst retaining membership of the EU is forever shrouded in mystery. But I bet Norway and Switzerland don't allow themselves to be jerked around by unaccountable, politically motivated ECHR judges like we do.

Schengen is about freedom of movement without requiring passports etc, not about immigration policy, rights of residence etc, per se.

Ultimately Norway and Switzerland have the option of withdrawing from, or declining to implement, anything against their vital interests. They are not stuck with being told that laws made elsewhere are now on their statute books -- like it or lump it.

Linton

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

We were founder members of the Council of Europe in 1949. But we didn't have this human rights fiasco until Blair enshrined European human rights jurisdiction into UK law. The issue of whether that can be reversed whilst retaining membership of the EU is forever shrouded in mystery. But I bet Norway and Switzerland don't allow themselves to be jerked around by unaccountable, politically motivated ECHR judges like we do.

Schengen is about freedom of movement without requiring passports etc, not about immigration policy, rights of residence etc, per se.

Ultimately Norway and Switzerland have the option of withdrawing from, or declining to implement, anything against their vital interests. They are not stuck with being told that laws made elsewhere are now on their statute books -- like it or lump it.

Methinks you are adjusting facts to fit in with your political views. Perhaps you would be more persuasive if you adopted the reverse approach.

The UK accepted the right of individuals to take cases to the ECourtHR and the Jurisdiction of the Court in 1966. No UK government since then has moved to change this right. What Tony Blair did in 1998 was to make the Rights enshrined in the ECHR, which it had ratified in 1953, part of UK law so that individuals could take their cases to the UK courts rather than having to go to Europe.

In the period 1999-2010 the UK government lost about 2% of the cases raised against it with the ECtHR. The compares with 2.8% for France and 8% for Italy, both of whom had about 90% more cases than the UK.

antrobus

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

We were founder members of the Council of Europe in 1949. But we didn't have this human rights fiasco until Blair enshrined European human rights jurisdiction into UK law.....

So, it's nothing to do with UK membership of the Common Market/EEC/EU which dates back to 1973 when dear Tony was still a student at Oxford. Glad we've got that one sorted.

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

... The issue of whether that can be reversed whilst retaining membership of the EU is forever shrouded in mystery. ....

You can always read the parliamentary briefing on the subject if you're interested in penetrating this 'mystery'.

www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN06577.pdf‎

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

...But I bet Norway and Switzerland don't allow themselves to be jerked around by unaccountable, politically motivated ECHR judges like we do.....

You're presuming again. Do you have any evidence to support your belief that either Norway and Switzerland have deliberatley flouted judgements by the ECHR?

Here's a recent case where the Norwegian government has been ordered to pay damages...
http://www.asil.org/blogs/european-court-human-rights-rules-against-norway-deep-sea-divers-dispute-december-5-2013

and here's a recent Swiss case
http://www.humanrightseurope.org/2014/03/switzerland-court-backs-asbestos-victims-family-in-human-rights-dispute/

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

...Schengen is about freedom of movement without requiring passports etc, not about immigration policy, rights of residence etc, per se.

Nevertheless Switzerland was an original Schengen signatory and as such has less control over its own borders that we do. Because the UK never signed up to Schengen.

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

....Ultimately Norway and Switzerland have the option of withdrawing from, or declining to implement, anything against their vital interests. They are not stuck with being told that laws made elsewhere are now on their statute books -- like it or lump it.

I guess that would be why the Norwegian Prime Minister was recently to be heard saying that 'Britain Should Not Leave EU'?:)

It's a fairly standard complaint by Norwegian politicians that they have to implement EU law without having a say in deciding on what that law should be. Or as one Norwegian minister put it "We are not at the table when decisions are made" http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20830201

Switzerland is in much the same position despite not being in the EEA. As the EU put it "around 100 bilateral agreements currently exist between the EU and Switzerland. The on-going implementation of these agreements obliges Switzerland to take over relevant Community legislation in the covered sectors.

http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-regions/countries/switzerland/

Linton

Found another ECtHR statistic for you for 2013:

Judgements finding 1 or more violation of the Convention:

UK: 8 = 0.128 per 1M population
Switzerland: 9 = 1.17 per 1M population
Norway: 2 = 0.4 per 1M population

N1AK

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

Ultimately Norway and Switzerland have the option of withdrawing from, or declining to implement, anything against their vital interests. They are not stuck with being told that laws made elsewhere are now on their statute books -- like it or lump it.

Look. It's clear you simply don't like the EU; so what is it that makes you constantly leap from one flimsy reason to another to justify it on a discussion board? Just save everyone else the bother, admit that there isn't anything in the world that could make you accept the EU isn't a bad idea and be done.

Repeatedly in this thread alone you've made passionate attacks against the EU, Blair etc for things that had you even superficial knowledge of you'd know to be false.

Switzerland can withdraw or decline EU regulations, so can we can by leaving. There's nothing magical about the Swiss, or Norwegian, situation and I certainly think we're better off with the benefits of full membership than we'd be if we left.

Bantex_2

The bit that worries me, is the assertion by the "Pros" that if we stay in we can change things from within. It does appear that is nigh on impossible to change anything (no matter how ridiculous, wasteful or even corrupt) due to the veto. It appears that just one vested interest can block any change and nothing can be done about it, despite the majority wanting it.