Support NeoGAF

[accel]

Ask Switzerland how their negotations are going. What would it take to convince you of the fact that EEA means freedom of movement or labour for the UK?

You are being completely intellectually dishonest.

Switzerland is not invoking article 112, they are going a different route.

If what you say is a fact is, indeed, a fact, it should be simple to demonstrate, no? But there's article 112.

What kmag says. There's a shit ton of countries who'd be literally leaping to arbitrate with the UK over it. Article 112 has only been used, ever, by Liechtenstein for my knowledge. It's used for serious economic emergencies, not just a distrust of foreigners. Liechtenstein had 63% of the population being immigrants when they triggered it.

Article 112 was also used by other countries and by the EU themselves. Other countries and the EU used it to limit freedom of movement of things other than people.

 

[Kabouter]

Look, again, saying that "limitations on freedom of movement and EEA membership are mutually exclusive" is wrong - they aren't, article 112 has been invoked more than once already.

I *am not* saying that it's simple - we enter EEA, invoke 112, everything is fine. No, it is more complex than that. But it is a possibility to keep in mind.

They are mutually exclusive when you are entering it. Immediately invoking an article intended for what are essentially crisis situations despite there being nothing of the sort is acting in bad faith. Why would anyone accept it anymore than they would a regular EEA deal with limitations on freedom of movement built in?

 

[The Friendly Monster]

Switzerland is not invoking article 112, they are going a different route.

I never claimed they were, they aren't an EEA member, I was arguing with your flippant closing line. What route do you think they are going by the way? They are in an awkward and embarrassing spot right now.

If what you say is a fact is, indeed, a fact, it should be simple to demonstrate, no? But there's article 112.

So no matter what anyone in authority says on the subject, you refuse to accept that EEA implies freedom of movement of labour for the UK?

 

[Linkstrikesback]

Switzerland is not invoking article 112, they are going a different route.

If what you say is a fact is, indeed, a fact, it should be simple to demonstrate, no? But there's article 112.

And pray tell. If invoking the article isn't a borderline insane plan that would never work the way you're imagining, why hasn't Switzerland done exactly that?


Edith darnit, they're not in the EEA.
Well I look silly now.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

FWIW I agree with blackcrane that the most probable Brexit plan involves the UK being in the EEA either permanently or as an intermediate ground for further disengagement. I'm also agreeing with everyone else that there is literally 0 chance this isn't accompanied by freedom of movement.

 

[accel]

I'm curious and can't find it fast on google: in which circumstances was Art. 112 used already?

Iceland used it to limit movement of capital in 2008, EU used it to stop Norway from selling fish at what they thought was too aggressive of a price, etc.

Again, no one said that the UK couldn't technically do it. We're just explaining to you why it would be an horrible idea to try to do it.

Then we should stop, because I am not saying that it is the right thing to do either - it depends on many things.

So no matter what anyone in authority says on the subject, you refuse to accept that EEA implies freedom of movement of labour for the UK?

No. /shrug

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Article 112 was also used by other countries and by the EU themselves. Other countries and the EU used it to limit freedom of movement of things other than people.

112 has only been used *once* to limit freedom of movement, in exceptional circumstances, on a temporary basis. With respect, nobody gives a shit if it was used to block Norwegian fish for 9 months; trying to argue that means it can be used to give the UK an EEA-with-no-freedom-of-movement arrangement is asinine.

 

[accel]

Go read article 111.4

I refer to this item in the post you reply.

112 has only been used *once* to limit freedom of movement, in exceptional circumstances, on a temporary basis. With respect, nobody gives a shit if it was used to block Norwegian fish for 9 months; trying to argue that means it can be used to give the UK an EEA-with-no-freedom-of-movement arrangement is asinine.

No, it has been used four times to limit freedom of movement. Freedom of movement applies to more things than people. The exceptional circumstances are in the eyes of the invoker. The temporary basis in one case (Liechteinstein) became semi-permanent.

 

[Jisgsaw]

Iceland used it to limit movement of capital in 2008, EU used it to stop Norway from selling fish at what they thought was too aggressive of a price, etc.

Yeah ok. So completely comparable to what the UK would be doing (i.e. using it because of alledge consequences that were clear even before they entered the EEA). And exactly on the same point (free movement of people and labor)

Then we should stop, because I am not saying that it is the right thing to do either - it depends on many things.

So why did you bring it up?
Another idea would be for the UK to declare war on the EU, winning the war and imposing access to the common market without free movement of people and labor.
It's about as realistic to work as invoking Art. 112 in the manner you described is.

 

[accel]

So why did you bring it up?

Because someone asked what I think regarding the freedom of movement if the UK goes to EEA and article 112 is relevant for that:

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=210945561&postcount=10927

 

[dumbo]

Article 112 was also used by other countries and by the EU themselves. Other countries and the EU used it to limit freedom of movement of things other than people.

One problem with relying on article 112 is the assumption that a UK deal would even contain that clause.

If you're signing a contract and you know that the other party will misuse a clause in the contract, then you amend (or remove) that clause before you sign it.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I refer to this item in the post you reply.

You weren't paying attention then. The UK could trigger this unilaterally. It would last three months before it would need review by an EU committee. The committee would reject extension, for all of the reasons everyone has laid about before as to why freedom of movement is a red line for the EU. The UK could either back down, or be taken to court, where it would lose the case. So, well done, you managed an astounding 3 months of EEA access without freedom of movement, at the cost of pissing off the European countries we will then need to negotiate with if we leave the EEA.

Why even bring this option up? You're a smart guy, this is clearly a lunatic idea.

 

[accel]

You weren't paying attention then. The UK could trigger this unilaterally. It would last three months before it would need review by an EU committee. The committee would reject extension, ....

It does not work like this, because the UK then simply invokes it again immediately.

I will tell why I bring it up. I don't consider this a lunatic idea. Again, we are talking about something like a numeric quota on the number of entrants per year, fixed at the level of what it already was de-facto. It is not something ground-breaking, other than someone swallowing their pride and allowing the UK have control on the freedom of movement - at a mutually agreed level, which is only relevant for several years until the UK exit the EEA.

I might be wrong about that. I am not seeing how, those provisions we are pasting back and forth *support* the things I say as far as I can see. But I agree I might be wrong.

 

[Jisgsaw]

I refer to this item in the post you reply.

I fail to see where.

Because someone asked what I think regarding the freedom of movement if the UK goes to EEA and article 112 is relevant for that:

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=210945561&postcount=10927

Not realy. It is only relevant if you consider to invoke 112 indifinetively, which it clearly wasn't written for.

One problem with relying on article 112 is the assumption that a UK deal would even contain that clause.

If you're signing a contract and you know that the other party will misuse a clause in the contract, then you amend (or remove) that clause before you sign it.

To be fair, I'm not sure this would be possible. Or they'd have to create an EEA-bis just for the UK.

It does not work like this, because the UK then simply invokes it again immediately.

Yeah sure, that'd fly very well with every country of Earth.
You do know you still have to live on this planet, and treat with the other countries that do too?

 

[kmag]

I refer to this item in the post you reply.

No. you didn't. Article 111.4 allows arbitration, not 114.1 which is what you referred to in the post.

As it says 111.4 can be invoked after the failure of the joint committee to amicably settle the matter. There's a 3 month cooling off period, but the recourse to binding neutral arbitration is clearly in the EEA agreement for this matter (111.4 is specifically for safeguarding measures under 111.3, 112 and the rebalancing actions under 114)

Here's protocol 33 which describes the makeup the panel if you're interested

PROTOCOL 33
ON ARBITRATION PROCEDURES
1. If a dispute has been referred to arbitration there shall be three arbitrators, unless the parties to the dispute decide
otherwise.
2. The two sides to the dispute shall each, within thirty days, appoint one arbitrator.
3. The arbitrators so designated shall nominate by consensus one umpire, who shall be a national of one of the Contracting
Parties other than those of the arbitrators designated. If they cannot agree within two months of their appointment, the
umpire shall be chosen by them from seven persons on a list established by the EEA Joint Committee. The Joint
Committee shall establish and keep under review this list in accordance with the rules of procedure for the Committee.
4. Unless the Contracting Parties decide otherwise, the arbitration tribunal shall adopt its rules of procedure. It takes its
decisions by majority.

 

[Kabouter]

It does not work like this, because the UK then simply invokes it again immediately.

I will tell why I bring it up. I don't consider this a lunatic idea. Again, we are talking about something like a numeric quota on the number of entrants per year, fixed at the level of what it already was de-facto. It is not something ground-breaking, other than someone swallowing their pride and allowing the UK have control on the freedom of movement - at a mutually agreed level, which is only relevant for several years until the UK exit the EEA.

I might be wrong about that. I am not seeing how, those provisions we are pasting back and forth *support* the things I say as far as I can see. But I agree I might be wrong.

What reason do countries have for 'swallowing their pride'? (read: Giving the UK a concession in exchange for nothing)

 

[PdotMichael]

A future UK can trigger article 112 but article 113 clearly states that the commision decides about any actions.
So the idea is a waste of time.

 

[The Friendly Monster]

Because someone asked what I think regarding the freedom of movement if the UK goes to EEA and article 112 is relevant for that:

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=210945561&postcount=10927

To dress up an unusable technicality as an alternative going forward is intellectual dishonesty. Article 112 is not relevant.

 

[accel]

I fail to see where.

No. you didn't. Article 111.4 allows arbitration, not 114.1 which is what you referred to in the post.

Sorry, you are right, my mistake, I misread the numbers.

Yes, in this case there will be arbitration and it is possible that the UK might lose it. Agree.

What reason do countries have for 'swallowing their pride'? (read: Giving the UK a concession in exchange for nothing)

This assumes that there is some base deal and this is a deviation. It is not a deviation. In fact, there is no base deal.

 

[nickcv]

It does not work like this, because the UK then simply invokes it again immediately.

I will tell why I bring it up. I don't consider this a lunatic idea. Again, we are talking about something like a numeric quota on the number of entrants per year, fixed at the level of what it already was de-facto. It is not something ground-breaking, other than someone swallowing their pride and allowing the UK have control on the freedom of movement - at a mutually agreed level, which is only relevant for several years until the UK exit the EEA.

I might be wrong about that. I am not seeing how, those provisions we are pasting back and forth *support* the things I say as far as I can see. But I agree I might be wrong.

Please give me a good and detailed reason of why the EU should accept the UK in the EEA fully knowing that they are going to leave it as soon as they are ready.

Give me a good detailed explanation not just "because it is good for them too".

 

[Maledict]

Why are we still doing this? We go in circles with Blackcrane. He paints a ridiculously positive, unrealistic picture of what can happen. It gets thorn to shreds through the evils of logic and actual legal fact. He admits a mistake, goes quiet for a few days, and then returns repeating the same old points a while later.

We never even got a proper answer on the supposedly stifling EU regulations that were killing British Industry and that was weeks ago.

 

[accel]

He admits a mistake, goes quiet for a few days, and then returns repeating the same old points a while later.

Never repeated "the same old points" on which I conceded a mistake. Several mistakes I conceded were on side issues.

I was about to say. Why do people still argue against blackcrane's fantasies? it is like playing whack-a-mole.

I do believe that the conceit of using article 112 was torn to shreds weeks ago.

Last time the debate ended with someone calling me a troll too many times after which I took a break from posting (on my own). I didn't see anything torn to shreds.

We are approaching the same point again with your post and the post from Maledict above. I guess some will consider that the issue was "torn to shreds" twice after this page.

 

[tuxfool]

Why are we still doing this? We go in circles with Blackcrane. He paints a ridiculously positive, unrealistic picture of what can happen. It gets thorn to shreds through the evils of logic and actual legal fact. He admits a mistake, goes quiet for a few days, and then returns repeating the same old points a while later.

We never even got a proper answer on the supposedly stifling EU regulations that were killing British Industry and that was weeks ago.

I was about to say. Why do people still argue against blackcrane's fantasies? it is like playing whack-a-mole.

I do believe that the conceit of using article 112 was torn to shreds weeks ago.

 

[Zaph]

Very happy the Brexit economy story has been sitting in the top slot of BBC News all day - the longer we delay, the more of this shit we will see and the 'Rule, Britannia!' fantasy Leavers have can go die the death it deserves. Stock markets can be debated to death, but these are the types of markers which highlight exactly what we're in for once a50 is triggered.

 

[Jisgsaw]

It does not work like this, because the UK then simply invokes it again immediately.

I will tell why I bring it up. I don't consider this a lunatic idea. Again, we are talking about something like a numeric quota on the number of entrants per year, fixed at the level of what it already was de-facto. It is not something ground-breaking, other than someone swallowing their pride and allowing the UK have control on the freedom of movement - at a mutually agreed level, which is only relevant for several years until the UK exit the EEA.

I might be wrong about that. I am not seeing how, those provisions we are pasting back and forth *support* the things I say as far as I can see. But I agree I might be wrong.

I think we have proven why art. 112 use like that is a lunatic idea. It'll only last you for 3 month (unless you honestly think an independent arbitrator would side with the UK when it has no ground to invoke art. 112 in the first place), and will destroy your diplomatic reputation, that you need now more than ever.

I'll also join Kabouter: what the hell does the UK have to offer the EU to get that concession in return?

 

[accel]

I think we have proven why art. 112 use like that is a lunatic idea. It'll only last you for 3 month (unless you honestly think an independent arbitrator would side with the UK when it has no ground to invoke art. 112 in the first place), and will destroy your diplomatic reputation, that you need now more than ever.

I'll also join Kabouter: what the hell does the UK have to offer the EU to get that concession in return?

I answered Kabouter a few posts above.

As regards arbitration, if we assume it happens, the likely result is perhaps just relaxing of the limits. The UK is not without voice, parties have to demonstrate issues with what the UK is doing, etc. Ie, what would the argument be for, say, Poland regarding the quota with the limit set to the level of previous years - "we need you to accept more of our people?" (With the basis perhaps being "you counted wrong".) Why and how many you want? If you are assuming it will be something general like "these guys are using article 112 not in the way it is supposed to be used", then that will just drown for years, because that's too generic (and perhaps a no-go in and of itself).

 

[Camp Freddie]

I can remove the 'just', and leave 'he is wrong'. Article 112 is neither an emergency provision nor a provision for highly specific situations. His entire point is based on that and that's not the case. It is a safeguard provision, yes, that part is right. That's precisely how it could be used.

I'd encourage anyone to read articles 111 to 114 here:
http://ec.europa.eu/translation/slovak/guidelines/documents/eea_agreement_en.pdf

It can be invoked unilaterally, but it can also be disputed by other members.
It is explicitly only to be used when necessary (and preferably only for a limited time), and not just because the UK thinks it's politically desirable.

Like most EU treaties it has an extra emergency provision, that lets you shortcut the notification/discussion period. I'm not sure what the point of bringing that up is. It's like arguing that DEFCON 2 can't be an emergency because DEFCON 1 exists.

EDIT: in any case, we'd need to use the emergency provision to avoid it being discussed in the EEA Joint Comittee. And we'd have absolutely no justification to say that we are in "exceptional circumstances requiring immediate action [that] exclude prior
examination".

If we tried to invoke Art 112 and Art 113 to limit immigration because ???, we'd get our arses kicked by Art 114 and end up seeking some sort of resolution under Art 111. I am utterly convinced that we would lose an Art 111 case, since the UK is nothing like the Lichtenstein situation (and I believe even Lichtenstein did not use the emergency provision and instead negotiated with the EEA Joint Comittee or whatever)

 

[Jisgsaw]

I answered Kabouter a few posts above.

As regards arbitration, if we assume it happens, the likely result is perhaps just relaxing of the limits. The UK is not without voice, parties have to demonstrate issues with what the UK is doing, etc. Ie, what would the argument be for, say, Poland regarding the quota with the limit set to the level of previous years - "we need you to accept more of our people?" (With the basis perhaps being "you counted wrong".) Why and how many you want? If you are assuming it will be something general like "these guys are using article 112 not in the way it is supposed to be used", then that will just drown for years, because that's too generic (and perhaps a no-go in and of itself).

Freedom of movement is a part of EEA.
Joining EEA and then directly take actions against freedom of movement is thus negotiating in bad faith for the entry of EEA.

There, that won't take long to arbitrate, the UK has absolutely 0 ground to take actions like these.

 

[accel]

Freedom of movement is a part of EEA.
Joining EEA and then directly take actions against freedom of movement is thus negotiating in bad faith for the entry of EEA.

There, that won't take long to arbitrate, the UK has absolutely 0 ground to take actions like these.

Some people here were talking about going in circles. I answered the first two sentences already multiple times. If we are joining EEA, we are joining EEA which has article 112 as part of its agreement.

As to 0 ground, it's for the UK to decide. Until arbitration - and I said what I think about that in the post you replied to.

If we tried to invoke Art 112 to limit immigration because ???, we'd get our arses kicked by Art 114 and end up seeking some sort of resolution under Art 111. I am utterly convinced that we would lose an Art 111 case, since the UK is nothing like the Lichtenstein situation.

Because it is a sensitive question the importance of which was demonstrated on the referendum in particular, because the levels of immigration are significant (10+ years of straight pluses), etc. Maybe the UK would get its ass kicked, maybe not (I am skeptical, see #10994).

Again, because I think we might go in circles from here as well - I am NOT saying the UK should invoke article 112 / will be successful in making a case / fighting the arbitrage / whatever. But I do not think invoking article 112 is quite so out of this world like others do. It's just a quota. That's all.

EDIT: in any case, we'd need to use the emergency provision to avoid it being discussed in the EEA Joint Comittee. And we'd have absolutely no justification to say that we are in "exceptional circumstances requiring immediate action [that] exclude prior
examination".

Disagree on both counts. In my opinion, the UK have a case.

 

[Jisgsaw]

Some people here were talking about going in circles. I answered the first two sentences already multiple times. If we are joining EEA, we are joining EEA which has article 112 as part of its agreement.

As to 0 ground, it's for the UK to decide. Until arbitration - and I said what I think about that in the post you replied to.

Yes, Art. 112 exist.
However, you'll note it does not explicitely talk about limitation of freedom of movement.
It's an exceptional clause that is here in order for countries to be reactive to unexpected developments (e.g. immigration in Lichtenstein reaching 70% of the population (the UK's is just above 12%), financial collapse in Island).

In contrast, here's a little extract from the PREAMBLE of the EEA:

DETERMINED to provide for the fullest possible realization of the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital within the whole European Economic Area, as well as for strengthened and broadened cooperation in flanking and horizontal policies;

Tell me, seriously, how can you hope to argue that somehow misusing an exceptional clause to go against something you freaking signed up to do in the preamble of your contract could fly anywhere?

If you don't agree with that point of the preamble, don't fucking join the EEA, you have nothing to do there.

So yes, the UK would've 0 ground to invoke art. 112 in that way (which doesn't mean it couldn't, just that the result would be disastrous), and yes, arbitration would be pretty swift, as the case is very clear: UK would be acting in bad faith.

Edit: to be clearer: it the UK had been a member of the EEA (and not the EU) for some years prior to invoking Art. 112, the discussion would be completely different.
However, you are talking about joining an institution with the idea to immediately circumvent one of the major action you accepted to take in joining the EEA.

 

[kmag]

Some people here were talking about going in circles. I answered the first two sentences already multiple times. If we are joining EEA, we are joining EEA which has article 112 as part of its agreement.

As to 0 ground, it's for the UK to decide. Until arbitration - and I said what I think about that in the post you replied to.

Yes Article 112 is in the EEA agreement but so is the principle of free movement of people. At the very least you need to acknowledge there's a conflict between agreeing to a treaty which has at its core the free movement of people then immediately engaging an article which is extremely clearly meant to be a short term measure taken in reaction to a material change in circumstances. Everything about article 112 and it's associated articles is designed ensure the safeguards are short term (I mean 113.5 is pretty explicit: The safeguard measures taken shall be the subject of consultations in the EEA Joint Committee every three months from the date of their adoption with a view to their abolition before the date of expiry envisaged, or to the limitation of their scope of application.) Article 112 is not designed for a long term change to the make up of the EEA agreement (hence the EU actually adding explicit exceptions for Lichtenstein in ANNEX VIII)

If there's a fundamental objection to the free movement of people and you have no intention of resolving that objection then frankly the EEA isn't the place for you. Article 112 is not designed as a get out of the four pillars just because you don't like the free movement of people.

 

[inoperativ]

An unknown factor in all of this is how EU immigration into the UK will be affected by brexit fallout even if the current legal arrangements are more or less continued through the EEA. This farce has not been good PR for the UK as the racist tone of the Leave campaign and the surge in hate crime following the vote both were widely reported in the rest of the EU. It's not hard to imagine that especially highly skilled potential immigrants will look elsewhere in the future, hence the numbers might start declining by themselves. Entering a second recession will make this even more likely.

 

[tuxfool]

I'm not sure why Freedom of movement is such a sticking issue.

Unless one is an uneducated nationalist scumbag, freedom of movement is nothing but a good thing.

 

[accel]

Yes, Art. 112 exist.
However, you'll note it does not explicitely talk about limitation of freedom of movement.
It's an exceptional clause that is here in order for countries to be reactive to unexpected developments (e.g. immigration in Lichtenstein reaching 70% of the population (the UK's is just above 12%), financial collapse in Island).

It's not exceptional, it's safeguard. The distinction is important, safeguard clauses are invoked all the time.

It is true Liechteinstein was in a worse position than the UK on some of the important factors (ie, number of immigrants compared to number of regulars). But the UK is in a worse position than Liechteinstein on other factors, that are also important (ie, total number of immigrants). If we are talking that Liechteinstein's still has it worse, perhaps that's true, but the quota that would be imposed by the UK would be higher as well.

Is the question important to the UK? Yes, it is. The extent, the countermeasures, etc, are subject to the debate, sure.

But it's not exceptional, it's safeguard. You DON'T have to have the sky literally falling to invoke it. Sky half-falling (in your opinion, which you will then try to defend whenever, and, again, I believe there are grounds for that) to the level of clouds is enough.

Yes Article 112 is in the EEA agreement but so is the principle of free movement of people. At the very least you need to acknowledge there's a conflict between agreeing to a treaty which has at its core the free movement of people then immediately engaging an article which is extremely clearly meant to be a short term measure taken in reaction to a material change in circumstances.

There is no conflict, the UK potentially invoking article 112 would obviously be discussed in the EU, no surprises here. No rogue countries sneakily infiltrating the great community, then stabbing from the back. As I said, safeguard clauses are invoked all the time - in circumstances some parties would obviously deem completely unexceptional.

Arbitration is there to prevent abuse. Well, you are saying to me that the UK would have to make their case for invoking article 112 / defending the invokation, and I agree - I think the case can be made - but it goes the other way too. Those who would like the UK to cancel whatever measures it will impose will have to justify that. And if such a justification is successful, the result can totally be just the relaxation of limits.

Regarding article 112 not being for long-term - yes, I agree. But if the UK succeeds at making / defending their case, there is nothing stopping the EU and the UK from making the provision semi-permanent. That has been done with Liechteinstein, as I said. (And, again, that Liechteinstein is a small country has nothing to do with it, as far as EEA language is concerned.)

 

[Jisgsaw]

It is true Liechteinstein was in a worse position than the UK on some of the important factors (ie, number of immigrants compared to number of regulars). But the UK is in a worse position than Liechteinstein on other factors, that are also important (ie, total number of immigrants). If we are talking that Liechteinstein's still has it worse, perhaps that's true, but the quota that would be imposed by the UK would be higher as well.

Again, you're disregarding the major difference with Lichtenstein: Lichtenstein agreed to freedom of movement, joined the EEA, and abide to it. And then, after, circumstances changed, which made it invoke the safeguard.

The case for the UK is completely different, it would be joining with already the idea in mind. This would be joining in bad faith, as in the freaking preamble of the contract, they accepted the freedom of movement. And in the same breath, they would deny it.

Art. 111-114 are safeguard, yes. But safeguards against unpredictable (and grave) events, a case you can't make in our hypothetical scenario.

Again, not to turn in circle, but if you don't see how this is an absolutely untenable position from the UK, and a position that will be immediately revoked by any independent arbitrator, I'll leave you in your dreamland.

Is the question important to the UK? Yes, it is. )

Then don't fucking join the EEA, as, again, in the PREAMBLE, it's clearly written that the goal is to have freedom of movement.
If you don't want it, or aren't sure if you can live with it, don't join.

Those who would like the UK to cancel whatever measures it will impose will have to justify that.

Again, that would be easy: the UK freaking accepted freedom of movement by joining the EEA.

 

[Tak3n]

Well we have 2 red lines then

The UK on free trade with border controls

The EU on free trade with free movement

someone will have to give

 

[kmag]

It's not exceptional, it's safeguard. The distinction is important, safeguard clauses are invoked all the time.

It is true Liechteinstein was in a worse position than the UK on some of the important factors (ie, number of immigrants compared to number of regulars). But the UK is in a worse position than Liechteinstein on other factors, that are also important (ie, total number of immigrants). If we are talking that Liechteinstein's still has it worse, perhaps that's true, but the quota that would be imposed by the UK would be higher as well.

Is the question important to the UK? Yes, it is. The extent, the countermeasures, etc, are subject to the debate, sure.

But it's not exceptional, it's safeguard. You DON'T have to have the sky literally falling to invoke it. Sky half-falling (in your opinion, which you will then try to defend whenever, and, again, I believe there are grounds for that) to the level of clouds is enough.



There is no conflict, the UK potentially invoking article 112 would obviously be discussed in the EU, no surprises here. No rogue countries sneakily infiltrating the great community, then stabbing from the back. As I said, safeguard clauses are invoked all the time - in circumstances some parties would obviously deem completely unexceptional.

Arbitration is there to prevent abuse. Well, you are saying to me that the UK would have to make their case for invoking article 112 / defending the invokation, and I agree - I think the case can be made - but it goes the other way too. Those who would like the UK to cancel whatever measures it will impose will have to justify that. And if such a justification is successful, the result can totally be just the relaxation of limits.

Regarding article 112 not being for long-term - yes, I agree. But if the UK succeeds at making / defending their case, there is nothing stopping the EU and the UK from making the provision semi-permanent. That has been done with Liechteinstein, as I said. (And, again, that Liechteinstein is a small country has nothing to do with it, as far as EEA language is concerned.)

Actually ANNEX VIII (the Liechtenstein permit system) makes explicit mention to Liechtenstein's size.

You have to remember the EEA deal isn't just the treaty, we've had 26 years of EU rules and laws being fed into it by the EEA board.

The following shall apply to Liechtenstein. Duly taking into account the specific geographic situation of Liechtenstein, this arrangement shall be reviewed every five years

 

[accel]

Again, you're disregarding the major difference with Lichtenstein: Lichtenstein agreed to freedom of movement, joined the EEA, and abide to it. And then, after, circumstances changed, which made it invoke the safeguard.

The case for the UK is completely different, it would be joining with already the idea in mind. This would be joining in bad faith, as in the freaking preamble of the contract, they accepted the freedom of movement. And in the same breath, they would deny it.

...

Then don't fucking join the EEA, as, again, in the PREAMBLE, it's clearly written that the goal is to have freedom of movement.
If you don't want it, or aren't sure if you can live with it, don't join.

(I should have addressed this the first time I saw it, sorry, there were many points and I am not the fastest typist.)

The preamble again:

"DETERMINED to provide for the fullest possible realization of the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital within the whole European Economic Area, as well as for strengthened and broadened cooperation in flanking and horizontal policies;"

The UK agree with this completely. Determined to provide free movement of everything for the fullest possible realization. The case would be that the circumstances are such that the fullest possible realization (= acceptable to the UK, as the UK see it) is the one with a reasonable limit. Because the immigration levels have been high, have held steady for a long time, etc, the UK do have it worse than many others. As time goes, there are more and more immigrants, this starts becoming an issue to the people as demonstrated by polls / referendum / whatever, and so the UK argue for the limit (and act unilaterally if needs be).

There is no bad faith. Fullest possible realization does not mean no quotas. If the immigration to the UK suddenly stops for whatever reason, or, I don't know, people stop seeing it as an issue, fullest possible realization is again no quotas.

Actually ANNEX VIII (the Liechtenstein permit system) makes explicit mention to Liechtenstein's size.

A parallel annex for the case of the UK would mention other things. "In view of the number of immigrants during the past X years, ...".

The point is that you don't have to be as small as Liechteinstein to invoke the article (which is what is implied when someone says "it's exceptional" - when it isn't). The size might help you defend the invokation but there are other factors that might help do the same.

 

[PJV3]

Well we have 2 red lines then

The UK on free trade with border controls

The EU on free trade with free movement

someone will have to give

The best you will get is some kind of transitional agreement, Sarkozy winning next May will be key as Hollande is having none of it.

 

[Audioboxer]

I'm not sure why Freedom of movement is such a sticking issue.

Unless one is an uneducated nationalist scumbag, freedom of movement is nothing but a good thing.

Large pockets of the country have been successfully convinced all their woes and troubles can be blamed on immigrants.

 

[Kabouter]

This assumes that there is some base deal and this is a deviation. It is not a deviation. In fact, there is no base deal.

Okay, then why would the EU offer the UK a deal that gives it everything it wants without giving anything in return? You've still not made clear what the UK has to offer that will make the EU want to conclude a deal that is so favourable to the UK, and so unfavourable to it.

 

[tuxfool]

Large pockets of the country have been successfully convinced all their woes and troubles can be blamed on immigrants.

My argument is that if those that did the convincing, which almost certainly don't care one way or another successfully managed to make such an argument, then they can easily spin the opposite way should they require it.

 

[mrklaw]

The bullshit is all the 'clearly people voted for controls on immigration'

No the didnt. They voted to leave the EU. there was no question asking 'do you want less immigration'. considering how narrow the majority was, and how some people will have voted for 'take back control' or 'fewer bendy banana edicts', the anti immigrant vote is almost certainly a minority

We don't properly know why people voted to leave, only that they did. So any deal - even a 'nothing much changes' deal like Norway would technically be fine

 

[Burai]

Well we have 2 red lines then

The UK on free trade with border controls

The EU on free trade with free movement

someone will have to give

I'd imagine we could get what we want if we pay enough for it.

It'll make the famed "£153m a week" look like a drop in a bucket though.

 

[accel]

Okay, then why would the EU offer the UK a deal that gives it everything it wants without giving anything in return? You've still not made clear what the UK has to offer that will make the EU want to conclude a deal that is so favourable to the UK, and so unfavourable to it.

I don't know how to answer maximalist questions based on premises that I don't agree with like this. The EEA deal with a limit on freedom of movement of people in terms of a quota does NOT give the UK everything it wants. If we start making the list of "everything" that the UK would take if the EU allows - even within reason, we are going to run into gigabytes of characters.

Your "what the UK has to offer that will make the EU want to conclude a deal that is so favourable to the UK, and so unfavourable to it" contains an assumption that this deal is "so favourable to the UK and so unfavourable to the EU". I don't know how to quantify your premise, I don't know how to quantify "so".

 

[Kabouter]

I'd imagine we could get what we want if we pay enough for it.

It'll make the famed "£153m a week" look like a drop in a bucket though.

Yes, I think this is the only reasonable way the UK could get common market access and limit immigration, paying a contribution far in excess of its current net contribution to the EU budget. I've not been able to come up with anything else the UK has to offer in negotiations that might convince EU members to agree to a deal so otherwise unfavourable to them.

I don't know how to answer maximalist questions with wrong bases like this. The EEA deal with a limit on freedom of movement of people in terms of a quota does NOT give the UK everything it wants. If we start making the list of "everything" that the UK would take if the EU allows - even within reason, we are going to run into gigabytes of characters.

Your "what the UK has to offer that will make the EU want to conclude a deal that is so favourable to the UK, and so unfavourable to it" contains an assumption that this deal is "so favourable to the UK and so unfavourable to the EU". I don't know what you want as an answer.

What I want as an answer is what the UK can offer the EU in negotiations that will make the EU think it is a good idea to offer common market access whilst also allowing limits on freedom of movement.

 

[Jisgsaw]

(I should have addressed the first time I saw it, sorry, there were many points and I am not the fastest typist.)

The preamble again:

"DETERMINED to provide for the fullest possible realization of the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital within the whole European Economic Area, as well as for strengthened and broadened cooperation in flanking and horizontal policies;"

The UK agree with this completely. Determined to provide free movement of everything for the fullest possible realization. The case would be that the circumstances are such that the fullest possible realization (= acceptable to the UK, as the UK see it) is the one with a reasonable limit.

The bolded is not true.
What is meant by fullest possible realization is described in further Articles (1, 28 to 35 for the movement of people).
Choice bits:

Article 1
1. The aim of this Agreement of association is to promote a continuous and balanced
strengthening of trade and economic relations between the Contracting Parties with
equal conditions of competition, and the respect of the same rules, with a view to
creating a homogeneous European Economic Area, hereinafter referred to as the EEA.
2. In order to attain the objectives set out in paragraph 1, the association shall entail, in
accordance with the provisions of this Agreement:
(a) the free movement of goods;
(b) the free movement of persons;
(c) the free movement of services;
(d) the free movement of capital;
(e) the setting up of a system ensuring that competition is not distorted and that the
rules thereon are equally respected; as well as
(f) closer cooperation in other fields, such as research and development, the
environment, education and social policy.

You'll note this is written without any kind of limitation.

Article 28
1. Freedom of movement for workers shall be secured among EC Member States and
EFTA States.
2. Such freedom of movement shall entail the abolition of any discrimination based on
nationality between workers of EC Member States and EFTA States as regards
employment, remuneration and other conditions of work and employment.
3. It shall entail the right, subject to limitations justified on grounds of public policy,
public security or public health:
(a) to accept offers of employment actually made;
(b) to move freely within the territory of EC Member States and EFTA States for this
purpose;
(c) to stay in the territory of an EC Member State or an EFTA State for the purpose of
employment in accordance with the provisions governing the employment of nationals of
that State laid down by law, regulation or administrative action;
(d) to remain in the territory of an EC Member State or an EFTA State after having been
employed there.
4. The provisions of this Article shall not apply to employment in the public service.
5. Annex V contains specific provisions on the free movement of workers.

Article 31
1. Within the framework of the provisions of this Agreement, there shall be no
restrictions on the freedom of establishment of nationals of an EC Member State or an
EFTA State in the territory of any other of these States. This shall also apply to the
setting up of agencies, branches or subsidiaries by nationals of any EC Member State or
EFTA State established in the territory of any of these States.
Freedom of establishment shall include the right to take up and pursue activities as selfemployed
persons and to set up and manage undertakings, in particular companies or
firms within the meaning of Article 34, second paragraph, under the conditions laid down
for its own nationals by the law of the country where such establishment is effected,
subject to the provisions of Chapter 4.

Because the immigration levels have been high, have held steady for a long time, etc, the UK do have it worse than many others. As time goes, there are more and more immigrants, this starts becoming an issue to the people as demonstrated by polls / referendum / whatever, and so the UK argue for the limit (and act unilaterally if needs be).

Then why join now?
It would be something else if that happen a while after the UK joined, but as is, it is bad faith to join.

There is no bad faith. Fullest possible realization does not mean no quotas. If the immigration to the UK suddenly stops for whatever reason, or, I don't know, people stop seeing it as an issue, fullest possible realization is again no quotas.

There is bad faith, because "fullest possible realization" doesn't magically mean what you want it to mean.
The preamble is a declaration of intent; the actual treaty then defines the freedom of movement, and there are no quotas in there. I actually even explicitly states "no restriction" for the right of residence.

 

[Halph n Halph]

I'm not sure why Freedom of movement is such a sticking issue.

Unless one is an uneducated nationalist scumbag, freedom of movement is nothing but a good thing.

Or a hardworking citizen with a family and mortgage struggling to earn a decent living in an industry that has seen downward pressure on wage levels due to an influx of cheap tradesmen despite having spent 5 years on low pay gaining qualifications.

I voted to remain but freedom of movement has negatively affected my life quite considerably over the last decade. In fact my income has reduced by around 20%.
I don't consider myself a nationalist scumbag and certainly don't lay the blame at the door of the immigrants trying to make a better life for themselves and their families.
Th fact that the member states economic situations don't match is the problem.

 

[KingSnake]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but are we discussing whether or not Britain scamming the EU by abusing a provision is a good plan?

Yes, generally the ideal plans laid from the Leave side imply tricking the EU one way or another. Honestly at this point I don't know why EU should offer UK an EEA deal, there seems to be more to lose than to gain out of it, not even considering the possible dishonesty of the people running the show from UK's side.

 

[Armaros]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but are we discussing whether or not Britain scamming the EU by abusing a provision is a good plan?

It reads like those scam ads on websites.

"Here is this one amazing trick to get the Single Market without freedom of movement, EU diplomats hate him!"