> I'm from Canada
Er, didn't Canada just sign a trade pact with the EU which does sacrifice some of the independence of their borders, laws and courts? CETA will:
* Create a new 'investment court system', where investors from the EU can challenge and block Canadian state decisions.
* Require Canada to legally protect various EU products.
* Require Canada to make it easier for staff to move between the EU and Canada.
* Require Canada to strengthen its copyright protection and IP laws, and the border systems required to enforce those.
(Plus a bunch of similar things in the other direction too).
Fairly readable summary here: http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/in-focus/ceta/ceta-explaine...
Many people would argue that NAFTA had similar effects on Canada too: http://prudentpress.com/trade/free-trade-costs-canada-sovere...
This is all a good thing nonetheless. Trade deals generally bring a lot of wealth and other benefits to both sides. Still, it's definitely not historically the case that you can get the benefits of free trade without sacrificing some independence.
Yes, if anything this supports what I'm talking about, this is why I'm critical of the EU, dealing with EU bureaucrats always goes beyond strictly economic interests... but still CETA is hardly comparable to the ever expanding scope of being part of the EU.
Nor would I assume that agreements between the UK + US or Asian countries would necessarily include EU style requirements... especially considering the UK leaving EU for such reasons.
That plus TPP failed for similar reasons... it was far too complex and include thousands of pages of policy that go beyond simple mutually beneficial trade pacts.
Regardless, just because other trade agreements are bad and include baggage doesn't mean the UK should just bend over and take it from the EU. We should strive for better policies. TPP was a disaster and the recent reconsideration of NAFTA should make us rethink how we approach trade pacts. It's an opportunity to evolve.
But to evolve it needs to be part of the public forum. CETA passed very quietly in Canada. I hardly remember any talk of it until it was already well beyond debate. Much like they tried to keep TPP in secret backroom meetings. If it became a political issue earlier I'm not 100% sure CETA would have passed in it's current state.
> Nor would I assume that agreements between the UK + US or Asian countries would necessarily include EU style requirements
Sadly, they will. As an example, the UK trade deal with India has hit problems already (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-uk-brit...) because 'we cannot separate free movement of people from the free flow of goods, services and investments'. It's not the EU: trade deals necessitate much more than just agreeing to both remove your tariffs.
Some of these extra restrictions are pretty clearly necessary I think. You need to ensure matching certifications and quality standards and IP rules for the entire area covered by a free trade deal, and enshrine that in law on both ends. If you don't, you have no penalties (by definition, for a 'free' trade deal) for companies that move from the EU to Canada (or vice versa) to avoid some IP rules, or to sell products that wouldn't be up to scratch in the EU. I don't think there's any way you can solve that other than having the same rules for the whole area.
The arbitration courts are more contentious. I'm not sure exactly why they're necessary, or what alternatives there might be there.
I think there's a good argument for why the tie to free movement and more open borders is necessary too. The LSE has an article with the general argument, and some concrete examples: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2016/07/14/free-movement-f.... Essentially: if businesses can move around freely, people have to too, or you can screw your whole labour market.
I'm fairly convinced that this isn't ideological (or the vast majority isn't, certainly). It's not that the EU is pushing this beyond what's necessary for the economics, it's that the economic interests necessitate a lot of these rules, and trying to build a trade deal without them can blow up in your face.
Are there parts of these trade deals that could be removed without consequence? Genuine question, I really don't know.
Definitely agree though that more transparency and better explanations of all this to the public are important, that part is certainly an enormous mess right now.
If you agree there should be rules, you must also agree there should be a court for arbitration. Of course the countries could use their local courts, but courts are hierarchial for a reason. Unless one country decides to subject itself to the other countries supreme court, it seems that an independent court is needed for the deal?
Immigration and travel are both affected. The ability to travel and work in any country in the EU is a massive benefit which will likely be much more difficult. Visiting family in friends outside of the UK could become much more difficult.
Our laws are affected - there will be nothing to stop the UK Government from bringing in even more draconian and invasive spying laws [1] or scrapping the Human Rights Act as they have desired to do for so long.
The wonderful thing about the EU is that it has for the most part done nothing but protect people, and I worry what will happen when we leave.
[1] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/snoopers-chart...
I agree the EU was a lock on this but it's a bit more complex than just changing the legislation.
[1] which is distinct from ECJ, and not an EU organisation.
Comparing NAFTA to the EU shows a fundamental lack of understanding of how far reaching the EU is. We are only at the beginning of the economic integration. Take for example the recent progress on the digital market. One advantage US startups have is 350m consumers immediately, something the EU is only just starting to bring in.
As for peace you might dismiss it but Western Europe has experienced the longest period of peace in its entire history by a massive margin. To put that on NATO and the UN but not the EU seems odd considering conflicts outside that involve NATO and UN member countries.
Your analysis of democracies seems very limited. Why did you exclude Germany from that list? Why don't you include Greece on you list of small democracies?
another good example is research and research funding.
https://royalsociety.org/~/media/policy/projects/eu-uk-fundi...
https://royalsociety.org/~/media/policy/projects/eu-uk-fundi...
I'm from Canada and our economy (and defence) depends heavily on the US, we both strongly benefit from an economic relationship. It's mutually beneficial, as all pacts should be. Yet we don't have to worry about policy being dictated out of NAFTA or worry about the economy of Mexico - which is totally different than Canada - dragging down our own.
Once you look beyond short term economic risks I really don't see thee problem.
It seems to me that smaller countries have the healthiest democracies - one of the reason government functions so well in Scandinavia and here in Canada. The problems with US politics is largely the result of the disparate views of regional communities. Just look at the vast cultural/economic/educational gaps between California, the 'south', or the midwest.
Those gaps are even greater across Europe, so I'm hardly surprised that various countries in the EU, not only people in the UK as we've seen recently, is feeling uncomfortable with the idea. You're just lucky you don't have the Euro to further lock you into the relationship.
Edit: Also the idea the EU stops wars seems ridiculous to me in 2017 given we have NATO and the UN... and that the west only really cares about economics. Sanctions like that were done to Russia or Iran would not last long in a western country, they'd cave in so fast. Pretty much eliminating any risk of internal EU conflict without assuming total economic destruction.