Being the banking capital of the EU is a huge contributing factor to that position, btw.
UK is currently not willing to do any of the sort. So no, Britain will not get the benefits Norway or Switzerland enjoy...
https://www.focus-economics.com/blog/the-largest-economies-i...
Mostly because of India's growth. So what? It's GDP we're talking about, a largely meaningless indicator nowadays.
UK is #27 in GDP (PPP) per capita rankings. India is #122.
Is it better to live in an economy with large GDP or better purchasing power? Is India somehow better off than the UK once it overtakes it by GDP due to population growth?
That's how you get Saudi Arabia at $55k PPP GDP per capita, ranking above Sweden, Germany, Australia, Denmark, Netherlands, Canada, Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, UK - you know, just most of the nicest countries on earth.
Back in reality, their GDP per capita is actually $21,000 and ranks them near Greece and below Portugal.
It's also how you get Puerto Rico ranking above Czech, Portugal, Estonia, Israel and nearly outranking Italy, New Zealand, South Korea and Spain. What a joke. Nobody actually went top to bottom through Puerto Rico's situation on the ground before calculating that.
Half of Russia lives very nearly in third world poverty, with incomes bordering on third world levels. By PPP GDP per capita they get ranked next to Portugal instead, which says absolutely nothing about the actual conditions on the ground for the bottom 1/3 or 1/2 of Russia.
Iraq gets ranked above China, Brazil and Colombia per capita PPP GDP. And just below Mexico and Argentina. Again, a joke.
You get Equatorial Guinea ranking on PPP per capita above Slovenia, Slovakia, Estonia and Portugal; just a bit below New Zealand, Spain and Italy. In reality it's a country with a GDP per capita of just $14,000 and a third world life expectancy of ~58 years. Another farcical PPP adjustment invented out of thin air with zero considerations for reality on the ground.
Traditionally money laundring was always much less of a problem in Switzerland than supporting tax evasion.
With the automatic exchange of information[2] this will pretty much be a non issue in the future.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Hyde_Park
[2] https://www.efd.admin.ch/efd/en/home/themen/wirtschaft--waeh...
How is its trade balance doing lately? Not so good.
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/balance-of-trade
> Being the banking capital of the EU is a huge contributing factor to that position, btw.
I'm not sure what economic indicators you are talking about. Certainly none that reflects the actual well-being of the population.
The trade balance tho is not typically a good indicator of economic health, at least not how it's typically pitched: https://mises.org/wire/nonproblem-trade-deficit
We'll be left with a first-past-the-post MP, and an unelected (sometimes hereditary!) House of Lords.
That's a bit of a misrepresentation, because those "successful non-members" are members of the single market, which is currently something that the UK is actively trying to leave.
Don't underestimate what's happening here – it would have been possible to execute Brexit in a relatively controlled manner, but that wasn't done, and now the UK is rapidly heading towards a pretty unpleasant outcome.
Switzerland is a single market participant through bilateral treaties, like Norway and Iceland are through EEA. While they aren't "members" of the single market, I think we'd usually consider those four EFTA countries plus the 28 EU states to make up the "single market", though I accept there is no clear terminology in some ways!
Still though, such a relationship is equally not the plan of the current UK government, and customs union membership is not a prerequisite for single market 'membership' as such.
The UK is trying to leave the EU and stay in the single market. The EU is trying to deny the UK access to the single market.
Might also be interesting to have the view of an actual Norwegian on the Norway option, and how Britain is managing the process generally. She's not the only person on the continent who regards British politicians as malcontented fools who, at this point, deserve whatever they get:
Nobody is talking about it anymore because the EU refused point blank to even contemplate it and stated very loudly and clearly they'd rather die than ever allow such "cherry picking". Note the terminology - the quality of EU governance is very low and the lack of imposed trading barriers is the primary incentive (an artificial incentive!) that countries see for putting up with it.
So that idea got dropped. In fact at this point it's clear that there's no way to retain any form of cooperation with EU countries at all, on anything, without accepting ALL the EU's terms, which are unacceptable as they amount to not leaving at all.
This is a bad approach for the EU to take. Its supporters like to pretend this position is some sort of natural law or inevitability, but it's not. The EU could easily disconnect trade deals and customs unions from the other aspects of its project, but chooses not to, because they know that most people outside France and Germany would not accept transfers of all powers to Brussels without some serious incentives to do so.
First off, you can disregard any statements made by Leave campaigners during the referendum campaign. The same people who are now advocating a “cut all ties” approach were the ones who were saying things like “nobody is talking about leaving the single market”. Looking for ideological consistency is a dead end.
Second, the UK and campaigners should have been well aware of what would be required if the UK wished to retain single-market membership. Those are foundational principles of the EU. There’s no ambiguity there. Anybody who advocated a position that wasn’t reconcilable with those principles was either ignorant or lying.
Third, you are deliberately misrepresenting the nature and state of the EU and it’s negotiating position. There are a clear number of different forms the UK’s relationship with the EU could take. The UK could end up in an EEA-style relationship, being single market participants but with more freedom in some areas. Or the UK could have a more distant relationship and remain within the European customs union. Or a border could have been instituted in the Irish Sea. Or a generally more distant relationship could have been negotiated in good faith. These scenarios were obvious and known, made clear by the EU, and it’s a monumental failure of governance that the UK failed to understand their negotiating position.
The EU has little incentive to change its underlying principles to reflect the demands of the UK, and expecting them to do so is obviously fantasy mismanagement.
I’ll tell you what the actual problem is - Brexit is a project with no real shape or form, into which people can pour their own fantasies. It is totally legitimate for a country to decide it no longer wishes to be a member, but to disentangle a close relationship like that requires clarity about what you want to achieve and why you want to do it, as well as honesty about what is possible and what it will cost. Honesty and clarity are both in short supply.
Third, you are deliberately misrepresenting the nature and state of the EU and it’s negotiating position. There are a clear number of different forms the UK’s relationship with the EU could take
That's a very odd claim to make because the EU itself is extremely clear that you're wrong. Here are some excerpts from recent news articles about Theresa May's withdrawal agreement, which the EU is now unanimous in claiming is the only option available at all, that there are no "different forms the UK's relationship could take". Who should I believe? Them or you?
- Germany's Europe minister Michael Roth said:"No deal better than the one on the table can be reached."
- Luxembourg's Foreign Minister Jean Asselborn said .... ""This deal that is now on the table is the best there is. There is no better deal for this"
- Brussels said Mrs May’s Withdrawal Agreement was ‘the best and the only deal possible’ and had been ‘approved, established, achieved’.
These statements appear to contradict you.
The EU has little incentive to change its underlying principles to reflect the demands of the UK, and expecting them to do so is obviously fantasy mismanagement.
Indeed your own position appears to contradict itself. On one hand, there are many possible options with varying degrees of commitment available. On the other, the EU will never abandon its principles. Which, lest we forget, they've said repeatedly means "no cherry picking" i.e. no options.
Honesty is in short supply.
Hmmmm ...
(I would reply but of course, Hacker News has now rate limited me because I got downvoted. This debate will have to play out some other time).
I won’t quite the rest, but I think you have misunderstood the EU’s position on this.
Yes, as I said there are different forms the relationship could take. I described some of them. What there isn’t - as various EU bods you quote point out – is any other deal available at this point. It’s done. If the UK had engaged in this process honestly, from the start, then other deals could have been achieved. Remember this graphic published by Barbier? http://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/rngs/BRITAIN-EU/0100603...
I don’t think I’m being at all inconsistent or dishonest here. I’m happy to change my views if I’m wrong. But I haven’t heard a convincing argument that the current situation is the fault of anybody but a comically incompetent UK government.
You very obviously don't read Mr. Johnson's Telegraph columns</snark>
I agree. The EU was always very clear where their read lines were and never deviated from that. The PM on the other hand made very clear what the UKs red lines are. And does are simply incompatible with what's acceptable for the EU.
An ex-member undermining the fundamental principles of the single market is just not on the table.
Again, I don't see how your position matches the reality of what is being said by the people in power. So I think I'm not the one who's misunderstood their position.
The EU folk you are quoting are clear that this is the only deal that is available, and that is correct – but those statements are in the context of the red lines established by the UK, and the point in the negotiations that we are now at.
First, please refer to the graphic I linked to. It outlines how the conditions established for an EU exit deal by the UK limited the options that were available. These choices were almost entirely on the UK, and they are obvious to anybody with even a passing familiarity with the various bodies and constructs involved. The UK decided what conditions it was not willing to accept – free movement, ECJ jurisdiction; shared trade policy etc. – and the deal which has been achieved is the best deal possible given those constraints.
Second, realise that we are now at the end of the negotiation process. There is no appetite for renegotiating a deal under these circumstances. The UK and EU have negotiated for two years; if a different approach had been taken at the beginning of those negotiations, a different deal would have been possible. That is now no longer the case.
Both my statement that "a better was possible", and the EU's statements that "no better deal is now possible" are true.
Citing foreign ministers of member states just proves how ignorant you are on EU itself.
Again - single market isn't just trade. Read what four freedoms are, aka single market. The options for UK are clear: - if you want to leave customs union, you leave barrier free trading - if you want to restrict labour movement, you leave freedom of goods, services and capital movement
UK's real options, with Brexiteers in mind, is CETA++...
The position of UK and leavers was that of a deranged husband in divorce - demanding sex, without so much as an inkling of fidelity.
This quality of debate is exactly the sort of thing that led to the Remain campaign losing so badly. I see the slogans and the insults but where are the arguments?
You know... Cherry pick which of the four core principles of EU UK wanted to participate in.
So... Maybe your Brexit mind wishes to ignore the fact of the matter, but just because you ignorantly assign a different meaning to single market - doesn't make your recollection any less of a falsehood.
UK government has been trying to reframe this into an FTA, which it isn't.
There's also Good Friday Agreement... that is an international treaty.
The UK is proposing to leave the single market (in the best case)
No, May wants to stay in the single market, the EU is refusing that option.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/single-market...
This stubbornness on behalf of the EU will damage both sides economically and thus be corrected at some point when the current EU administration is replaced by a more reasonable one.
If you can't have your cake and eat it too, it's not the baker's fault...
The problem is that the baker expects payment and it seems that the UK is just not willing to cough up for the cake.
Of course you can, it's a matter of negotiations. UK has/had plenty of exemptions as EU member and Switzerland for example is not part of Schengen but in the single market.
It amazes me how people here think that the EU is somehow the entity that makes up all the rules. It's not, deals are bilateral.
The UK government is far more consistent than the EU currently. Name one important issue where the EU has reached a satisfactory agreement and results. Migration? Social security? EU army? Nope.
But just like the tone of your comment, the EU position on Brexit is governed by arrogance, ideological motives and fear of a chain reaction, not reason. Therefore the result will likely be bad for both sides.
The ability to travel, reside, work anywhere I desire in the EU as a right that I can rely on instead of having to ask for permission. The fact that I could marry another EU citizen from another country without having to ask for permission. That we have no extra paperwork related to that, even with a child. I still remember passport checks at the border.
Last but not least: 75 years of peace in Europe. Making the arch enemies of France and Germany friends.
Not all is good about the EU, it suffers from large deficiencies, but it has also brought great successes.
This was a founding principle of the EU and has been weakened recently as I'm sure you know. Also, in most countries you have to register and are only allowed to stay 6 months without work. Marrying people from other countries in Europe is not a problem and not an achievement of the EU.
> Last but not least: 75 years of peace in Europe. Making the arch enemies of France and Germany friends.
Here you lost me completely. This kind of revisionism is a real issue for the remain people. It was mostly EU countries who bombed Belgrade in 1999(!). 75 years of peace in Europe is a myth (there were plenty of other conflicts, including the current one in Ukraine!) and where it was peaceful it had nothing to do with the EU. The EU was formed in 1992, for heaven's sake.
I'm sorry for being brutally honest, but "75 years of peace in Europe" is one of these typical pro-EU talking points always brought up by badly informed people who embarrass themselves with it.
And guess what? Nothing will happen. At worst I'll show my tax statement from Germany and tax authorities will fuck off.
Now I moved to US.... Where I have to ask permission to fucking leave this shithole of a country.
Good for you, but I "can" sneak into any country of the world and remain there illegally like you. It doesn't mean I'm entitled to and neither are you.
> And guess what? Nothing will happen. At worst I'll show my tax statement from Germany and tax authorities will fuck off.
You are dreaming. Look at the legislation and don't argue with slacking bureaucracy.
> Now I moved to US.... Where I have to ask permission to fucking leave this shithole of a country.
Did anyone force you to? I perfectly understand "leave" voters who want to prevent this kind of migration: people who come for economic reasons but show no respect for the country and its laws.
Fun fact - nowhere have I been illegally. And yep, But sure... You define illegally however you wish.
> You are dreaming.
Yep... I've done that twice. That's my dreaming.
> Did anyone force you to?
I was lied to. You know Americans love to claim that USA is the greatest. It's not. And I made slightly more in Europe, than do now.
Whenever someone asks for one single thing, they don't mean it. I predict anything I name will either not be important enough or you will not consider anything less than complete unanimity across the continent to be satisfactory.
But fine, I'll play. Abolition of mobile roaming charges across the EU.
standardization of pallet sizes
classification of fruits and vegetables in classes so they can be more easily traded between member states.]
standardization of higher education between member states, so education is actually compatible between member states.
The pallets were standardized in a process that began in 1961, initiated by the UIC. It had nothing to do with the EU, except that its big bureaucratic machine introduced some more regulations.
So, ignoring your attempt at preventing the obvious answer with your introductory rhetoric, you honestly believe that roaming charges were a significant issue for the EU? Why didn't you mention banning curved cucumbers instead?
Free roaming within the EU
Standardization of chargers for phones
Free movement (including right to work and study) within most EU member states, plus I)celand, Norway, Switzerland and Liechtenstein
Passenger rights for air travellers
75 years of peace
UK's position upon entering the EEC was actually so strong that its application prompted 3 other countries to apply for membership.
UK isn't at the helm of the British Empire as well.
Since the EU is much larger and has to protect her own interest, there is not much to negotiate. In fact, the deal offered is already pretty good for the UK. The last response of "no further negotiations" from the EU made this pretty clear.
Uhh, you have that exactly wrong. Switzerland is not part of the single market, but sure as hell part of the Schengen accord.[1]
Source? apart from the link provided my last trip to to Prague. I never needed to provide any id in either direction. And id checks, upon entering or exiting the Schengen area, are pretty damn strict.
That labour thing is unrestricted migration. I'm 100% sure that migration is the red line.
So... Yeah! May is proposing to leave EU Single Market.
Norway and Switzerland are subject to almost all the EU regulations but unlike the UK have no say, much less veto, in the making or enforcement of those rules. Is that situation really what Brexiteers wanted?
https://www.dw.com/en/switzerland-ignores-eu-deadline-for-tr...
This is a much stronger position to be in and the UK is a much larger "adversary" in tough negotiations (and has always been even within the EU).
There’s no reason the UK cannot negotiate their levels of access to the EU market like the Swiss or the Norwegians do, but the EU won’t grant full access without full freedom of movement. In fact, all of this is what’s happening now. How strong the UK negotiation position is can currently be observed.
There's a lot of scaremongering going around. The "no deal" scenario is terrifying for the EU as well, especially if the Britons don't pay the 39b and shut down their market.
Unfortunately, the current EU administration has a track record of self-inflicted wounds (e.g. Russia sanctions), so this is the most likely scenario now.
The Swiss are literally waiting for UK to leave EU, to see what they can demand. And they also want to restrict immigration...
Guess who's going to find it harder to negotiate as a result? UK, for trying to get an ultra special deal...
Let me clarify that. The populace very narrowly said yes to a referendum, which was supposed to restrict immigration[1].
Parliament implented it in a way, which was pretty toothless towards EU citizens who want to move and work to Switzerland, letting the Swiss Popular Party (SVP) going balistic.
Herein lies the rub: The population accepted the bilaterals with ~60% yes (if I recall correctly, I could be slightly off), but the immigration initiative with just slightly > 50%.
The problem is that you can't have it both ways. In essence the country would have to cancel the bilateral contracts in order to restrict immigration to EU citizens.
The current tensions are derived from a couple issues :
The EU wants a frame agreement so that that not every piss squiek new regulation needs to be negotiated, which is understandable
One of the sticky issues, though, is the regulation on EU companies (mostly contractors), which need to pre-announce work done in Switzerland 8 days in advance. The reason for that is to avoid sallary dumping, which makes sense, since salaries can be significantly larger in Switzerland and their minimums are negotiated in binding contracts between unions and employers.
The EU thinks those requirements are too restrictive and the unions in Switzerland fight tooth and nail against softening those requirements. Befor yelling unions! I have to say their position is understandable. The risk of hit and run contractors working for 1/3rd of the negotiated sallaries is just too big.
My prediction is that middle ground will be found eventually after the EU plays some hardball.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Swiss_immigration_initiat...
edit : some clarifications and spellos
How many of them don't have one yet?
Also, every bank based in the EU will have to open a regulated branch in UK in order to operate in this large market.
> The number of people that supported leave and lacked understanding of all the ties of the businesses that operate in the UK but sell in the EU was amazing.
Perhaps they're just not trying to see only the drawbacks and ignore successful non-members in Europe like Switzerland and Norway.