Free Trade Area

Marcus Watney · 19-01-2005, 01:14 PM

In response to C_steam, the point you make is technically correct, and one that Leon Brittan stressed in a letter a year ago. Yes, Norway is required to abide by Single Market legislation without having the right to contribute any input. Also, it is true that EEA members do pay a small membership fee. But this is tiny compared to our contributions.

However, as I pointed out in my paper, what Leon Brittan rather archly forgot to mention in his letter is that unlike the EU, EEA members are free to leave the EEA any time they feel it is no longer working to their advantage ... the ultimate safeguard.

It always amuses me the way Europhiles are so desperate to rubbish the EEA ... as if they themselves recognise it is a bit too juicy for the EU's own good!

Incidentally, I am not suggesting that the EEA should necessarily be our final destination. The Single Market is the cause of a great deal of our over-regulation, and most UKIP members prefer a looser arrangement like EFTA. If only to calm the fears of voters though, we do need to show that our policy for withdrawal is practicable and painless, and to my mind that means promoting a two-phase withdrawal. First we get out of the political EU and regain our sovereignty, relying on our EEA membership to ensure no economic dislocation. Then we have a national debate over a two-year period as to what our final destination should be: remain in the EEA, transfer to EFTA or NAFTA, or even just go it alone.

B.A.Ware · 19-01-2005, 04:16 PM

Can someone simplify this for me are you saying if we retain our membership in the EEA we still have to abide by certain European legislation, but if we only retain our membership in EFTA we don’t. Can someone also explain how come we buy goods from country’s like India, China, Australia and New Zealand do they have to abide by European regulation Further more do country’s like India and china produce goods under our strict heath and safety laws. This is good campaigning information.

C_steam · 19-01-2005, 04:48 PM

BA - it depends what you mean by strict H&S laws.

If you mean the conditions under which the workers abroad are working, then the answer is, of course a strong resounding "No!" (But you knew that!)

If, as i suspect, you mean do the goods conform to our technical standards, then the answer should be 'yes' because of 'CE' marking.

However, as with anything, this can be faked, which is hardly the EU's fault.

B.A.Ware · 19-01-2005, 05:14 PM

.

Quote:

However, as with anything, this can be faked, which is hardly the EU's fault

Can't we blame them anyway

Sarumano · 24-01-2005, 01:20 AM

According to C Booker & R North's 'The Great Deception' EFTA was set up for the most part by Britain, so I don't see why we can't be welcomed.

And the idea of trading with the English-speaking areas (tho' he did include Uncle Sam!) was Churchill's. He didn't want anything to do with the EC/EEC/EU, although he was all for it.

And no, that isn't a contradiction; he wanted the French & Germans in, and us not.

19-01-2005, 01:14 PM	#11 (permalink)
Marcus Watney Newbie Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Oxford Posts: 4	In response to C_steam, the point you make is technically correct, and one that Leon Brittan stressed in a letter a year ago. Yes, Norway is required to abide by Single Market legislation without having the right to contribute any input. Also, it is true that EEA members do pay a small membership fee. But this is tiny compared to our contributions. However, as I pointed out in my paper, what Leon Brittan rather archly forgot to mention in his letter is that unlike the EU, EEA members are free to leave the EEA any time they feel it is no longer working to their advantage ... the ultimate safeguard. It always amuses me the way Europhiles are so desperate to rubbish the EEA ... as if they themselves recognise it is a bit too juicy for the EU's own good! Incidentally, I am not suggesting that the EEA should necessarily be our final destination. The Single Market is the cause of a great deal of our over-regulation, and most UKIP members prefer a looser arrangement like EFTA. If only to calm the fears of voters though, we do need to show that our policy for withdrawal is practicable and painless, and to my mind that means promoting a two-phase withdrawal. First we get out of the political EU and regain our sovereignty, relying on our EEA membership to ensure no economic dislocation. Then we have a national debate over a two-year period as to what our final destination should be: remain in the EEA, transfer to EFTA or NAFTA, or even just go it alone. __________________ \"If the EU applied to join itself, it would be rejected on the ground that it is not democratic enough to be a member.\"

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

19-01-2005, 04:16 PM	#12 (permalink)
B.A.Ware Moderator Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Birmingham Posts: 4,501 Party: UKIP	Can someone simplify this for me are you saying if we retain our membership in the EEA we still have to abide by certain European legislation, but if we only retain our membership in EFTA we don’t. Can someone also explain how come we buy goods from country’s like India, China, Australia and New Zealand do they have to abide by European regulation Further more do country’s like India and china produce goods under our strict heath and safety laws. This is good campaigning information.

19-01-2005, 04:48 PM	#13 (permalink)
C_steam Super Moderator Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Paddling up 5hit creek..... Posts: 7,711	BA - it depends what you mean by strict H&S laws. If you mean the conditions under which the workers abroad are working, then the answer is, of course a strong resounding "No!" (But you knew that!) If, as i suspect, you mean do the goods conform to our technical standards, then the answer should be 'yes' because of 'CE' marking. However, as with anything, this can be faked, which is hardly the EU's fault.

24-01-2005, 01:20 AM	#15 (permalink)
Sarumano Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Salisbury Posts: 309	According to C Booker & R North's 'The Great Deception' EFTA was set up for the most part by Britain, so I don't see why we can't be welcomed. And the idea of trading with the English-speaking areas (tho' he did include Uncle Sam!) was Churchill's. He didn't want anything to do with the EC/EEC/EU, although he was all for it. And no, that isn't a contradiction; he wanted the French & Germans in, and us not.