I imagine what’s particularly against the EU here is that just as with Norway, our waters provide more than enough sustainability to sustain a much larger domestic fishing industry than we currently have. If we gave up no quotas/access to our waters and got none in return re EU waters that significantly benefits the UK.
There’s an imbalance there as well as matters of sovereignty that the EU will need to recognise.
Yes, administrating fishery is an explosive matter. It is probably the main reason why we are not in the EU. I suspect fishery is much more important for us than for you actually. It is a bigger part of our economy and tradition/culture than it is for you.
Sorry to trouble you but what is the price on Norway for EFTA? In terms of sovereignty. I guess its to uphold EU trading standards and rules is it? Is that confined to all trade or just that done within EFTA?
Free movement and EFTA court? I don’t know what else. But both of those are deal-breakers for the UK.
It’s EEA free movement though, not EU free movement. Still a problem for the UK but not as bad as the EU version.
I don’t know it all in my head, would need to read up fully. I dislike commenting on important matters if I feel I may forget or lack important points.
But EU trading standards of course, we also allow EU vessels to fish in our economic zone, but we have some important powers. As an example, the last decade our quota that we give to the EU that they can fish in our waters have increased, while the quota we get has not increased as much. This has led to us holding back a lot of cod bound for the EU as an example.
But I am uncomfortable going into closer details without reading up.
It requires having some EU law on the books which I don’t think you get to have a say on.
Are trade deals by EFTA members only done as a bloc or can they be done on an individual basis?
Can be done individually. EFTA do get a say on the EU laws applicable to them and, of course, get to interpret their application too.
I’m not sure the issue is ‘our waters’. Its the bit beyond that, that is free for other nations to enter but the rights to catch belong to the UK (unless sold).
Did you ever check the balance on contributions to the EU and cost of membership, or is it a logarithmic and unfathomable answer?
Are you referring to the unilateral migration safeguards under article 112? They are limited in scope and can only be applied on a temporary basis to remedy a migration issue and only on a sectoral or region basis. Not to mention it has to be agreed on by the EEA joint committee. Add to that the EU has the same unilateral capability. I can’t imagine Norway has any wish to enact the migration safeguards.
Are there any other differences between EEA and EU free movement?
No, I’m not referring to Article 112. I’m referring to the different interpretation as between citizens and workers.
Was I going to? We’ve been the second biggest net contributor over the last ten+ years. Are you asking whether that’s value for money in the context of the benefits free trade brings? I would say unquestionably. But it still doesn’t fully justify the premium.
Thanks and no, I simply meant was it too complicated an answer because of how economic figures can be ‘shown’. Yes I was asking the question you answered. There was no slight.
Regarding the fishing, are we expecting armed patrols of UK waters come the 1st Jan?
I haven’t read anything about differences other than the migration safeguard. Identical healthcare and social security benefits to, say, France according to the .gov.uk website.
What am I missing with respect to FOM here?
Exactly what I’ve said.
Struggling to see where in jurisprudence or even basic moral reasoning, how wanting to trade with a bloc equates to a requirement to accept freedom of movement, other than, say in a ransoming type negotiation. I must admit to making the mistake of approaching this issue from a legalistic perspective, and I should have accounted for the hostages.
What are the differences between EU citizenship and EEA citizenship in relation to FOM?