The EFTA website appears to imply it is the same?
1 Like
Ah good I found it myself. Rights of citizens of third countries is one. This helps answer: http://eulawanalysis.blogspot.com/2016/07/free-movement-of-persons-in-european.html?m=1
1 Like
Thatās not what I said.
For the EU freedom of movement applies to citizens of other EU member states. Under the EEA, NON-EU members are able to limit freedom of movement to workers (more in line with the original, market-based intention of the EEC than the widened definition that subsequently arose without mandate courtesy of the ECJ).
2 Likes
I think a trade deal would be possible. But it would not be a trade deal that leaves the UKās economic relationship with the EU looking much like the current day - for a start, relatively few trade deals globally encompass services as opposed to goods, and very few of the ones that do include financial services. Financial services have been top of list for what the UK wants from the beginning.
4 Likes
I agree with that, but I wasnt making that point. Rather I was concerned that bare trade does not by necessity imply freedom of movement; that has come from a widening of the definition of economic activity by the EU. Its probably the widest definition at that, the narrowest being simply an exchange of goods by transit. As well, the idea that trade must imply freedom of movement has been somewhat diluted in fact by the rise in use of remote working, in bare terms, the internet. You just do not have to be located in a member state to provide goods or services. Hence little actual need for movement of workers.
1 Like
I was giving my opinion about the ROI from our membership of the EU. Your post seems to be directed towards the UKās position having left?
1 Like
Gisela Stuart, chair of Vote Leave:
āWe probably need to accept that their commitment to how they define the Single Market is even more fundamental than we had appreciated.ā
Probably. Only took a few years.
5 Likes
Donāt many EU countries exercise the exact same right? Obviously thereās a slight difference between being forced to leave after 6 months vs being merely threatened of deportation. But seems the rule of jobseekers is quite well aligned between EU and EEA.
EU rules
As an EU national, you have the right to go and look for work in another EU country
As a jobseeker, you donāt need to register as a resident for the first 6 months. But some EU countries require you to the relevant authorities within a reasonable period after arrival: often at the town hall or local police station
If you have not found a job during the first 6 months of your stay , the national authorities can assess your right to stay longer. Your host country can ask you to leave if you canāt prove that you have a realistic chance of finding work there. In exceptional cases, your host country can deport you on grounds of public policy or public security - but only if it can prove you represent a serious threat
Norway rules
If you came to Norway to look for work, you can stay here for six months. You must report to the police no later than three months after your arrival in Norway.
If you do not get a job within six months, you must leave Norway.
1 Like
Accepting Freedom of Movement is a basic criteria for membership in the economic sone and it has been from the start. If a state wants something similar to EFTA, Freedom of Movement is a perk economically (or sacrifice depending on you pov, if for instance preserving English culture and negating cultural erosion by immigration from non-western countries is the most important aspect) most Norwegians thinks it is a positive). Anyway, in Norway, the issue isnāt Poles or Lithuanians really, even though there exists a problem with social dumping and black work, the issue for those who wants to control immigration is non-western people that they fear will change our culture too rapidly, like asylum seekers and refugees. I assume it is the same in the UK concerning the UK, but I may be wrong. At least our right wing guys are primarily interested in keeping non-Europeans out.
But I may have misunderstood you. I just didnāt get your hostage metaphor.
2 Likes
I guess my point is that I never understood the anti immigration aspect of Brexit, since it has no bearing on how many applicants from the Middle East or Africa you give asylum or work, while it was used in campaigns from UKIP as something that would help ācontrol immigrationā like that (and those guys are worried about English culture, it is what nationalists worry about in general after all).
Poles and Lithuanians, while having a small problem of some of them coming as robber bands (tiny minority) does not contribute to making your country less Western after all.
2 Likes
It was just a cheeky expression by analogy of āwe have something you really wantā.
I have never suffered xenophobia and actually believe the only future for a peaceful earth is the mixing of people and the erosion of nationhood; but this could be millennia away.
I was dealing in economics and philosophy, rather than practicality. In how wider the definition of economic activity, only really at its far left, may include freedom of movement. The point I was making was economic activity does not necessarily entail FOM.
The only factual record of what you describe, from what I have heard in the UK, is due to a suspicion that some migrants come to receive benefits and free healthcare.
2 Likes
No, EU freedom of movement rules extend to citizens and EU member states are prohibited from limiting that freedom only to workers, unlike NON-EU EEA member states.
A NON-EU EEA member state is free to widen that to citizens if they wish, but they are not obliged to unlike EU member states.
1 Like
I wasnāt trying to paint you in any colurs what so ever, mate. I just sought to explain the POV of those who are really anti immigration. They tend to worry mostly bout culture erosion (though they will rarely say that straight out, but it is their fear).
And yeah, the free benefits thing is a typical Norwegian talking point among the Progressive Party as well ( our right wing party).
3 Likes
Iāve never had a problem with immigration and I would like the UK to welcome all nationalities equally. Thatās kind of the point for me. But weāre an island so it needs to be controlled.
2 Likes
I didnt for one minute think you were 
2 Likes
Yeah, and again, I did not seek to paint anyone what so ever with those opinions, I just wanted to write straight what people who really worry about immigration chiefly worries about. It is culture changing rapidly, and in ways that they are really uncomfortable with.
None of what I wrote was intended as criticism of those on this forum who I know were pro-Brexit, particularly you, I know you are not an anti immigration warrior.
2 Likes
You have to remember that very few people openly admit to being racist.
5 Likes
But actually, now you have raised it, FOM goes more to the erosion of nationhood and peace, than it does economy. It is saddening that the EU project has taken this hit. I was a remainer but have been disappointed by the EU position in these negotiations. Cest la vie, it was probably inevitable.
1 Like
Divorces are sadly often very difficult for both sides. I choose to believe that peace has not been damaged too much by this (internally in Europe anyway).
I donāt agree that FOM has eroded Norwegian nationhood at all.
2 Likes
Yes they are, as for peace, it all depends on what events unfold in the next 10 years. Any further shocks and some may crack, loyalties may divide. The original mission of the European project was actually to avoid war and conflict by promoting mutual reliance on trade.
3 Likes