Little bit of politics - let's keep it civil

[RobLev]

On the Switzerland issue. Switzerland is learning that you can't go against the will of the people. It is also learning that "sanctions" against it from the EU have amounted to stopping Swiss Students using Erasmus (and also stopped EU students coming to Swiss Universities)

So far.

...

The EU wants to act against Switzerland, for breaking a treaty, but it is very hard form them to do so, and still claim to be a democracy. (quiet in the corner - I said claim, not is) How can a democracy actively punish a country for acting on the direct vote of their citizens?

If the citizens decide they no longer want to take the benefit of the agreements they have signed, then the agreements fall. What no treaty participant can agree with is that a country that of its own free will enters into bargains (particularly one whose citizens can be taken to have given direct consent to that bargain) should then pick and choose which treaty obligations it will abide by and which it will ignore.

And if it were to do so, it sends a strong message, that the EU is willing to bully, and act contrary to the voice of the people. Which strengthens the Anti-EU voice.

Only to the extent that those with an interest in misrepresenting the position get away with that.

But to do nothing, would mean that the "fringe" players would see that it is possible to act outside, but have what you want.

But the issue of free-movement is not so clear cut. The UK is worried about free movement, other countries are talking about it. And the quota doesn't fully stop freedom of movement, just limits the numbers who can move (by this I mean, they are not stopping people from any particular country, just the total number of EU). I think quite a few EU countries would like to put quotas on the movement of people around the EU.

And the best bit in those articles is the bit about: "you can't pick or choose what you sign up to". Well that is exactly what Switzerland does do. It signs up to bi-lateral agreements with the EU, which include payments to be made were appropriate, and doesn't sign up or get involved in any treaty it doesn't like. So it doesn't get a say on what is in the treaties themselves, but it gets a say on what is in the bi-lateral treaty, and (importantly) gets to decide if it wants the treaty, or not.

Indeed; but selling goods and services into the EU, which it hardly has a choice about, requires it to abide by EU regulations in the creation of which it has no say. It works for Switzerland; but the 'Kippers would reject the Swiss deal out of hand if they were to be consistent to their current rhetoric.

 

[Taff]

Firstly, that net contribution table, I believe, leaves out of account our 3.5bn rebate.

I don't think so RobLev. The table shows the UK making a net contribution (what some would call "a loss") of £3,500,000,000 a year. If the table excluded our rebate of £3,500,000,000 .... the EU would cost us nothing , and we know that isn't the case. The UK is the 3rd largest contributor just behind France.

Even after taking into account our rebate, in 2010 apparently the UK’s adjusted net contribution ie after allowing for the UK rebate and receipts from EU programmes - was estimated to be £6,270,000,000. The rebate was £3,000,000,000. Apparently it costs every man, woman and child in the UK the thick end of £200 each a year. Now, if some beurocrat turned up at peoples door and demanded £200 per person, it wouldn't be long before there were riots in the streets. Because it gets taken out of general taxation though it doesn't get the attention it deserves. Imagine every person had to pay the same for certain public service ... lets call it err ... a Poll Tax. We had one of those a few years ago and it was scrapped partly because there were riots in the street. IMO the Poll Tax was a brilliant idea BUT the amount you paid should have been linked to the ability to pay ie someone earning £50,000 a year should have paid twice as much as someone earning £25,000 a year.

... Indeed; but selling goods and services into the EU, which it hardly has a choice about, requires it to abide by EU regulations in the creation of which it has no say.

But the EU is buying Swiss goods and services because it suits them to. The EU could of course refuse to buy Swiss goods and services on principle, but by definition they won't then be getting the best deal. Principles will cost them - lets see how long they keep their principles.

 

[RobLev]

I don't think so RobLev. The table shows the UK making a net contribution (what some would call "a loss") of £3,500,000,000 a year. If the table excluded our rebate of £3,500,000,000 .... the EU would cost us nothing , and we know that isn't the case. The UK is the 3rd largest contributor just behind France.

AIUI, in general "net contribution" is used to refer to the difference between the various income streams going into EU funds, and those coming out, with rebates separate. You're right though that this chart seems not to use that definition.

...

But the EU is buying Swiss goods and services because it suits them to. The EU could of course refuse to buy Swiss goods and services on principle, but by definition they won't then be getting the best deal. Principles will cost them - lets see how long they keep their principles.

So the Swiss have got the EU over a barrel? Which is presumably why the EU have, for example, backed down and let them keep their banking secrecy? (Clue - they haven't).

The Swiss will lose their ability sell freely into the EU if they persist in tearing up their treaty obligations; there's a guillotine clause in the bilateral agreements to stop either party cherrypicking, and the EU will have to activate it or risk even greater tensions within the EU. The Swiss will have to either add the additional costs to the goods and services they sell, making them less competitive, or absorb the costs, making them less profitable. The EU can do without Swiss goods and services; the Swiss can't do without their sales into the EU. Nor can they do without the multinationals that make many of those goods, which are getting twitchy about staying there simply as a result of the abrogation of free movement quite apart from the EU reaction to that abrogation.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Switzerland is learning that you don't break agreements with the EU, particularly on such fundamental issues as free movement of people, without consequences:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-27244959

All the sabre rattling and threats from the EU rather remind me of a line from Shakespeare

"I will do such things—what they are yet I know not, but they shall be the terrors of the earth!"
- King Lear - Act 2 Scene 4

And the Swiss don't seem to be all that worried about it do they

Switzerland is at least as closely integrated into the EU economy as the UK, and is affected by all the rules and regulations on goods etc that the 'Kippers complain about, but with the significant disadvantage of not having a vote on their being made. It also pays into the EU budget...

With a couple of really important exceptions.

1. While ECJ Rulings do influence Law in Switzerland to a certain extent, mainly in the areas of economic policy, the Rulings themselves cannot be enforced. From a sports perspective, for example, the 1995 Bosman Ruling, and the 2003 Kolpak Ruling do not apply in Switzerland and cannot be enforced there.

2. Switzerland can unilaterally decide not to participate or follow any EU policy that they don't want to, unlike full member nations, which can be shoehorned into accepting policies that neither its people nor its government agrees with.

The Swiss are fiercely independent (I should know, my mother was Swiss). They do not accept others telling them what they should do. The more the EU try to bully them, the more they will dig their heels in. While I would not go so far as to say that they have the EU over a barrel, make no mistake, Switzerland is perfectly capable of surviving without the EU. Their import/export level to countries outside of the EU are much the same as that with the EU itself. For example they do nearly 50% more trade with North America than with the entire "non-Eurozone" of the EU, their trade with Asia exceeds it by nearly 200%.

However, the emergence of China as an economic power has been a game-changer. In the Asia-Pacific region, we have understood that for some years. In Europe you are only just beginning to realise the implications. In 2009 Switzerland became the first European country to sign a bilateral Free Trade and Economic Partnership Agreement with Japan. Last year they signed another a Free Trade Agreement with China, their third most important trade partner. They currently have 28 free trade agreements with 38 partners outside the EU.

Switzerland have, for some time, been positioning themselves for the game of the century. If the EU try to bully the Swiss people by voiding treaties and applying economic sanctions, the Japanese, the Chinese and the other FTA partners will be only be too willing to take their goods and sell Switzerland theirs.

 

[Taff]

All the sabre rattling and threats from the EU rather remind me of a line from Shakespeare.

All this sabre rattling and threats from the EU remind me of a line from the famous Windsor Davies in It Aint Half Hot Mum

"Oh dear. How sad. Never mind"​

.. The Swiss are fiercely independent (I should know, my mother was Swiss). They do not accept others telling them what they should do. The more the EU try to bully them, the more they will dig their heels in.

Then I can see a striking similarity with the British. A sure fire way of annoying the Brits is to start dictating to us what we should do ..... and then threaten us if we don't agree. That's just picking a fight and we won't back down. Mr Farage is quite happy to have a scrap and a lot have have voted for them. Apply logic and we'll listen, but start dictating and you can sling your hook.

 

[Dixie]

Secondly, even outside Europe, if we wanted to trade on favourable terms we'd still have to contribute to the EU budget, in the same way as do Norway and Switzerland. Calculating at the same rate as the Norwegian contribution (which is based on their GDP as a proportion of European GDP), our payment would be of the order of 4.4 billion Euros; but without access to the regional and other funds that currently bring down our net contribution.

Using the Norwegian model is unrealistic. Norway has an almost unique association with the EU - it regards itself as both in and out, and its form of association is shared by only two other very small countries (Liechtenstein and Iceland). The four other EFTA states chose a totally different path, and no other state has elected to follow Norway's path. In practice, the Norwegian trail has not been a popular one for others to follow.

That Norwegian approach integrates EU law into domestic Norwegian law in all sorts of areas - vehicle inspections, the work environment and EHS, food quality, financial and labour laws prominent among them. EU law is incorporated in about 25% of Norwegian statutes, and into the bulk of their regulations. In practice, this will surely be the case for any part of the UK that chooses to secede from the EU - it will still face common challenges in terms of technology advances, climate change, environmental concerns, resource mangement, globalisation, peace, trans-national communication etc. The Norwegian experience over the last 20 years is that it neither can nor would wish to isolate itself from the supra-national elements of an increasingly homgeneous EU. This is the uncomfortable truth that has not yet been addressed in meaningful debate on the European issue, though of course it doesn't affect the headline issue - which is that in a country that feels crowded with 65 million people, there are 500 million people with an absolute right to live here.

 

[Fatboy_Ginge]

Ooh so many things that can be said. Firstly though the disclaimer...

The following are my opinion only and not the representative views of anyone else.

1) Is this a protest vote...

In many ways (despite the low turnout) this is the voice of the people expressing their dissatisfaction at the way the political ruling elite are reneging on promises made and appear to be dis-enfranchising the general public. Despite the frightened ranting of the left wing media, UKIP have expressed what a lot of people are feeling. I can't remember where it was but there was a survey that showed approximately 61% of the UK were in favour of restricting immigration to those who had specific skills that would benefit the UK. UKIP have this as one of their central policies. According to the likes of The Guardian though, this makes UKIP a bunch of neo-nazi racists along with anyone who shares that view.

2) Should the main parties be worried...

The Lib-Dems should be VERY worried. These elections have shown that UK voters don't trust them. They have reneged on too many promises and IMO will never hold office. Their pro-European stance is also not trusted by the electorate. who with the swing to UKIP have shown their dissatisfaction with the EU.

The Labour party are shouting their triumph about the local elections... Whoop de do... They have gained a number of councillors over the Conservatives and Lib-Dems. So have UKIP though. In the European elections their pro EU stance has cost them as has their willingness to accept any and every EU ruling to the detriment of UK sovereignty. They seem to have forgotten that their core voters are still fiercely patriotic and regard themselves as British/English/Scottish/Welsh etc. NOT European.

The Conservatives have most to worry about. They are traditionally closer in viewpoint to UKIP with regards to the EU, Cameron's inability to stand up to the Europhiles in his party is the biggest stumbling block for him. In order to win back the dis-affected vote he needs to position the party as firmly Eurosceptic and slap down his opposition. Has he got the political capital for this? Possibly not, hence his inability to do so. He is trying to please all members of the party and pissing most of them off.

UKIP have had a successful election(s). Does this qualify them for UK office? Would you vote for them? I voted for them in the European elections as they closely represented my views on the EU, more so than the Conservatives. Would I let Farage and co run this country???? Not a snowballs chance in hell!!! Too many of UKIP's policies are pie in the sky. Will they gain some MP's? There's every chance they might, the likelihood is they won't.

To counter the threat from UKIP the main parties must address the dissatisfaction felt by the general public. This means addressing immigration, specifically economic migration. EU interference in the day to day running of the UK. The Human Rights Act. Criminal Justice and the perception that it's biased towards the rights of the criminal rather than victim. NHS, education (although getting rid of Gove and letting teachers teach might sort that out in itself)

Should all these and more be addressed then the threat of UKIP will be negated. Can the three main parties address these problems ??? Well who knows. That's a different subject altogether.

 

[FlipFlop]

So the Swiss have got the EU over a barrel? Which is presumably why the EU have, for example, backed down and let them keep their banking secrecy? (Clue - they haven't).

Actually the Swiss bank secrecy laws haven't actually changed. It is still up to foreign governments to provide names and reasons for the request (initial burden of proof). This is as it always has been. The only exception so far has been to UBS. The requirement of burden of proof has changed slightly. This is vastly different from other countries, where a request for information to a bank about the details of a client, will result in the information being given, even if no real knowledge exists of any wrong doing.

The Swiss will lose their ability sell freely into the EU if they persist in tearing up their treaty obligations; there's a guillotine clause in the bilateral agreements to stop either party cherrypicking, and the EU will have to activate it or risk even greater tensions within the EU. The Swiss will have to either add the additional costs to the goods and services they sell, making them less competitive, or absorb the costs, making them less profitable. The EU can do without Swiss goods and services; the Swiss can't do without their sales into the EU. Nor can they do without the multinationals that make many of those goods, which are getting twitchy about staying there simply as a result of the abrogation of free movement quite apart from the EU reaction to that abrogation.

And this paragraph show you understand nothing about Switzerland. The Swiss are not part of the EU, they have no right of free trade. You have to pay import/export duties etc. on all goods. So this free trade you think the Swiss can't do without - it already manages without. And any extra "tariff" implemented, would likely be contested by the Swiss in the WTO.

And the freedom of movement deal the Swiss signed (to "sign them up" to Schengen agreement - something the UK is not part of), had opt out clauses, and also the ability to put the free movement accord on hold, and to implement quotas. The main issue is - did the "trigger" points for those clause happen or not. If not, then yes the EU can cancel all the previous deals with Switzerland. I don't see that happening at a time when a lot of other EU countries are talking about suspending the right of free movement (France for example).

 

[RobLev]

I'm going to keep this short, because this thread has the potential to outrun leggings...

...

To counter the threat from UKIP the main parties must address the dissatisfaction felt by the general public.

Agreed. But do please note that the Yougov polls on voting in an in/out referendum were it held tomorrow have since March this year consistently produced an ""In" majority, after almost a year the other way:

http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.ne...ves-Pol-Trackers-Europe-Referendum-210514.pdf

This means addressing immigration, specifically economic migration. EU interference in the day to day running of the UK. The Human Rights Act. Criminal Justice and the perception that it's biased towards the rights of the criminal rather than victim. NHS, education (although getting rid of Gove and letting teachers teach might sort that out in itself)

...

There is a perception amongst the rugby-watching public, shared by a number of commentators and correspondents that there is an epidemic of forward passes in modern Rugby Union; to that extent our friend who referees in the Netherlands is correct.

So: do you address that perception by toughening the rules on the forward pass; maybe upgrading the sanction to a penalty kick so as to stamp it out?

Or do you educate the rugby-watching public and media that their perception is incorrect? It's the more difficult task - but making policy on the basis of misperceptions will come back to bite you in the end.

 

[RobLev]

...

And this paragraph show you understand nothing about Switzerland. The Swiss are not part of the EU,

Correct.

they have no right of free trade. You have to pay import/export duties etc. on all goods. So this free trade you think the Swiss can't do without - it already manages without. And any extra "tariff" implemented, would likely be contested by the Swiss in the WTO.

Incorrect:

The 1972 Free Trade Agreement (FTA) between Switzerland and the European Union (EU) created a free trade zone for industrial products between the two parties to the Agreement. Industrial goods originating in the territory of the two parties can therefore be traded free of customs duty. The Agreement prohibits the setting of limits on the volume of goods that can be traded (quotas) as well as measures with the same effect such as tariff barriers. The FTA is one of the main pillars of the trade relations between Switzerland and the EU. In 2013, about 55% of Swiss exports went to the EU and 73% of all Swiss imports came from the EU.

http://www.europa.admin.ch/themen/00500/00506/00526/index.html?lang=en

And the freedom of movement deal the Swiss signed (to "sign them up" to Schengen agreement - something the UK is not part of), had opt out clauses, and also the ability to put the free movement accord on hold, and to implement quotas. The main issue is - did the "trigger" points for those clause happen or not. If not, then yes the EU can cancel all the previous deals with Switzerland. I don't see that happening at a time when a lot of other EU countries are talking about suspending the right of free movement (France for example).

Free movement is fundamental to the single market; and whatever France may say about it (but (i) the French were pretty outspoken on 10 February about the Swiss decision and (ii) it is Sarkozy the ex-president who is making the anti-Schengen noise), Germany will not hear of any dilution. Both countries are convinced that Switzerland will be outwith its rights under the 1999 treaty if it reneges on free movement.

There is provision within Schengen for re-imposition of controls to deal with security problems, and that was an issue a couple of years ago; but there is no general push to draw back from the single market.

 

[RobLev]

Just a couple more points:

Firstly, the transitional provisions in the 1999 FMP agreement have expired; the longest lived ones, allowing Switzerland to restrict residence permits in certain circumstances, expired this year.

Secondly, my reading of Article 11 is that the agreement is directly enforceable by those entitled to its benefit.

 

[FlipFlop]

The Free Trade agreement that Switzerland signed with the European community in 1972, is not part (to my understanding, and to the understanding of the press over here) of the bilateral contracts that have guillotine clauses (the 7 signed in 1994(?)). Of course if the "technical trade barrier" treaty over rides the 1972 treaty, then this might not be the case, but the 1972 treaty hasn't been revoked.

As for free trade - I can attest there are import duties (or export duties), and quotas, for importing/exporting items between the EU and Switzerland. Not just VAT, actual import duties and export duties. So what exactly are the "industrial goods" not subject to these tariffs? Certainly not everyday objects.....

But I've not read all the treaties, so could easily be wrong.

But the interesting thing is - political discussion is quite open over here. Both sides give informed views (some is scaremongering admittedly), and will agree with each other over some points. There are good and bad points - they discuss which is worse/better. And the public make informed decisions (and don't just vote for "popular" motions). So they didn't vote against this lightly.

(Devils advocate: And the government has 3 years to enact the quotas. It is also worth noting, the EU has already acted when the Swiss government hasn't actually broken any treaty yet (they will have to, but they haven't yet). So perhaps it is the EU who has actually broken the treaties? yes I have read this in the papers, not sure if it true)

Personal view: Swiss will put in pace quotas, but at a level that the EU can agree doesn't really restrict any sensible movement of people. There will be a review process, so if the level is getting close, they can change it up. (This worries the party that got the referendum in the first place, and they are already trying to hold another referendum to set the level of the quota, to stop this happening!)

 

[Browner]

Being serious and continuing the Swiss Trade discussion for a moment.

Why can't I find Tilsit in English shops?

goddamn tasty cheese.

 

[Dixie]

As for free trade - I can attest there are import duties (or export duties), and quotas, for importing/exporting items between the EU and Switzerland. Not just VAT, actual import duties and export duties. So what exactly are the "industrial goods" not subject to these tariffs? Certainly not everyday objects.....

This is very much my day job. Swiss customs duties are unusual, in that by and large the tax base is the weight of the product - so the duty liability is X CHF per 100Kg of product, whereas the world generally adopts value as the tax base (y% of the import value). The Free Trade Agreement (FTA) between EU and CH is a very common one - it grants duty-free access to any goods supported by a Certiifcate of Preferential Origin (EUR1) or its invoice declaration equivalent. Such certificates can only be granted to goods that meet the origin rules for manufacture in either CH or EU - and those rules are designed to avoid simple screwdriver assembly operations acting as a Trojan horse. So I could not import to the EU a bike frame, two wheels, a chain, a set of handlebars and a saddle, put them all together in a lockup in Staines and then expect to issue a certificate of EU origin that the Swiss would respect. That bike has almost no EU content, and would suffer import duties when I sent them to Switzerland.

My company makes lightbulbs in Hungary. If the Swiss duty rate is 100 CHF per 100Kg of lightbulbs, I pay duty of about 1CHF per 100 lightbulbs. I may be very happy to suffer than impost rather than go to the admin effort of demonstrating that I meet the FTA rule of origin for the lightbulbs made entirely in Hungary. But I COULD use the FTA if it made financial sense. There are a few products (mainly agricultural) that are excluded, but they are very limited.

 

[FlipFlop]

Dixie - so why are there import duties on wines (say French or German) or other food products, and jewelry, and cars made in the EU, and so on, when I bring them across the border as a person. There is no ability to say where it is made on the declaration forms, and the customs officials don't care.

Does free trade only apply to large scale companies?

And to answer Browner - Swiss cheeses (like most swiss wines) - we keep the best stuff here, as our secret!

And back to the OP. How many countries have let their citizens have a say on the integration agenda the EU has? Have any citizens recently voted explicitly on this recently?

 

[Dixie]

Dixie - so why are there import duties on wines (say French or German) or other food products, and jewelry, and cars made in the EU, and so on, when I bring them across the border as a person. There is no ability to say where it is made on the declaration forms, and the customs officials don't care.

Does free trade only apply to large scale companies?

And to answer Browner - Swiss cheeses (like most swiss wines) - we keep the best stuff here, as our secret!

And back to the OP. How many countries have let their citizens have a say on the integration agenda the EU has? Have any citizens recently voted explicitly on this recently?

Wine is probably excise duty rather than customs duty. Your car purchase and other retail purchases suffer because you haven't obtained an EUR1 certificate of origin from the manufacturer. If it's a Honda, you might not be able to - depending on the model the car may have no EU content. If it's a German brand, there's a far higher probability of the car meeting the origin rules - but the manufacturer may not be interested in answering the requests for individual EUR1s from the myriad individuals who could theoretically ask them for one. When they sell 1000 BMWs to their Swiss distributor, they can produce 1 EUR1 to cover the consignment. If instead they sold to the nearest German dealer (in, say, Lorrach) and allowed Swiss Customers to drive their new cars into Switzerland, they'd have to produce 1000 EUR1s. There is also the issue of the grey market - why are you buying your German (or French) cars in the EU rather than in Switzerland? Whatever the reason, it damages the prospects of the official distributor so is unlikely to be supported by the manufacturer.

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

Dixie that was very interesting. Can you please explain the duties payable on Nazi gold and stolen paintings?

 

[4eyesbetter]

Fascinating though the intricacies of importing lightbulbs to Switzerland are (and I'm not being entirely sarcastic!), I'm just going to nip back to the OP for a moment and see what else there is to pick up on.

But what message does this result send to the three (other) main political parties...and what should the leaders of those bodies do to counter the disaffection that has seen UKIP's support soar?

As I see it, there's two issues that are colliding rather neatly.

1). The European parliament is a large and complicated organisation that does things a long way from London, which has never been treated seriously by anyone in British politics or media, and which appears at first glance to be a very efficient way of distributing large amounts of money to people who do very little work for it. It's an easy target for the media on a slow news day, and not without justification; and there's been plenty of room for someone to come along and exploit this properly. The positive case for the EU simply hasn't been made; why this is could carry its own thread. If it were being made, it'd be a lot harder for Farage's "immigrants!" rhetoric to stick.

2). The two main parties have both separately come to the conclusion that the most important quality in a leader is that he should look good on television. Tony Blair managed to do that while also convincing people that he believed in things, and even followed through on it for a while. Nick Clegg had exactly the same qualities, except he got found out rather sooner than Blair did. Gordon Brown never did, and Labour then made the utterly staggering blunder of making him try to behave that way. However, neither Cameron nor Miliband look like they believe in anything; as one F. Urquhart might have put it, no backbone and no bottom to either of them. They're both Oxbridge PPE graduates who went straight into party machines and have very little experience doing anything other than politics, and it shows badly: whether it's David Cameron not knowing that there's no West Cornwall Pasty Co at Leeds station, or Ed Miliband not knowing how much his weekly shopping bill is.

And so you have Nigel Farage. Apparently we now live in a world where being a public schoolboy and commodities trader makes you a more credible voice of the ordinary person than anyone on the Labour frontbench (except Vernon Coaker, but when have you ever seen him given a chance to say anything about anything?); but his background is sufficient to at least differentiate him from the other leaders. His public image is very carefully moulded to provide something different to them, and to engage people on an emotive issue in ways that the major parties simply can't do - because that doesn't fit with being people who look good on TV.

The most interesting bit of the next year for me is going to be in seeing what happens now that there are about 100 people holding public office for UKIP who aren't Nigel Farage, and many of them are on councils located in battleground constituencies. They're now unarguably official UKIP representatives, and should any of them come out with the kind of ridiculous comments that I've come to expect from UKIP people who aren't Nigel Farage, it's going to be a lot harder for him (and his General Election candidates in nine months' time) to avoid the fallout.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Being serious and continuing the Swiss Trade discussion for a moment.

Why can't I find Tilsit in English shops?

goddamn tasty cheese.

Not much of a cheese shop, is it?

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

Not much of a cheese shop, is it?

It's the finest in the district!