The reason why Switzerland and Norway have done well outside.
1.Norway have a better banking system and Tax Free rich haven.
2.Switzerland wealthy better banks & work ethic low customer spending tax free haven.
I know someone will disagree with me but the UK place is in the EU not out.
You don't want a crappy crass TTIP deal.
Interestingly the Tories, Labour and Lib Dems clubbed together with their allies and Merkels crew yesterday to stop any debate and a vote on TTIP in the European Parliament as they were worried it might get voted down. Another shameful example of how the Tories and Labour sell us out to big business and multi nationals when it counts.
Still the vote was very close - UKIP and their allies along with the Greens/SNP/Plaid and the Radical left who all wanted the debate and all oppose TTIP made quite a fuss about this shameful decision,
Switzerland also has a very independent streak, going back to the days of William Tell (the greatest ever Swiss man, before Roger Federer), who fought against the Habsburgs when they wanted to impose punitive taxes and cruel laws on the Swiss people. ;-)
The reason why Switzerland and Norway have done well outside EU.
In February 2014 referendum, the Swiss votes for curbs on immigration. Curbing immigration will compromise an agreement made by the Swiss government and the EU.
At stake is an agreement made by both the Swiss government and the EU. Both the EU and the Swiss government either adhere to the terms and conditions of the agreement, or the agreement ends.
I'm willing to guess some will think the EU are bullying the Swiss into a second referendum. The EU may be bullying the Swiss or they may not. It doesn't alter the facts. Both parties - the EU and the Swiss government - made an agreement on immigration.
This is incorrect and you do not take into account the EU rules which Norway has to implement and how those rules came into being.
The vast majority of rules which Norway has to adopt do not start life out in the EU. They are devised by international bodies such as Codex and UNECE. The EU's 28 member countries have a single seat on the international bodies' committees whilst Norway has a seat of their own.
The EU represent the interests of all 28 member countries so what may be in the best interests of the UK is ignored or watered down. Norway on the other hand is able to influence regulations before they have even reached the EU for rubber stamping.
You will find a number of EU member countries have in the past asked Norway to speak on the behalf of them at the committee meetings for these international bodies. Norway has more influence in the formation of rules which they later adopt than the UK does currently.
Since the UK – along with all the other EU nations – have long been members of both those organisations, I find that highly doubtful.
Either way, it doesn't alter the fact that both Norway and Switzerland are signed up to the EU freedom of movement rules – including people.
The reason why Switzerland and Norway have done well outside EU.
In February 2014 referendum, the Swiss votes for curbs on immigration. Curbing immigration will compromise an agreement made by the Swiss government and the EU.
At stake is an agreement made by both the Swiss government and the EU. Both the EU and the Swiss government either adhere to the terms and conditions of the agreement, or the agreement ends.
I'm willing to guess some will think the EU are bullying the Swiss into a second referendum. The EU may be bullying the Swiss or they may not. It doesn't alter the facts. Both parties - the EU and the Swiss government - made an agreement on immigration.
They don't need to bully the Swiss into a referendum, they have referendums on just about everything. It's a national pastime.
Norway and Switzerland both have small populations, 5 and 8 million respectively. The population of London or smaller. I feel that helps significantly.
Switzerland's right bang in the middle of everything location also helps considerably. The U.K. by contrast is a big lump of rock off mainland Europe.
This is incorrect and you do not take into account the EU rules which Norway has to implement and how those rules came into being.
The vast majority of rules which Norway has to adopt do not start life out in the EU. They are devised by international bodies such as Codex and UNECE. The EU's 28 member countries have a single seat on the international bodies' committees whilst Norway has a seat of their own.
The EU represent the interests of all 28 member countries so what may be in the best interests of the UK is ignored or watered down. Norway on the other hand is able to influence regulations before they have even reached the EU for rubber stamping.
You will find a number of EU member countries have in the past asked Norway to speak on the behalf of them at the committee meetings for these international bodies. Norway has more influence in the formation of rules which they later adopt than the UK does currently.
I'd say the following explains the situation fairly well:
Also. as anyone would realise, there are serious differences in the weight attached to the contributions made by the parties at the negotiations based on their "clout". No one is going to claim an objection from Belize or Lesotho is going to be accorded the same weight as an objection from the USA or Japan.
Also. as anyone would realise, there are serious differences in the weight attached to the contributions made by the parties at the negotiations based on their "clout". No one is going to claim an objection from Belize or Lesotho is going to be accorded the same weight as an objection from the USA or Japan.
Norway has and will continue to shape and influence rules which are later adopted by the EU. For many of the international bodies which decide on regulations and standards, one vote is worth one vote, irrespective of how large the country is. Norway has one vote, the EU has one vote.
As it stands the UK is just one of 28 member countries. What is best for the UK may be ignored by the EU.
Norway has and will continue to shape and influence rules which are later adopted by the EU. For many of the international bodies which decide on regulations and standards, one vote is worth one vote, irrespective of how large the country is. Norway has one vote, the EU has one vote.
Incorrect. To quote CODEX's rules of procedure on member organisations (specifically the EU):
A Member Organization may exercise on matters within its competence, in any meetings of the Commission or any subsidiary body of the Commission in which it is entitled to participate in accordance with paragraph 2, a number of votes equal to the number of its Member States which are entitled to vote in such meetings and present at the time the vote is taken. Whenever a Member Organization exercises its right to vote, its Member States shall not exercise theirs, and conversely.
As it stands the UK is just one of 28 member countries. What is best for the UK may be ignored by the EU.
No it can't. We have a veto on all agreements the EU enters into. We aren't going to sign up - either as part of the EU or individually (as we do both for all agreements) - unless it is in our interest nor are we going to ratify any such agreement.
Incorrect. To quote CODEX's rules of procedure on member organisations (specifically the EU):
No it can't. We have a veto on all agreements the EU enters into. We aren't going to sign up - either as part of the EU or individually (as we do both for all agreements) - unless it is in our interest nor are we going to ratify any such agreement.
Codex - The UK does not take a seat at the top table. It is the EU.
What on earth are you on about. The UK has no veto over regulations such as how straight a cucumber should be. This particular standard was drawn up UNECE and rubber stamped by the EU. Just so I am clear, you are claiming the UK has a seat at UNECE's top table and is not represented by the EU? Furthermore, it has a veto over all regulation which originated from UNECE?
What on earth are you on about. The UK has no veto over regulations such as how straight a cucumber should be. This particular standard was drawn up UNECE
Again, read the link above - note the bit about agreed standards being voluntary.
and rubber stamped by the EU. Just so I am clear, you are claiming the UK has a seat at UNECE's top table and is not represented by the EU? Furthermore, it has a veto over all regulation which originated from UNECE?
The UK has a veto on all agreements that the EU enters into. Any regulation arising from bodies that the EU and the member states agree to have to be agreed to by all member states for them to be adopted within the EU.
No EU member state is going to agree to go from a situation they each could have voted in a bloc with the other member states to one where they collectively have one single vote between them as you claimed. Nor are they going to have the EU adopt regulations on their behalf that they profoundly disagree with - you are basically claiming that the UK and every other member state are utterly stupid not to mention incompetent.
The vast majority of rules which Norway has to adopt do not start life out in the EU. They are devised by international bodies such as Codex and UNECE. The EU's 28 member countries have a single seat on the international bodies' committees whilst Norway has a seat of their own.
The EU represent the interests of all 28 member countries so what may be in the best interests of the UK is ignored or watered down. Norway on the other hand is able to influence regulations before they have even reached the EU for rubber stamping.
You will find a number of EU member countries have in the past asked Norway to speak on the behalf of them at the committee meetings for these international bodies. Norway has more influence in the formation of rules which they later adopt than the UK does currently.
These are kind of facts that rarely get aired and certainly aren't common knowledge. I wonder why?
It's evidently true that each nation would have a far greater voice with an individual seat on international bodies. The EU's one seat to represent 28 nations is very much a diluted and impotent one, and doesn't take into account each country's individual needs. As Iceland, Norway and Switzerland can negotiate on their own terms and tailor agreements to benefit their own economies, then they'll always have the advantage.
Why can't everyone see this? The EU smothers democratic rights in each member state and large corporations are happy to accept that as it makes business easier for them without having to accommodate the smaller competition and certainly not the voice of the people.
How have small insignificant countries like Norway and Switzerland managed to sign FTAs with China whilst the EU with its massive 500 million population failed to do so?
Their prosperity is in part due to them being outward looking nations whilst the EU is protectionist and inward looking.
What utter tripe. The reason Norway hasn't joined is mainly to do with fishing restrictions and hunting for whales. Switzerland's reason is because of it's historical independence and sectretive banking regime, both which would be compromised if they became full EU members.
They are ridiculous comparisons. They are wealthy countries for their size but even Greater London has a GDP bigger than both countries combined. They have never had any influence to speak of and geopolitically they are irrelevant. We are the polar opposite. We need to maintain our international influence, not diminish it, but without an Empire, our EU membership is the next best option. We are a leading nation of the EU but by leaving we would become a minor nation with little influence.
As Iceland, Norway and Switzerland can negotiate on their own terms and tailor agreements to benefit their own economies, then they'll always have the advantage.
Hilarious. What happens is that the EU sets the rules for trade and the likes of Iceland, Norway and Switzerland implement them.
What utter tripe. The reason Norway hasn't joined is mainly to do with fishing restrictions and hunting for whales. Switzerland's reason is because of it's historical independence and sectretive banking regime, both which would be compromised if they became full EU members.
They are ridiculous comparisons. They are wealthy countries for their size but even Greater London has a GDP bigger than both countries combined. They have never had any influence to speak of and geopolitically they are irrelevant. We are the polar opposite. We need to maintain our international influence, not diminish it, but without an Empire, our EU membership is the next best option. We are a leading nation of the EU but by leaving we would become a minor nation with little influence.
Why do we need to maintain our international influence? The way I look at it the world is going to go to shit no matter who is influential. Norway might not be a global power but it comes out on top in gender equality, lack of corruption and quality of life, I'd rather live there than the world's "superpower" the U.S. The empire is gone, but I do support EU membership- as a nation that cooperates with its neighbours.
Hilarious. What happens is that the EU sets the rules for trade and the likes of Iceland, Norway and Switzerland implement them.
Funny. I thought the WTO set the rules. Anyway seeing as how, unlike Norway et al, we have been able to influence from inside the EU, how come the single market does not include the sector in which we are strongest (services) but enables the rest of the EU to enjoy a huge trading surplus with the UK?
Switzerland has excellent geography. Borders France and a Germany which is ideal for trade throughout history. Also borders Austria which is also fairly wealthy and Northern Italy which has a lot of wealthy people.
The mountainous terrain of a Switzerland has limited urban expansion and the boom and bust industry that's left parts of a Britain as wasteland. The Swiss never had an industrial revolution like in other countries and thus never suffered industrial decline. As a result the low population is easy to look after and ensure relatively low unemployment.
Switzerland is successful because they don't meddle in other countries affairs like the Illegal invasion of Iraq, or helping get rid of the leader of Libya and leaving nothing but misery and chaos behind.
Switzerland doesn't keep its doors wide open for all and sundry to come and claim state benefits and free healthcare and a free house. As a result they're not over populated and in economic decline.
The Swiss never had an industrial revolution like in other countries and thus never suffered industrial decline. As a result the low population is easy to look after and ensure relatively low unemployment.
Not quite true; industry...AND agriculture...suffered downturns to 30% of their pre-war outputs in the period from 1939 to 1945. - because of the number of working men that the Swiss mobilised on a permanent basis from 1941 onwards...330,000 out of a TOTAL national population - young, working age, and old, male and female - of only c. 4,1-4,200,000 at the time.
Switzerland and Norway are indeed wealthy countries....but the national wealth comes at the "cost" of very high personal tax burdens to pay for the quality of life, and services - in Norway's case the first comprehensive national "welfare state" in Europe IIRC, begun in the first decade of the 20th century..
Comments
Interestingly the Tories, Labour and Lib Dems clubbed together with their allies and Merkels crew yesterday to stop any debate and a vote on TTIP in the European Parliament as they were worried it might get voted down. Another shameful example of how the Tories and Labour sell us out to big business and multi nationals when it counts.
Still the vote was very close - UKIP and their allies along with the Greens/SNP/Plaid and the Radical left who all wanted the debate and all oppose TTIP made quite a fuss about this shameful decision,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-33078804
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/watch-ttip-vote-in-european-parliament-descends-into-chaos-after-ukip-meps-spark-protest-10310457.html
In February 2014 referendum, the Swiss votes for curbs on immigration. Curbing immigration will compromise an agreement made by the Swiss government and the EU.
In Switzerland, there's now talk of a second immigration referendum.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/05/24/uk-swiss-immigration-idUKKBN0O90IB20150524
At stake is an agreement made by both the Swiss government and the EU. Both the EU and the Swiss government either adhere to the terms and conditions of the agreement, or the agreement ends.
I'm willing to guess some will think the EU are bullying the Swiss into a second referendum. The EU may be bullying the Swiss or they may not. It doesn't alter the facts. Both parties - the EU and the Swiss government - made an agreement on immigration.
Since the UK – along with all the other EU nations – have long been members of both those organisations, I find that highly doubtful.
Either way, it doesn't alter the fact that both Norway and Switzerland are signed up to the EU freedom of movement rules – including people.
They don't need to bully the Swiss into a referendum, they have referendums on just about everything. It's a national pastime.
Dealing with UNECE is considered part of trade policy which means that the EU represents the 28 member countries.
The member country holding the presidency on Codex's main committee negotiates on behalf of the 28 member countries.
Switzerland's right bang in the middle of everything location also helps considerably. The U.K. by contrast is a big lump of rock off mainland Europe.
Yeh righto
I'd say the following explains the situation fairly well:
https://www.food.gov.uk/enforcement/regulation/codex
Also. as anyone would realise, there are serious differences in the weight attached to the contributions made by the parties at the negotiations based on their "clout". No one is going to claim an objection from Belize or Lesotho is going to be accorded the same weight as an objection from the USA or Japan.
As it stands the UK is just one of 28 member countries. What is best for the UK may be ignored by the EU.
Incorrect. To quote CODEX's rules of procedure on member organisations (specifically the EU):
No it can't. We have a veto on all agreements the EU enters into. We aren't going to sign up - either as part of the EU or individually (as we do both for all agreements) - unless it is in our interest nor are we going to ratify any such agreement.
What on earth are you on about. The UK has no veto over regulations such as how straight a cucumber should be. This particular standard was drawn up UNECE and rubber stamped by the EU. Just so I am clear, you are claiming the UK has a seat at UNECE's top table and is not represented by the EU? Furthermore, it has a veto over all regulation which originated from UNECE?
Try actually reading the content by the FSA on the link that I posted above. It explains the situation.
Again, read the link above - note the bit about agreed standards being voluntary.
The UK has a veto on all agreements that the EU enters into. Any regulation arising from bodies that the EU and the member states agree to have to be agreed to by all member states for them to be adopted within the EU.
No EU member state is going to agree to go from a situation they each could have voted in a bloc with the other member states to one where they collectively have one single vote between them as you claimed. Nor are they going to have the EU adopt regulations on their behalf that they profoundly disagree with - you are basically claiming that the UK and every other member state are utterly stupid not to mention incompetent.
These are kind of facts that rarely get aired and certainly aren't common knowledge. I wonder why?
It's evidently true that each nation would have a far greater voice with an individual seat on international bodies. The EU's one seat to represent 28 nations is very much a diluted and impotent one, and doesn't take into account each country's individual needs. As Iceland, Norway and Switzerland can negotiate on their own terms and tailor agreements to benefit their own economies, then they'll always have the advantage.
Why can't everyone see this? The EU smothers democratic rights in each member state and large corporations are happy to accept that as it makes business easier for them without having to accommodate the smaller competition and certainly not the voice of the people.
What utter tripe. The reason Norway hasn't joined is mainly to do with fishing restrictions and hunting for whales. Switzerland's reason is because of it's historical independence and sectretive banking regime, both which would be compromised if they became full EU members.
They are ridiculous comparisons. They are wealthy countries for their size but even Greater London has a GDP bigger than both countries combined. They have never had any influence to speak of and geopolitically they are irrelevant. We are the polar opposite. We need to maintain our international influence, not diminish it, but without an Empire, our EU membership is the next best option. We are a leading nation of the EU but by leaving we would become a minor nation with little influence.
Why do we need to maintain our international influence? The way I look at it the world is going to go to shit no matter who is influential. Norway might not be a global power but it comes out on top in gender equality, lack of corruption and quality of life, I'd rather live there than the world's "superpower" the U.S. The empire is gone, but I do support EU membership- as a nation that cooperates with its neighbours.
I do not think that both the Norwegian and Swiss government see a problem with obeying EU rules.
If they did, they would leave the EU single market. Or never have chosen to join.
Funny. I thought the WTO set the rules. Anyway seeing as how, unlike Norway et al, we have been able to influence from inside the EU, how come the single market does not include the sector in which we are strongest (services) but enables the rest of the EU to enjoy a huge trading surplus with the UK?
They do with regard to trade within the single market, outside of it they don't.
And amazingly enough our biggest single export market is the United States - without being in a single market with the US.
The mountainous terrain of a Switzerland has limited urban expansion and the boom and bust industry that's left parts of a Britain as wasteland. The Swiss never had an industrial revolution like in other countries and thus never suffered industrial decline. As a result the low population is easy to look after and ensure relatively low unemployment.
Switzerland is successful because they don't meddle in other countries affairs like the Illegal invasion of Iraq, or helping get rid of the leader of Libya and leaving nothing but misery and chaos behind.
Switzerland doesn't keep its doors wide open for all and sundry to come and claim state benefits and free healthcare and a free house. As a result they're not over populated and in economic decline.
Not quite true; industry...AND agriculture...suffered downturns to 30% of their pre-war outputs in the period from 1939 to 1945. - because of the number of working men that the Swiss mobilised on a permanent basis from 1941 onwards...330,000 out of a TOTAL national population - young, working age, and old, male and female - of only c. 4,1-4,200,000 at the time.
Switzerland and Norway are indeed wealthy countries....but the national wealth comes at the "cost" of very high personal tax burdens to pay for the quality of life, and services - in Norway's case the first comprehensive national "welfare state" in Europe IIRC, begun in the first decade of the 20th century..