Deal over Turkey joining the EU?

[Berberis]

Free movement is not a requirement for access to the Single Market.

 

Yes it is! The ‘four freedoms’ of the European Union are the freedom of movement of goods, people, services and capital. They come as a package and thats the reason why we have not started the process yet.

 

Can you name another non EU nation that has access to less than 4 of these freedoms?

[L00b]

Yes it is! The ‘four freedoms’ of the European Union are the freedom of movement of goods, people, services and capital. They come as a package and thats the reason why we have not started the process yet.

 

Can you name another non EU nation that has access to less than 4 of these freedoms?

Berberis, don't mistake access (trading with-) for membership (EU-/EEA-/EFTA-).

 

It is true that (full-) freedom of movement is not required for (partial-) access to the Single Market.

 

It is however untrue that (full-) freedom of movement is not required for full access to the Single Market.

 

If the UK is not considering full access to the Single Market (i.e. the level of access which the UK, and EEA/EFTA members like Norway, Iceland <etc.> currently enjoy), then it could conceivably get away with not offering (full-) freedom of movement.

 

The burning and reciprocally-influenced questions are, how much access does the UK want to preserve, and how much freedom of movement are the various EU member states likely to let the UK curtail, with the balance to be achieved somewhere between 'none' and 'full'.

 

If the UK wants (or ends up with) a hard Brexit, notionally it could find itself no different to e.g. the US, Korea, Canada and other EU trade deal'd partners, with 'some freedom of movement' (tourism-oriented) and 'somewhat-improved WTO rules' (significant NTBs still in the way).

 

In simple terms, if the UK wants a relationship with the EU akin to actually or effectively becoming an EEA/EFTA member, or better than that (somewhere between its current full EU membership and the not-quite-but-nearly level of EEA/EFTA membership), then it would have no choice but to offer free movement. No ifs or buts, it's a statutory (Treaty) requirement, not a political question or open for debate.

 

If the UK wants less than that level of relationship, then it can start looking at curtailing freedom of movement.

 

But then, that's only looking at what the UK wants. There's the non-trivial issue of what the others across the table want

Edited September 30, 2016 by L00b

[Berberis]

Berberis, don't mistake access (trading with-) for membership (EU-/EEA-/EFTA-).

 

 

To be fair, NigelFargate stated Free movement is not a requirement for access to the Single Market. He did not say for partial access to the Single Market.

 

The four freedoms are what holds up the EU and no country is able to pick and choose which of these freedoms they want and which they do not. Otherwise the UK would have done so already while we were members.

[L00b]

To be fair, NigelFargate stated Free movement is not a requirement for access to the Single Market. He did not say for partial access to the Single Market.

I know: I made that distinction in my reply to him, because I thought his statement was a bit equivocal-

Free movement is not a requirement for access to the Single Market.

Since we are looking at a negotiation, what is and isn't a requirement for how much access to the Single Market is up for discussion and haggling.

 

<...>

 

Free movement is a requirement for full access.

Just pointing out the myriad shades of grey between black and white (as usual ).

[Zamo]

The point you are missing time and again when you repeat this mantra, is that whilst this might not be a requirement for the UK, it is a requirement for many of the guys across the table.

 

So long as the UK says "no free movement" and free movement remains a red line for any one of them, stalemate and no Art.50 deal. The UK might manage to make free movement go away as a main head of contract, but don't kid yourself: it will likely be free movement in just about all but name.

 

Then no article 50 deal because the people of this country have had their fill of uncontrolled immigration and that is what free movement is. Free movement must end and immigration must be brought under control or this government will not survive. And people won't be turning to the likes of Labour to do their bidding... people will turn to those who crawl from the woodwork to fill the gap and exploit the anger. It is a foolish path to go down even if there is a better short-term trade deal down it.

 

What is also worth remembering is that EU federalists may be willing to cut their nose off to spite our face when it comes to trade/tariffs but it isn't really their nose! I don't think the principle of free movement is more precious to the people of Europe than the jobs and prosperity that comes from free trade with the UK. I don't think it is a price they will suffer for a principle that the EU does not even consistently insist upon e.g. the EU is not insisting on free movement as part of it's free trade negotiations with the US.

 

---------- Post added 30-09-2016 at 14:04 ----------

 

It's of no interest to you because you supported Brexit but at some point he'll have to explain why there's no extra £350m a week for the NHS. He'll definitely be judged on that.

 

Will he? Do you really think there is anyone out there that is so stupid that they believed (or wants) the entire EU spend to be redirected to the NHS? When we leave the EU and £350m a week isn't redirected to the NHS will millions of people stop voting Tory in protest? No.

 

If we do not end free movement of people and reintroduce effective controlled immigration then will millions of people stop voting Tory in protest? Yes.

 

As for free movement, if we abandon that and instead have tariffs on imports and exports that will be the price we pay.

 

If that is the case then so be it.

[Berberis]

The problem I see is, how many true British companies do we have that can't just up sticks and move to the EU if a trade deal is not sorted soon. Remember the EU has a population of 508 million consumers. The UK is 64 million. It doesn't take a genius to work out which market is worth more to an international business.

 

Im not naysaying as I seriously hope the UK comes out of this for the better, but logic isn't on our side.

[L00b]

Then no article 50 deal because the people of this country have had their fill of uncontrolled immigration and that is what free movement is.

Uncontrolled like the fully-controllable non-EU immigration (superior in numbers to 'uncontrolled' EU immigration) has been?

I don't think it is a price they will suffer for a principle that the EU does not even consistently insist upon e.g. the EU is not insisting on free movement as part of it's free trade negotiations with the US.

You are wrong on this one, making the usual mistake of confounding access conditions for membership conditions.

 

The US does not have full access ('free' trade) to the Single Market, but a facilitated access relative to standard WTO rules.

 

Which is a very long way away from full access to the Single Market, that level of access being what free movement of people (alongside the other 3 freedoms) must be given as a counterpart for.

 

'Free' trade between the US and the EU is 'free' in name only, why else do you think the US has been trying to push its TTIP so hard?

Edited September 30, 2016 by L00b

[LeMaquis]

Will he? Do you really think there is anyone out there that is so stupid that they believed (or wants) the entire EU spend to be redirected to the NHS?

 

Yes. Millions of gullible idiots voted for Brexit for that reason. It was Johnson and Gove's main slogan, painted right across their battle bus. And they're not going to deliver. Put that on top of the tariffs that will be imposed on our imports and exports when we leave the customs union and the Tories won't be flavour of the month.

[NigelFargate]

Since we are looking at a negotiation, what is and isn't a requirement for how much access to the Single Market is up for discussion and haggling.

 

So if the guys across the table say it is a requirement for partial access including passported financial access, that's what the deal on the table is. Take it, leave it, or try and haggle further.

 

If any bookie is offering odds on France, Germany and/or Ireland influencing towards just such a deal (they all have a clear vested national interest in attracting City types and businesses - and have all 3 been actively courting them since late June), I have money to lay.

 

I'm quite looking forward to hear how these discussions go indeed

 

Free movement is a requirement for full access. As the Norwegians, Liechtensteiners and Icelanders know well, and as the Swiss lately came to realise.

 

Yes, I am looking forward to these discussions as well. What they are likely to prove is that the EU by no means holds all the best cards and will not be able to bully the UK into accepting a lousy deal, as it did with Norway and Switzerland.

 

For example, whilst around 5500 UK firms might still need passporting rights into the EU market, there are over 8,000 firms in EU27 which will still need passporting rights to access the UK market. Similarly, EU27 sells far more cars into the UK than vice versa. Moreover, even if the full 11% tariff is imposed on our car exports, it would be the EU's car exports to the UK which would be hit hardest, not least because of the low value of the pound relative to the euro. The same applies to many other industrial sectors, resulting of course in our huge negative trade balance with the EU as a whole. Trade access cuts both ways, as the EU negotiators will soon find out.

 

Whether or not an amicable and mutually beneficial agreement is reached very much depends on whether the negotiations are viewed as a zero sum game in which one party has to lose (which is more or less the position of clowns such as Juncker and Verhofstadt) or whether member states ditch the self-destructive logic of federalist ideology and opt for a win win situation in which common sense trumps dogma.

[tzijlstra]

Although I thoroughly enjoy the same ground over and over, let's go back to the original thread.

 

Turkey becoming an EU member was used by the Brexit campaign as an excuse to slate the EU. Almost everybody in the EU knew that the chance of Turkey joining was practically nil, especially after the Coup.

 

Now, a few months in, we have the minister for foreign nonsense, who persuaded a lot of people to vote Brexit, hugging Erdogan and promising to help Turkey join the EU.

 

So what messages can you, brexiteer, take out of that?

 

1. The current government is rather keen on facilitating for the EU from the sidelines

2. The current government is all of a sudden much closer to Turkey than it was before

3. A free trade agreement with Turkey, negotiated separately, is definitely on the cards.

 

Dissecting that 3rd point a bit further, what does that mean? Well, one of the things it means is that Turkish produced goods can be sold on the British market without a mechanism to slow it down or stop it. Turks, on average, are a hell of a lot cheaper than Brits. So this deal, potentially, allows British business to move to Turkey, pay Turkish taxes, wages and so on and still sell in Britain as if they were based here.

 

The government is looking for deals like this all over the place, in richer and poorer countries.

 

Still not beginning to dawn what you signed up for?