european economic area
Oct 29th 2004 | 5:33 pm
#1
Guest
Posts: n/a
european economic area
Why aren't there more countries in Europe that are EEA but not EU?
It seems like a good option... getting the benefits of free movement of
people/labour/capital/goods but without the obligations of being in the EU.
Apparently Iceland has done very well out of this position.
It seems like a good option... getting the benefits of free movement of
people/labour/capital/goods but without the obligations of being in the EU.
Apparently Iceland has done very well out of this position.
Oct 29th 2004 | 9:23 pm
#2
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: european economic area
On 30/10/04 6:33, in article [email protected],
"Smith" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Why aren't there more countries in Europe that are EEA but not EU?
>
> It seems like a good option... getting the benefits of free movement of
> people/labour/capital/goods but without the obligations of being in the EU.
>
> Apparently Iceland has done very well out of this position.
>
Swiss voters have (barely) voted down EU and EEA membership, but a series of
treaties with the EU-15 and EEA states (to be extended to the new EU-10)
grants reciprocal rights very similar to those of EEA members. Liechtenstein
is an EEA member.
http://europa.eu.int/comm/external_r...zerland/intro/
In a certain sense, the Swiss are having their cake and eating it, even more
than EEA members. The only right I can think of that Swiss do not have which
the others do is the absolute right to remain in another EEA/EU country
after retirement. (Most of the countries probably grant that concession
anyway, but it's not in the treaties.)
The main disadvantage to EEA/Swiss status is that those countries are
effectively bound by much (not all) of EU law (the "acquis communautaire")
without having much say in its drafting or implementation.
There is an EEA judicial system, and also an EFTA court. EFTA is the rump of
Europe that Britain invented in order to compete with, and to frustrate, the
EEC. It didn't work, and eventually (1972) Britain joined the European
Communities.
http://secretariat.efta.int/Web/Euro...ions/EFTACourt
http://www.ejil.org/journal/Vol3/No2/art6.html
"Smith" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Why aren't there more countries in Europe that are EEA but not EU?
>
> It seems like a good option... getting the benefits of free movement of
> people/labour/capital/goods but without the obligations of being in the EU.
>
> Apparently Iceland has done very well out of this position.
>
Swiss voters have (barely) voted down EU and EEA membership, but a series of
treaties with the EU-15 and EEA states (to be extended to the new EU-10)
grants reciprocal rights very similar to those of EEA members. Liechtenstein
is an EEA member.
http://europa.eu.int/comm/external_r...zerland/intro/
In a certain sense, the Swiss are having their cake and eating it, even more
than EEA members. The only right I can think of that Swiss do not have which
the others do is the absolute right to remain in another EEA/EU country
after retirement. (Most of the countries probably grant that concession
anyway, but it's not in the treaties.)
The main disadvantage to EEA/Swiss status is that those countries are
effectively bound by much (not all) of EU law (the "acquis communautaire")
without having much say in its drafting or implementation.
There is an EEA judicial system, and also an EFTA court. EFTA is the rump of
Europe that Britain invented in order to compete with, and to frustrate, the
EEC. It didn't work, and eventually (1972) Britain joined the European
Communities.
http://secretariat.efta.int/Web/Euro...ions/EFTACourt
http://www.ejil.org/journal/Vol3/No2/art6.html
Oct 30th 2004 | 12:33 am
#3
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: european economic area
"Smith" <[email protected]> skrev i meddelandet
news:[email protected] u...
> Why aren't there more countries in Europe that are EEA but not EU?
> It seems like a good option... getting the benefits of free movement of
> people/labour/capital/goods but without the obligations of being in the
> EU.
> Apparently Iceland has done very well out of this position.
Possibly not qualified.
Most likely candidate Switzerland have rejected EEA (but Liechtenstein is a
member)
Remaining countries mostly in former East Europe are possibly not in
question because of the status in their economy, or in the case of small
areas like I.O.M or C.I not wanting to be members.
news:[email protected] u...
> Why aren't there more countries in Europe that are EEA but not EU?
> It seems like a good option... getting the benefits of free movement of
> people/labour/capital/goods but without the obligations of being in the
> EU.
> Apparently Iceland has done very well out of this position.
Possibly not qualified.
Most likely candidate Switzerland have rejected EEA (but Liechtenstein is a
member)
Remaining countries mostly in former East Europe are possibly not in
question because of the status in their economy, or in the case of small
areas like I.O.M or C.I not wanting to be members.
Oct 30th 2004 | 3:52 pm
#4
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: european economic area
In article <BDA91C07.295EE%[email protected]>,
Sufaud <[email protected]> wrote:
> In a certain sense, the Swiss are having their cake and eating it, even more
> than EEA members. The only right I can think of that Swiss do not have which
> the others do is the absolute right to remain in another EEA/EU country
> after retirement. (Most of the countries probably grant that concession
> anyway, but it's not in the treaties.)
Sounds like the Swiss wouldn't want to take a hit to their standard of
living by remaining in another country.
Sufaud <[email protected]> wrote:
> In a certain sense, the Swiss are having their cake and eating it, even more
> than EEA members. The only right I can think of that Swiss do not have which
> the others do is the absolute right to remain in another EEA/EU country
> after retirement. (Most of the countries probably grant that concession
> anyway, but it's not in the treaties.)
Sounds like the Swiss wouldn't want to take a hit to their standard of
living by remaining in another country.
Oct 30th 2004 | 4:57 pm
#5
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: european economic area
Smith <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected] u:
> Why aren't there more countries in Europe that are EEA but not EU?
The EEA is basically the union of EU + EFTA. So in order to be in EEA but
not EU you need to be in EFTA. Is EFTA still taking members?
Regards
--
Lasers in the jungle somewhere
http://www.wschwanke.de/ usenet_20031215 (AT) wschwanke (DOT) de
news:[email protected] u:
> Why aren't there more countries in Europe that are EEA but not EU?
The EEA is basically the union of EU + EFTA. So in order to be in EEA but
not EU you need to be in EFTA. Is EFTA still taking members?
Regards
--
Lasers in the jungle somewhere
http://www.wschwanke.de/ usenet_20031215 (AT) wschwanke (DOT) de
Oct 31st 2004 | 12:19 am
#6
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: european economic area
On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 05:57:50 +0100, Wolfgang Schwanke <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Smith <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]. au:
>> Why aren't there more countries in Europe that are EEA but not EU?
>The EEA is basically the union of EU + EFTA. So in order to be in EEA but
>not EU you need to be in EFTA. Is EFTA still taking members?
after the constitution referendums in various countries I think
there's a good chance of a few new ones going in, but I don't suppose
it'll increase the total EEA membership.
Jim.
wrote:
>Smith <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]. au:
>> Why aren't there more countries in Europe that are EEA but not EU?
>The EEA is basically the union of EU + EFTA. So in order to be in EEA but
>not EU you need to be in EFTA. Is EFTA still taking members?
after the constitution referendums in various countries I think
there's a good chance of a few new ones going in, but I don't suppose
it'll increase the total EEA membership.
Jim.
Oct 31st 2004 | 2:15 am
#7
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: european economic area
Because they do have the obligations of being in the EU, without
having a say in its decisions.
PJW
On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 15:33:39 +1000, Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>Why aren't there more countries in Europe that are EEA but not EU?
>It seems like a good option... getting the benefits of free movement of
>people/labour/capital/goods but without the obligations of being in the EU.
>Apparently Iceland has done very well out of this position.
having a say in its decisions.
PJW
On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 15:33:39 +1000, Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>Why aren't there more countries in Europe that are EEA but not EU?
>It seems like a good option... getting the benefits of free movement of
>people/labour/capital/goods but without the obligations of being in the EU.
>Apparently Iceland has done very well out of this position.
Oct 31st 2004 | 2:33 am
#8
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: european economic area
On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 15:15:47 GMT, [email protected] (Patrick
Wallace) wrote:
>Because they do have the obligations of being in the EU, without
>having a say in its decisions.
Only those parts of the EU that relate to trade, not all the social
stuff.
Jim.
Wallace) wrote:
>Because they do have the obligations of being in the EU, without
>having a say in its decisions.
Only those parts of the EU that relate to trade, not all the social
stuff.
Jim.
Oct 31st 2004 | 4:27 am
#9
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: european economic area
Jim Ley wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 15:15:47 GMT, [email protected] (Patrick
> Wallace) wrote:
>>Because they do have the obligations of being in the EU, without
>>having a say in its decisions.
> Only those parts of the EU that relate to trade, not all the social
> stuff.
> Jim.
Nor the common foreign policy or having a common army. Will they have
to participate in the common asylum policy?
> On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 15:15:47 GMT, [email protected] (Patrick
> Wallace) wrote:
>>Because they do have the obligations of being in the EU, without
>>having a say in its decisions.
> Only those parts of the EU that relate to trade, not all the social
> stuff.
> Jim.
Nor the common foreign policy or having a common army. Will they have
to participate in the common asylum policy?
Oct 31st 2004 | 4:33 am
#10
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: european economic area
On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 17:27:50 GMT, "Frank F. Matthews"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Jim Ley wrote:
>> On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 15:15:47 GMT, [email protected] (Patrick
>> Wallace) wrote:
>>>Because they do have the obligations of being in the EU, without
>>>having a say in its decisions.
>> Only those parts of the EU that relate to trade, not all the social
>> stuff.
>> Jim.
>Nor the common foreign policy or having a common army. Will they have
>to participate in the common asylum policy?
Not even all the countries in the EU have to do those, so no.
Jim.
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Jim Ley wrote:
>> On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 15:15:47 GMT, [email protected] (Patrick
>> Wallace) wrote:
>>>Because they do have the obligations of being in the EU, without
>>>having a say in its decisions.
>> Only those parts of the EU that relate to trade, not all the social
>> stuff.
>> Jim.
>Nor the common foreign policy or having a common army. Will they have
>to participate in the common asylum policy?
Not even all the countries in the EU have to do those, so no.
Jim.
Oct 31st 2004 | 6:56 am
#11
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: european economic area
On 31/10/04 15:33, in article [email protected], "Jim
Ley" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Only those parts of the EU that relate to trade, not all the social
> stuff.
Not true. Freedom of establishment, and totalization of social security
(state pension), reciprocal health insurance and much more is provided for
throughout the EU/EEA/Switzerland.
Ley" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Only those parts of the EU that relate to trade, not all the social
> stuff.
Not true. Freedom of establishment, and totalization of social security
(state pension), reciprocal health insurance and much more is provided for
throughout the EU/EEA/Switzerland.
Oct 31st 2004 | 7:16 am
#12
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: european economic area
On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 19:56:45 +0000, Sufaud <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 31/10/04 15:33, in article [email protected], "Jim
>Ley" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Only those parts of the EU that relate to trade, not all the social
>> stuff.
>Not true. Freedom of establishment, and totalization of social security
>(state pension), reciprocal health insurance and much more is provided for
>throughout the EU/EEA/Switzerland.
Yes, but there's no requirement for the EEA members to do this, they
do do some of course because there are good reasons for them to.
Jim.
>On 31/10/04 15:33, in article [email protected], "Jim
>Ley" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Only those parts of the EU that relate to trade, not all the social
>> stuff.
>Not true. Freedom of establishment, and totalization of social security
>(state pension), reciprocal health insurance and much more is provided for
>throughout the EU/EEA/Switzerland.
Yes, but there's no requirement for the EEA members to do this, they
do do some of course because there are good reasons for them to.
Jim.
Oct 31st 2004 | 5:54 pm
#13
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: european economic area
[email protected] (Jim Ley) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> >Not true. Freedom of establishment, and totalization of social security
> >(state pension), reciprocal health insurance and much more is provided for
> >throughout the EU/EEA/Switzerland.
>
> Yes, but there's no requirement for the EEA members to do this, they
> do do some of course because there are good reasons for them to.
If you mean that (unlike European Union member states, although the
Constitution will change that) EEA states and Switzerland may withdraw
from the treaties, that is (theoretically anyway) correct. But if you
mean that freedom of establishment is a voluntary grant of privilege,
that is wrong. See, for example, the Swiss treaties (which have an
expiration date, subject to renewal):
http://www.europa.admin.ch/europapol/off/ri_1999/e/
> >Not true. Freedom of establishment, and totalization of social security
> >(state pension), reciprocal health insurance and much more is provided for
> >throughout the EU/EEA/Switzerland.
>
> Yes, but there's no requirement for the EEA members to do this, they
> do do some of course because there are good reasons for them to.
If you mean that (unlike European Union member states, although the
Constitution will change that) EEA states and Switzerland may withdraw
from the treaties, that is (theoretically anyway) correct. But if you
mean that freedom of establishment is a voluntary grant of privilege,
that is wrong. See, for example, the Swiss treaties (which have an
expiration date, subject to renewal):
http://www.europa.admin.ch/europapol/off/ri_1999/e/
Oct 31st 2004 | 8:12 pm
#14
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: european economic area
On 31 Oct 2004 22:54:28 -0800, [email protected] (Tam) wrote:
>[email protected] (Jim Ley) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>> >Not true. Freedom of establishment, and totalization of social security
>> >(state pension), reciprocal health insurance and much more is provided for
>> >throughout the EU/EEA/Switzerland.
>>
>> Yes, but there's no requirement for the EEA members to do this, they
>> do do some of course because there are good reasons for them to.
>If you mean that (unlike European Union member states, although the
>Constitution will change that) EEA states and Switzerland may withdraw
>from the treaties, that is (theoretically anyway) correct.
No I mean they opt out of individual legislation in all areas other
than those that direct impact the single market. Such things as the
reciprocal health cover mentioned in the post I replied to.
Jim.
>[email protected] (Jim Ley) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>> >Not true. Freedom of establishment, and totalization of social security
>> >(state pension), reciprocal health insurance and much more is provided for
>> >throughout the EU/EEA/Switzerland.
>>
>> Yes, but there's no requirement for the EEA members to do this, they
>> do do some of course because there are good reasons for them to.
>If you mean that (unlike European Union member states, although the
>Constitution will change that) EEA states and Switzerland may withdraw
>from the treaties, that is (theoretically anyway) correct.
No I mean they opt out of individual legislation in all areas other
than those that direct impact the single market. Such things as the
reciprocal health cover mentioned in the post I replied to.
Jim.
Nov 1st 2004 | 12:24 am
#15
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: european economic area
On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 09:12:40 GMT, [email protected] (Jim Ley) wrote:
>On 31 Oct 2004 22:54:28 -0800, [email protected] (Tam) wrote:
>>[email protected] (Jim Ley) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>>> >Not true. Freedom of establishment, and totalization of social security
>>> >(state pension), reciprocal health insurance and much more is provided for
>>> >throughout the EU/EEA/Switzerland.
>>>
>>> Yes, but there's no requirement for the EEA members to do this, they
>>> do do some of course because there are good reasons for them to.
>>If you mean that (unlike European Union member states, although the
>>Constitution will change that) EEA states and Switzerland may withdraw
>>from the treaties, that is (theoretically anyway) correct.
>No I mean they opt out of individual legislation in all areas other
>than those that direct impact the single market. Such things as the
>reciprocal health cover mentioned in the post I replied to.
Not all things are as simple, Swiss have to pay full fees at UK
universities.
--
Martin
>On 31 Oct 2004 22:54:28 -0800, [email protected] (Tam) wrote:
>>[email protected] (Jim Ley) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>>> >Not true. Freedom of establishment, and totalization of social security
>>> >(state pension), reciprocal health insurance and much more is provided for
>>> >throughout the EU/EEA/Switzerland.
>>>
>>> Yes, but there's no requirement for the EEA members to do this, they
>>> do do some of course because there are good reasons for them to.
>>If you mean that (unlike European Union member states, although the
>>Constitution will change that) EEA states and Switzerland may withdraw
>>from the treaties, that is (theoretically anyway) correct.
>No I mean they opt out of individual legislation in all areas other
>than those that direct impact the single market. Such things as the
>reciprocal health cover mentioned in the post I replied to.
Not all things are as simple, Swiss have to pay full fees at UK
universities.
--
Martin
