3 ms·

the rebate is only present as the way the contributions are calculated would lead to Britain paying many times per captia then other large rich nations due to t

by blibble 10y ago

the rebate is only present as the way the contributions are calculated would lead to Britain paying many times per captia then other large rich nations due to the structure of its economy, and adding a rebate is politically easier than adjusting the contribution formula other countries then have a rebate on the rebate... norway chooses to stay out, so is not a fair comparison

bonzini 10y ago
Norway chooses to stay out but still has pretty much the same obligations as Britain, and doesn't have the possibility to discuss those obligations. Really, the EEA model makes absolutely no sense for the UK. If you have to go that way, it would have been much better to stay in the EU. I'm curious what "basic concessions" the parent poster had in mind, beyond those that the UK could already enjoy. Certainly the end of free movement of people (which both Norway and Switzerland have to obey) doesn't count as a basic concession.
- rjsw 10y ago
  Restricting freedom of movement was fine when it was done by most existing EU members to the Visegrad countries at the time of their accession.
  - bonzini 10y ago
    Do the countries that entered the EU in 2004 and 2007 have any interest in doing such a step backwards? Also, in some cases the Eastern countries also put restrictions on workers from the West.
  - MagnumOpus 10y ago
    "At the time of accession" being the operative statement here. It is easy saying to a new entrant who desperately wants to join the club that you will temporarily restrict movement as a condition (and indeed the UK government had the choice to do so and didn't). Once the countries are members, and have the same right to free movement, and it would take their unanimous consent to remove freedom of movement, it is impossible to remove their rights.
    - rjsw 10y ago
      My point was more that it is a bit off for the representatives of countries that did restrict freedom of movement to lecture the UK about it's importance. The UK could have applied similar restrictions but I think that the EU would be in worse shape if it had done, it would be nice to get a bit of credit for this.

by blibble 10y ago

bonzini 10y ago

Norway chooses to stay out but still has pretty much the same obligations as Britain, and doesn't have the possibility to discuss those obligations. Really, the EEA model makes absolutely no sense for the UK. If you have to go that way, it would have been much better to stay in the EU. I'm curious what "basic concessions" the parent poster had in mind, beyond those that the UK could already enjoy. Certainly the end of free movement of people (which both Norway and Switzerland have to obey) doesn't count as a basic concession.

rjsw 10y ago
Restricting freedom of movement was fine when it was done by most existing EU members to the Visegrad countries at the time of their accession.
- bonzini 10y ago
  Do the countries that entered the EU in 2004 and 2007 have any interest in doing such a step backwards? Also, in some cases the Eastern countries also put restrictions on workers from the West.
- MagnumOpus 10y ago
  "At the time of accession" being the operative statement here. It is easy saying to a new entrant who desperately wants to join the club that you will temporarily restrict movement as a condition (and indeed the UK government had the choice to do so and didn't). Once the countries are members, and have the same right to free movement, and it would take their unanimous consent to remove freedom of movement, it is impossible to remove their rights.
  - rjsw 10y ago
    My point was more that it is a bit off for the representatives of countries that did restrict freedom of movement to lecture the UK about it's importance. The UK could have applied similar restrictions but I think that the EU would be in worse shape if it had done, it would be nice to get a bit of credit for this.