3 ms·

> Claiming that EU does not support freedom of trade, movement and work is bizarre. Those are the principles at the core of the EU. > And of course a country h

> Claiming that EU does not support freedom of trade, movement and work is bizarre. Those are the principles at the core of the EU. > And of course a country has to, first and foremost, be a part of the EU to have access to EU rights, like free movement in the EU area and so on. These two paragraphs sum it up nicely. You've fallen to the newspeak. Back when we were joining the EU in 2004, freedom of trade was supposed to mean everywhere, thus also with Norway and Switzerland, the UsA, Russia, Australia etc. As you said, these coubtries have never been to the EU, so why do they have access to the EU market? How is "left" different from "never been in"? Because you're angry the state left? That's supposed to be fair (core EU value, right?) to the people (as in humans) of the UK?

jnurmine 6y ago
No, it's not "newspeak" and there is nothing contradictory about those things. This is a long reply, but please read on. EU has absolutely never said that they somehow provide automatic free trade/movement agreements with a random country on the planet regardless of what terms EU gets in return. If that is what you think, then I think you have misunderstood what the EU is about. The key point is this: EU as a block provides freedom of trade and movement etc. to countries WITHIN THE UNION. This happens "automatically" for union member countries. When Czech Republic (for example) joined in 2004, it enabled a person from Czech Republic to move to Portugal or work in Spain. And vice versa. Countries outside of the union, like Norway, Switzerland, Canada, Japan etc. have to negotiate a trade deal with the European Union. This is a process of give and take and often takes several years to make it happen in a way which everyone is happy with. So: the EU is the entity which agrees on free trade agreements (and other agreements) with nations outside of the EU. This is the reason why e.g. Norway and Switzerland have the good trade deals they now have -- they negotiated those deals with the EU. (Note that this is also beneficial for the union member countries since, as a bigger entity, EU can negotiate better deals) Now, Great Britain had these benefits as a member of the EU. But due to whatever reasons, which I won't go into to, they left the EU. Therefore the status of Great Britain reverts to the default state, which is NO AGREEMENT of any kind with EU. The contents of a new kind of agreement is what people have been trying to rehash out from the day 0. This is why it is different. When Great Britain left, they reverted back to a "random country with no deal in place". The fact that Great Britain is geographically in Europe or was in the EU in the past means nothing now; the situation now is they are not a member of the EU AND they lack an agreement with the EU. To summarize: Great Britain has no deal right now and has to negotiate a deal again. For what it's worth, unfortunately Great Britain appears to be not very enthusiastic to truly negotiate. They seem to have an idea that the EU benefits are possible without being in the EU, but of course such a thing won't happen. And that has nothing to do with EU principles of free movement and work or fairness to the people of UK and whatever, it has to do with the fact that now Great Britain is a country outside of the EU and will be handled like such. How "left" is different from "never been in" is that it is no different; the difference is that e.g. Norway and Switzerland have long ago negotiated an agreement with the EU, which spells out how the EU and that particular nation play together. And Great Britain has no such agreement in place right now. Hope this helps.
- jnurmine 6y ago
  Answering to myself: the above was not entirely accurate; the no-deal has not yet happened, though it looks like that is what will happen. Great Britain still has time until December 31 2020 to bang out a deal within the Article 50 (the withdrawal). If and when a no-deal kicks in on December 31 2020, then Great Britain reverts to a "third country status". Since all EU nations must accept the new deal, it will be much more difficult for Great Britain to get a good deal since it will have to please all nations. But, in any case, Great Britain must sit down and negotiate with EU if they want some kind of trade agreements.

jnurmine 6y ago

No, it's not "newspeak" and there is nothing contradictory about those things. This is a long reply, but please read on. EU has absolutely never said that they somehow provide automatic free trade/movement agreements with a random country on the planet regardless of what terms EU gets in return. If that is what you think, then I think you have misunderstood what the EU is about. The key point is this: EU as a block provides freedom of trade and movement etc. to countries WITHIN THE UNION. This happens "automatically" for union member countries. When Czech Republic (for example) joined in 2004, it enabled a person from Czech Republic to move to Portugal or work in Spain. And vice versa. Countries outside of the union, like Norway, Switzerland, Canada, Japan etc. have to negotiate a trade deal with the European Union. This is a process of give and take and often takes several years to make it happen in a way which everyone is happy with. So: the EU is the entity which agrees on free trade agreements (and other agreements) with nations outside of the EU. This is the reason why e.g. Norway and Switzerland have the good trade deals they now have -- they negotiated those deals with the EU. (Note that this is also beneficial for the union member countries since, as a bigger entity, EU can negotiate better deals) Now, Great Britain had these benefits as a member of the EU. But due to whatever reasons, which I won't go into to, they left the EU. Therefore the status of Great Britain reverts to the default state, which is NO AGREEMENT of any kind with EU. The contents of a new kind of agreement is what people have been trying to rehash out from the day 0. This is why it is different. When Great Britain left, they reverted back to a "random country with no deal in place". The fact that Great Britain is geographically in Europe or was in the EU in the past means nothing now; the situation now is they are not a member of the EU AND they lack an agreement with the EU. To summarize: Great Britain has no deal right now and has to negotiate a deal again. For what it's worth, unfortunately Great Britain appears to be not very enthusiastic to truly negotiate. They seem to have an idea that the EU benefits are possible without being in the EU, but of course such a thing won't happen. And that has nothing to do with EU principles of free movement and work or fairness to the people of UK and whatever, it has to do with the fact that now Great Britain is a country outside of the EU and will be handled like such. How "left" is different from "never been in" is that it is no different; the difference is that e.g. Norway and Switzerland have long ago negotiated an agreement with the EU, which spells out how the EU and that particular nation play together. And Great Britain has no such agreement in place right now. Hope this helps.

jnurmine 6y ago
Answering to myself: the above was not entirely accurate; the no-deal has not yet happened, though it looks like that is what will happen. Great Britain still has time until December 31 2020 to bang out a deal within the Article 50 (the withdrawal). If and when a no-deal kicks in on December 31 2020, then Great Britain reverts to a "third country status". Since all EU nations must accept the new deal, it will be much more difficult for Great Britain to get a good deal since it will have to please all nations. But, in any case, Great Britain must sit down and negotiate with EU if they want some kind of trade agreements.