3 ms·

Those countries are not part of the EU, not sure what point you are trying to make. This was not negotiated as a friendly trade deal as done with Canada, US, S

by toshk 6y ago

Those countries are not part of the EU, not sure what point you are trying to make. This was not negotiated as a friendly trade deal as done with Canada, US, Swiss etc. It was clear they were doing something the EU doesn't want to make an example off. Tensions from both sides. Edit: Aha, I understand know you mean they could have gotten the same deals as them. If you have sources for this, please share, but as far as I know this is not true. Take for instance this excerpt from the Financial Times: "Slides presented to EU member states this week by the European Commission suggest it is looking for something far more sophisticated and hard-hitting for Britain. If Brussels has its way, the system will govern not just the two sides’ future trade relationship but several other partnerships in areas such as security and judicial co-operation, joint research, and aviation. One of the key motivations for the EU is to avoid replicating the unruly jumble of agreements that govern its deep relations with Switzerland — whose population in 1992 rejected a proposal to join the European Economic Area. The two sides have subsequently built their relationship up over time, resulting in no fewer than 100 agreements governing their relations. "

dgellow 6y ago
Well, that's the point, no? The UK decided to leave but refused all the existing forms of bilateral agreements. The country mentioned by the comment you responded to all have some form of bilateral agreements with the EU, there are a lot of ways to be a close partner with the EU without being part of the union. Switzerland is part of the Schengen area and we regularly renegotiate (and vote on) new agreements. Norway is also part of the Schengen area, but also part of the EEA (European Economic Area). Turkey is part of the European Custom Union. The UK decided to go its own way instead. This interactive SVG gives a good overview: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1a/Supranational_European_Bodies-en.svg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1a/Supranat.... CGP Grey did a great video in 2019, though it's of course a bit outdated now: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agZ0xISi40E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agZ0xISi40E.
that_guy_iain 6y ago
> This was not negotiated as a friendly trade deal as done with Canada, US etc. It was clear they were doing something the EU doesn't want to make an example off. Tensions from both sides. No, Canada and the US are literally an ocean away. The UK is so close you can swim there. The EU made it clear that a it makes no sense to have the same deal as a partner that is on the other side of the world than it does to have with a partner that is so close and have other interests and conflicts to discuss. All the deals I used as examples are better deals than the Canada and US deals they were all offered and rejected by the UK.
toyg 6y ago
Everyone in the EU would have preferred a Norway-shaped deal. Switzerland was off the table (and is itself likely to go away over the next decade, for the reasons you mention), but Norway or Turkey were absolutely available, and it was signaled very clearly in 2016 and again all the way to 2019. The insistence on leaving the Custom Union on the UK side, however, precluded any scenario like that. The absence of a Swiss option was very well-known, even before the referendum, to anyone who paid any attention to actual EU policies. They see Switzerland as a mistake, ever since the country tried to walk back on its commitment to the four freedoms, and will absolutely not repeat that mistake ever again.

by toshk 6y ago

dgellow 6y ago

Well, that's the point, no? The UK decided to leave but refused all the existing forms of bilateral agreements. The country mentioned by the comment you responded to all have some form of bilateral agreements with the EU, there are a lot of ways to be a close partner with the EU without being part of the union. Switzerland is part of the Schengen area and we regularly renegotiate (and vote on) new agreements. Norway is also part of the Schengen area, but also part of the EEA (European Economic Area). Turkey is part of the European Custom Union. The UK decided to go its own way instead. This interactive SVG gives a good overview: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1a/Supranational_European_Bodies-en.svg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1a/Supranat.... CGP Grey did a great video in 2019, though it's of course a bit outdated now: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agZ0xISi40E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agZ0xISi40E.

that_guy_iain 6y ago

> This was not negotiated as a friendly trade deal as done with Canada, US etc. It was clear they were doing something the EU doesn't want to make an example off. Tensions from both sides. No, Canada and the US are literally an ocean away. The UK is so close you can swim there. The EU made it clear that a it makes no sense to have the same deal as a partner that is on the other side of the world than it does to have with a partner that is so close and have other interests and conflicts to discuss. All the deals I used as examples are better deals than the Canada and US deals they were all offered and rejected by the UK.

toyg 6y ago

Everyone in the EU would have preferred a Norway-shaped deal. Switzerland was off the table (and is itself likely to go away over the next decade, for the reasons you mention), but Norway or Turkey were absolutely available, and it was signaled very clearly in 2016 and again all the way to 2019. The insistence on leaving the Custom Union on the UK side, however, precluded any scenario like that. The absence of a Swiss option was very well-known, even before the referendum, to anyone who paid any attention to actual EU policies. They see Switzerland as a mistake, ever since the country tried to walk back on its commitment to the four freedoms, and will absolutely not repeat that mistake ever again.