UKIP Leadership thread 2017

[Thanas]

No you don't.

Explain specially why not, and what parts of the EEA explicitly prohibit a signatory from remaining if that signatory leaves the EU. Particularly since there is a specific withdrawal provision for the EEA (Article 127) vs the EU (Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty).

I have already explained it several times - since quite some time now, the membership of the EEA is open to two kinds of groups: 1. Members of the EU (which Britain is not) or states they have signed a specific agreement with (which Britain has not concluded at this moment but is trying to get done). Without any of those two prerequisites being met it is impossible to be a member of the EEA by default, which is what you are arguing here to be the case.

The fact that there is a specific withdrawal provision has no bearing on this.

[Tribble]

No you don't.

Explain specially why not, and what parts of the EEA explicitly prohibit a signatory from remaining if that signatory leaves the EU. Particularly since there is a specific withdrawal provision for the EEA (Article 127) vs the EU (Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty).

I have already explained it several times - since quite some time now, the membership of the EEA is open to two kinds of groups: 1. Members of the EU (which Britain is not) or states they have signed a specific agreement with (which Britain has not concluded at this moment but is trying to get done). Without any of those two prerequisites being met it is impossible to be a member of the EEA by default, which is what you are arguing here to be the case.

The fact that there is a specific withdrawal provision has no bearing on this.

Is there a specific section of the EEA agreement which explicitly states that upon ceasing to be a member the European Economic Community / European Union that country is no longer a part of the EEA? Even if that country had already signed on as a separate signatory? If not, then there is ambiguity in the agreement. There would be no real need for a specific withdrawal provision in the EEA if the aim of the agreement was to give an automatic boot to whoever decided to leave the EU. Technically speaking given the way Article 127 is phrased its also theoretically possible for a member to invoke it and leave the EEA while not invoking Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty to leave the EU. Obviously that could make things very... messy, but I imagine said member would likely still be a party to the EEA due to being a member of the EU. IMO this is something that the ECJ would have to rule on.

Regardless, why do you feel the EU would deliberately try to block the UK from remaining in the EEA? Like all EEA members the UK would still be paying into the EU budget, and would still have to respect the fundamental freedoms, including freedom of movement of labour. Do you really think it's going to be the EU preventing the UK from remaining in the EEA rather than the UK leaving to clamp down on immigration? I don't see why that would be the case unless the EU decides to do it purely out of spite.

[jwl]

UKIP as a party aren't really fascist, although they're the kind of hard-right populist movement that tends to attract people who believe a lot of the same things as genuine fascists but lack sufficient courage of their convictions to go the whole nine yards and wear the swastika. (Or rather the lightning bolt.) Individual members, however... Well, one of them once advocated mandatory abortion of foetuses with severe birth defects and another one I recall was heard saying that "Negros" make her nervous.

The former was a councillor candidate and the latter was a councillor. That's not terribly high up in the party. The former was deselected as a candidate for his remarks and the latter was booted from the party, so you can't really say they represent UKIP.

But regardless, neither of these remarks shows fascism, white nationalism, or the belief that all non-white people without an English family going back centuries should leave the country. The first one might be considered as fascist if it was part of a wider fascist framework, but I haven't seen any evidence of this so far. The second one does show racist prejudice, but there's a big difference between that and white nationalism.

[Thanas]

There would be no real need for a specific withdrawal provision in the EEA if the aim of the agreement was to give an automatic boot to whoever decided to leave the EU.

Look at the article immediately preceding it:

“The Agreement shall apply to the territories to which the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community is applied and under the conditions laid down in that Treaty, and to the territories of Iceland, the Principality of Liechtenstein and the Kingdom of Norway.”

The UK is a member of the EEA only in its capacity as an EU member. Therefore leaving the EU means an automatic exit from the EEA, and the UK will not need to trigger Article 127.

Regardless, why do you feel the EU would deliberately try to block the UK from remaining in the EEA? Like all EEA members the UK would still be paying into the EU budget, and would still have to respect the fundamental freedoms, including freedom of movement of labour. Do you really think it's going to be the EU preventing the UK from remaining in the EEA rather than the UK leaving to clamp down on immigration? I don't see why that would be the case unless the EU decides to do it purely out of spite.

I am quite sure that if the UK were to apply to join the EEA they would be accepted, but why would they? It would leave them in the same position as before except to have no say about the EU political process whatsoever and being dictated to all the time, i.e. the same thing they apparently view as unacceptable.

Also, there would have to be an agreement to hammer out the specific contributions the UK would have to make.

[Tribble]

Look at the article immediately preceding it:

“The Agreement shall apply to the territories to which the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community is applied and under the conditions laid down in that Treaty, and to the territories of Iceland, the Principality of Liechtenstein and the Kingdom of Norway.”

The UK is a member of the EEA only in its capacity as an EU member. Therefore leaving the EU means an automatic exit from the EEA, and the UK will not need to trigger Article 127.

Fair enough, though what would happen if a country were to trigger Article 127 without triggering Article 50?

I am quite sure that if the UK were to apply to join the EEA they would be accepted, but why would they? It would leave them in the same position as before except to have no say about the EU political process whatsoever and being dictated to all the time, i.e. the same thing they apparently view as unacceptable.

To be more specific the Conservatives oppose the EEA because it preserves free movement of person (though to a lesser degree than being part of the EU).

In all other respects being part of the EEA would pretty much meet all the requirements of the Conservatives own white papers:

They could form their own trade agreements with other countries
They would regain control of Agriculture and Fisheries
They would no longer be subject to the bulk of EU legislation and ECJ rulings; IIRC only ~15% of EU legislation is applicable to EEA members
Would retain their currency
No commitment to "ever closer union"

And although they wouldn't have a formal vote in the EU political process IIRC there are stages where EEA members must be consulted on legislation which affects them, and there are dispute mechanisms available to both sides.

While its not perfect apart from immigration I really don't see why the UK would be opposed to EEA membership.

Also, there would have to be an agreement to hammer out the specific contributions the UK would have to make.

IMO that one wouldn't be as hard to deal with. I imagine the UK would still be contributing, just not quite as much as they are right now.

The main issue by far is immigration, and should the UK end up being willing to compromise on that issue IMO they'll end up in the EEA. If not, then they'll probably end up with some form of free-trade agreement but lose access to the single market, which would be a disaster on their side of things.

[Darth Tanner]

https://fullfact.org/europe/norway-eu-payments/

Going for a Norway model would not save a great deal though, between 15% and 25% (£1-2bn) of our current contributions and that doesnt take account of some grants we would have to pay out for being part of other schemes. I can see that being a compromise solution that pleases neither the remainers or the leave but I don't see it being sustainable... Nigel would come back!

[Tribble]

https://fullfact.org/europe/norway-eu-payments/

Going for a Norway model would not save a great deal though, between 15% and 25% (£1-2bn) of our current contributions and that doesnt take account of some grants we would have to pay out for being part of other schemes. I can see that being a compromise solution that pleases neither the remainers or the leave but I don't see it being sustainable... Nigel would come back!

IIRC Nigel Farage actually supported EEA membership, at least for the short to mid term.

Plus contributions are only a part of the picture given the amount of sovereignty that would be transferred back to the UK. Given that the UK would be able to form seperate trade agreements while still being in the single market it could be a net positive in the long run.

If Remainers are still holding out in the hopes that the UK stays in the EU they are being delusional IMO. Not only has Article 50 been triggered, both major parties and their leaders officially support leaving. That boat has sailed and it would be a far more productive use of their time to try and keep the UK in the EEA than fighting a losing battle and seeing the UK get kicked out of the single market. It's not perfect but its far better than being restricted to WTO rules.