SpinningHugo wrote:howsillyofme1 wrote:And yet
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/atyourser ... 6.5.3.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Switzerland and Norway are inside the EEA. That is what meant by being a member of the single market. That Parliament page is either badly translated or wrong., That and the customs union, of which they are not members.
North Korea has "access" to the single market.
Good morning all
Sorry for carrying this on from last night but wanted to show how one of the most opinionated and prolific posters continues to write nonsense but never changes their view on anything
Now the EU is wrong about itself
Also, Switzerland are wrong about themselves too because it appears Hugo has stated they are in the EEA when the Swiss people have rejected this in a few referenda over the years
I just want to emphasise why I am posting on this
Hugo continually goes on about Labour using the word 'access' (with his fixation With North Korea). I am just pointing out that countries ouside the EU have their own arrangements leading to access on a continuum with Norway at one end and, I guess, North Korea at the other
The concept of membership in this context is not helpful, is irrelevant and is not defining - what each country will have is negotiated access with a commensurate fee either based on a bespoke bilateral or based on the EEA arrangements
The only countries that are really members in the way that I would see it - ie signed all the treaties, agree to abide by the rules, participate in the decision-making process and have complete access to all aspects are the EU members themselves
I am saying.
1. You were wrong to claim that Norway and Switerland are part of the customs union. They aren't.
2. Being part of the EEA is what everyone means by being members of the single market, which is what Norway and Switerland are. This is completely different from the access of North Korea, or even Canada, who are not within the EEA.
If you'd prefer to talk of "being in the EEA" rather than "being a member of the single market", that is up to you. Wholly idiosyncratic, but your choice.
What I, along with everyone else, mean by the single market is the internal market that is extended to EFTA countries and Switzerland. If you want to deny that exists, you're living in your own peculiar world.
1. I have never said they are - what I have said there is often a conflating of the two. I live in one of them so know much better how it works than you do.
2. I will write this in capitals - 'SWITZERLAND IS NOT IN THE EEA'. Why not say membership of the EEA rather than a member of the Single Market then as it is absolutely clear what that means as it is codified?
EU member - complete access to Single Market and all rules and obligations are applicable with participation rule making
EEA member - access to the Single Market to a high level with certain defined derogations and little influence on the rules
EFTA member (Switzerland) - access to parts of the Single Market via bilaterals and a poor governance mechanism
Canada - access to Single Market as defined in the bilateral treaty
North Korea - very, very limited access to the Single Market based on WTO rules....
Single Market access is defined by the membership of certain collective bodies e.g. EU or EEA or via bilaterals
The 'Single Market' is not an organisation so how can you be a member of something that is not an organisation?
The document I linked to from the EU - which you have said is wrong - sets out the reality for EEA and Switzerland
Labour's policy doesn't rule anything in or out - it could mean membership of the EEA or it could mean a bilateral that goes further than the EEA to include the Custom's Union - conditions will not be as favourable even in this super-EEA status as there would be no input into rule making and a large fee would be demanded as part of it, with no rebate.