Amongst all the panic and recriminations here, can someone explain the difference between EEA and EFTA particularily in terms of:
* Ability to agree bilateral trade deals with non EU states
* Freedom of movement of people.
* Annual membership fee.
* Obligation for domestic sales to have CE marking/follow single market related EU directives.
* CAP / CF policy.
Thanks
You can be a member of EFTA and not the EEA (like Switzerland), but most people use EFTA/EEA to mean membership of the EEA through EFTA.
* Ability to agree bilateral trade deals with non EU states - yes
* Freedom of movement of people. - yes, albeit with more freedom for a state to impose emergency restrictions, and some more flexibiity re benefits and the like.
* Annual membership fee. EFTA/EEA *probably* costs slightly more than straight EFTA. (Hard to know exactly because the Swiss hide part of their fee by allowing the EU to collect customs duties on their behalf.)
The exact bill is up for negotiation, but would be in the range of £2bn at the low-end to £5bn at the high end. (The high estimate includes a bunch of projects that are not compulsory.)
* Obligation for domestic sales to have CE marking/follow single market related EU directives. Neither has that.
* CAP / CF policy. CAP is easy-peasy, we'd be out. CFP is a bit more complicated because the most sensible long-term solution is to recreate the 'box' with Ireland. We'd definitely leave it, but there's probably a long-term negotiation there needed.
London ALREADY IS devolved. We have been through this before. Khan is simply asking for extra powers, most of which I'll be will be centred around FOM and City passporting.
It has sod all to do with an English Parliament or a Yorkshire Parliament and everything to do with England taking leave of its senses and trying to pull the jewel in the EU's crown out of the EU against its wishes.
I'm on record as saying that the biggest risk I foresaw from Brexit was the calibre of the UK politicians. They haven't failed to disappoint.
I want May for leader, Boris just doesn't have the gravitas. On the other hand, I think the Tories could probably elect Fanny the Wonder Dog and still beat a Corbyn-led Labour Party.
It's 20% for a challenge, including MEPs - 229+20 = 249. I think he'd struggle to get 50.
The rule book states that "nominations may be sought by potential challengers" and "any nomination must be supported by 20%" of MPs. Rule book doesn't say anything about the incumbent needing any nominations.
London ALREADY IS devolved. We have been through this before. Khan is simply asking for extra powers, most of which I'll be will be centred around FOM and City passporting.
It has sod all to do with an English Parliament or a Yorkshire Parliament and everything to do with England taking leave of its senses and trying to pull the jewel in the EU's crown out of the EU against its wishes.
Mr. Bob, maybe. I suspect the emotional pull of being Labour will make them try and axe Corbyn rather than jump ship and form the Judean People's Front.
Does anyone know the Labour Party rules? Not sure incumbency gets him on the ballot and I think he may need 50 nominations to do so. He could be toast here.
I'm waiting for Corbyn to be supported by TP & Plato on the grounds that he supported Leave really. One of them has been busy hacking away today at the traitorous Ruth Davidson - you know the one who saved the Scottish Tories a few weeks ago. The Brexiters take no prisoners
Amongst all the panic and recriminations here, can someone explain the difference between EEA and EFTA particularily in terms of:
* Ability to agree bilateral trade deals with non EU states
* Freedom of movement of people.
* Annual membership fee.
* Obligation for domestic sales to have CE marking/follow single market related EU directives.
* CAP / CF policy.
Thanks
You can be a member of EFTA and not the EEA (like Switzerland), but most people use EFTA/EEA to mean membership of the EEA through EFTA.
* Ability to agree bilateral trade deals with non EU states - yes
* Freedom of movement of people. - yes, albeit with more freedom for a state to impose emergency restrictions, and some more flexibiity re benefits and the like.
* Annual membership fee. EFTA/EEA *probably* costs slightly more than straight EFTA. (Hard to know exactly because the Swiss hide part of their fee by allowing the EU to collect customs duties on their behalf.)
The exact bill is up for negotiation, but would be in the range of £2bn at the low-end to £5bn at the high end. (The high estimate includes a bunch of projects that are not compulsory.)
* Obligation for domestic sales to have CE marking/follow single market related EU directives. Neither has that.
* CAP / CF policy. CAP is easy-peasy, we'd be out. CFP is a bit more complicated because the most sensible long-term solution is to recreate the 'box' with Ireland. We'd definitely leave it, but there's probably a long-term negotiation there needed.
Just to add, re CE marking on electronics - while domestic sales would not require it, the truth is that the vast, vast bulk of products in the world are made to meet CE, FCC, NOM and RCM already. When I was involved in my solar battery project, we decided it was massively cheaper to have a single production line and design, even if it cost 0.8% of gross margin in adhering to all the standards.
Does anyone know the Labour Party rules? Not sure incumbency gets him on the ballot and I think he may need 50 nominations to do so. He could be toast here.
Don't the NEC interpret the rules, and isn't that stuffed with Jez placemen ?
@GuardianAnushka: Corbyn: "Our people need Labour party members, trade unionists and MPs to unite behind my leadership at a critical time for our country."
@GuardianAnushka: Corbyn defiant: "I was democratically elected leader of our party for a new kind of politics by 60% of Labour members and supporters...
@GuardianAnushka: Corbyn: "I will not betray them by resigning."
Does anyone know the Labour Party rules? Not sure incumbency gets him on the ballot and I think he may need 50 nominations to do so. He could be toast here.
I quoted the rule book earlier. Any challenger needs 20% of MPs (46). The incumbent doesn't need nominations, they are incumbent.
@GuardianAnushka: Corbyn: "Our people need Labour party members, trade unionists and MPs to unite behind my leadership at a critical time for our country."
I'm waiting for Corbyn to be supported by TP & Plato on the grounds that he supported Leave really. One of them has been busy hacking away today at the traitorous Ruth Davidson - you know the one who saved the Scottish Tories a few weeks ago. The Brexiters take no prisoners
If Corbyn still has the support of the membership, he's essentially politically immortal. They should rename him God-King of the Opposition.
@GuardianAnushka: Corbyn: "Our people need Labour party members, trade unionists and MPs to unite behind my leadership at a critical time for our country."
@GuardianAnushka: Corbyn defiant: "I was democratically elected leader of our party for a new kind of politics by 60% of Labour members and supporters...
@GuardianAnushka: Corbyn: "I will not betray them by resigning."
Voting for him in this vote of confidence also doesn't mean they'd nominate him. A few are probably those Labour MPs who just don't feel like this is the right time when the country is in its current state.
@benrileysmith: Two Labour sources: proposal is Angela Eagle runs against Corbyn while Tom Watson oversees as interim leader.
Seems odd. Eagle would never win amongst the members.
I've no idea how Eagle would fare with the Labour membership but Nick P doesn't rate her chances or Watson's against Corbyn but thinks Cooper would make a contest of it.
It would be crazy of the Labour PLP to go this far and then not field the candidate who has the best chance of beating Corbyn with Labour members. I don't know who that would be but the PLP ought to have a good idea and should get that person to stand.
Amongst all the panic and recriminations here, can someone explain the difference between EEA and EFTA particularily in terms of:
* Ability to agree bilateral trade deals with non EU states
* Freedom of movement of people.
* Annual membership fee.
* Obligation for domestic sales to have CE marking/follow single market related EU directives.
* CAP / CF policy.
Thanks
You can be a member of EFTA and not the EEA (like Switzerland), but most people use EFTA/EEA to mean membership of the EEA through EFTA.
* Ability to agree bilateral trade deals with non EU states - yes
* Freedom of movement of people. - yes, albeit with more freedom for a state to impose emergency restrictions, and some more flexibiity re benefits and the like.
* Annual membership fee. EFTA/EEA *probably* costs slightly more than straight EFTA. (Hard to know exactly because the Swiss hide part of their fee by allowing the EU to collect customs duties on their behalf.)
The exact bill is up for negotiation, but would be in the range of £2bn at the low-end to £5bn at the high end. (The high estimate includes a bunch of projects that are not compulsory.)
* Obligation for domestic sales to have CE marking/follow single market related EU directives. Neither has that.
* CAP / CF policy. CAP is easy-peasy, we'd be out. CFP is a bit more complicated because the most sensible long-term solution is to recreate the 'box' with Ireland. We'd definitely leave it, but there's probably a long-term negotiation there needed.
Either looks like a no brainer.
We didnt have a referendum on leaving the single market, so gov can legitimately agree this.
Re Immigration. Looks like the extra powers, while something of a figleaf are enough for May to get away with it without another plebiscite.
So Tories get the free trade, no more ECJ crap and a bit more control on immigration.
Labour supporters dont get a massive clampdown on immigration and will defect to UKIP shafting labour but tough, govt never offered an immigration referendum. Win win for Tories.
Labour should have used this moment to unite and destroy the tories forcing an early election, instead they behave like something out of monty python and May can choose her moment after joining EFTA and getting some trade deals with Labour in Chaos and UKIP on their case in the north.
London ALREADY IS devolved. We have been through this before. Khan is simply asking for extra powers, most of which I'll be will be centred around FOM and City passporting.
It has sod all to do with an English Parliament or a Yorkshire Parliament and everything to do with England taking leave of its senses and trying to pull the jewel in the EU's crown out of the EU against its wishes.
London is not a state. It cannot therefore enter international treaties independently of the UK. Ditto Scotland. Sturgeon is talking nonsense.
Comments
Kay Burley@KayBurley 9m9 minutes ago
BREAK: President of European council, Tusk, tells Sturgeon he's not interested in meeting her tomorrow
Or to put it another way, enough MPs to form a new party..!
The eurocrats can't snub lovely Nicola like this!
So will Khan
* Ability to agree bilateral trade deals with non EU states
* Freedom of movement of people.
* Annual membership fee.
* Obligation for domestic sales to have CE marking/follow single market related EU directives.
* CAP / CF policy.
Thanks
* Ability to agree bilateral trade deals with non EU states
- yes
* Freedom of movement of people.
- yes, albeit with more freedom for a state to impose emergency restrictions, and some more flexibiity re benefits and the like.
* Annual membership fee.
EFTA/EEA *probably* costs slightly more than straight EFTA. (Hard to know exactly because the Swiss hide part of their fee by allowing the EU to collect customs duties on their behalf.)
The exact bill is up for negotiation, but would be in the range of £2bn at the low-end to £5bn at the high end. (The high estimate includes a bunch of projects that are not compulsory.)
* Obligation for domestic sales to have CE marking/follow single market related EU directives.
Neither has that.
* CAP / CF policy.
CAP is easy-peasy, we'd be out.
CFP is a bit more complicated because the most sensible long-term solution is to recreate the 'box' with Ireland. We'd definitely leave it, but there's probably a long-term negotiation there needed.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-labour-leadership-brexit-can-he-stand-for-re-election-vote-of-no-confidence-legal-a7107291.html
Tusk is the bitter rival of the Polish PM.
If the FT is correct, Team Eastern Europe is very unhappy about Britain leaving.
London ALREADY IS devolved. We have been through this before. Khan is simply asking for extra powers, most of which I'll be will be centred around FOM and City passporting.
It has sod all to do with an English Parliament or a Yorkshire Parliament and everything to do with England taking leave of its senses and trying to pull the jewel in the EU's crown out of the EU against its wishes.
Very unhappy with EU bigwigs. They want Juncker's head on a stick.
You're right, though, to highlight the extent of increased powers does matter.
I'm on record as saying that the biggest risk I foresaw from Brexit was the calibre of the UK politicians. They haven't failed to disappoint.
I want May for leader, Boris just doesn't have the gravitas. On the other hand, I think the Tories could probably elect Fanny the Wonder Dog and still beat a Corbyn-led Labour Party.
Paul Mason @paulmasonnews 3m3 minutes ago London, England
172 MPs signal they want Labour to go back to being a party of financial oligarchy and war
But it's only higher at 20% because the presumption is the existing leader is automatically on it.
Confirmed result from labour no confidence motion
172 for
40 against
4 spoilt ballots
13 didn't vote
http://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/139/590x/secondary/448598.jpg
Mr. Bob, maybe. I suspect the emotional pull of being Labour will make them try and axe Corbyn rather than jump ship and form the Judean People's Front.
@GuardianAnushka: Corbyn defiant: "I was democratically elected leader of our party for a new kind of politics by 60% of Labour members and supporters...
@GuardianAnushka: Corbyn: "I will not betray them by resigning."
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/28/diane-abbott-leadership-must-be-decided-by-party-members-not-mps
It looks like the Labour Party is also suffering hysteria and maybe ought to hold a referendum too.
More seriously, Rome staggered on for quite some time before the coup de grace was finally delivered.
There was less dog poo on the streets before the referendum too.
Have you noticed that as well?
It would be crazy of the Labour PLP to go this far and then not field the candidate who has the best chance of beating Corbyn with Labour members. I don't know who that would be but the PLP ought to have a good idea and should get that person to stand.
Kick their ass Jeremy.
*As any party official will tell you it is usually neither. However in this case the rule book is very clear
We didnt have a referendum on leaving the single market, so gov can legitimately agree this.
Re Immigration. Looks like the extra powers, while something of a figleaf are enough for May to get away with it without another plebiscite.
So Tories get the free trade, no more ECJ crap and a bit more control on immigration.
Labour supporters dont get a massive clampdown on immigration and will defect to UKIP shafting labour but tough, govt never offered an immigration referendum. Win win for Tories.
Labour should have used this moment to unite and destroy the tories forcing an early election, instead they behave like something out of monty python and May can choose her moment after joining EFTA and getting some trade deals with Labour in Chaos and UKIP on their case in the north.
Many thanks Robert
Which is why I voted for her in the YouGov poll of potential successors.
Look for a new pretendy Felix argument coming to a site near you soon!