News BREXIT - more good than bad or more bad than good?

[epenguin]

It is my understanding that the US uses Britain as an access port to the EU too. So what Japan is saying I would suppose the US is thinking.

Well Pres. Obama, who I suppose this some kind of authority, did give an indication of what he was thinking during the referendum campaign. There is no way he could have done less, considering the historic commitments, stakes, and what the US has put into Europe in every way.

But of course it was mostly greeted by snarls about 'interference' etc., I'm afraid.

Most of the anti-Europeans I come across online have just taken time off this year to be anti-European, otherwise they spend most of their time being anti-American, and the rest being anti-anything you can name. I have no indications that they are all that untypical, sad to say.

Just this evening, Cameron announced he is standing down as Member of Parliament. Having maybe destroyed the UK and the EU, I don't know what new fields to conquer that man can find.

 

[StatGuy2000]

In that note they say

"In fact, the inflow of skilled labour from outside of the EU needs to be liberalised"

Which is bizarre coming from the country which must have most illiberal immigration policy and culture of the G20.

mheslep, from the Japanese perspective, it is all about ensuring that Japanese expats working for Japanese companies like Toyota, Honda, Toshiba, etc. (or non-Japanese citizens working for such Japanese companies) are able to enter the country relatively easily without undue difficulty or burden (since the majority of these companies have branch offices throughout both the UK and the rest of the EU). As well as ensuring that employees for a Japanese company based in, say, the German office, can easily transfer to work in the British office.

 

[mheslep]

mheslep, from the Japanese perspective, it is all about ensuring that Japanese expats working for Japanese companies like Toyota, Honda, Toshiba, etc. (or non-Japanese citizens working for such Japanese companies) are able to enter the country relatively easily without undue difficulty or burden (since the majority of these companies have branch offices throughout both the UK and the rest of the EU). As well as ensuring that employees for a Japanese company based in, say, the German office, can easily transfer to work in the British office.

Maybe you missed my post about Japanese behaviour at home. I'm inclined to look behind curtain when the Oz makes "liberalized" immigration demands abroad.

 

[mheslep]

Well Pres. Obama, who I suppose this some kind of authority, did give an indication of what he was thinking during the referendum campaign.

An indication? No, Obama threatened the UK with trade tariffs, an outrageous (and stupid) move for a *foreign* head of state while a guest there. Obama probably helped Brexit.

There is no way he could have done less, considering the historic commitments, stakes, and what the US has put into Europe in every way

The EU is not Europe, is not NATO, is not the EFTA now 56 years old, and these are unchanged. The EU is 24 years old. What historic commitments?

Having maybe destroyed the UK and the EU, I don't know what new fields to conquer that man can find.

No doubt many at Court said the same of the destroyer King John in 1215 when he consented with those anti anti Barons.

 

[StatGuy2000]

Maybe you missed my post about Japanese behaviour at home. I'm inclined to look behind curtain when the Oz makes "liberalized" immigration demands abroad.

I did not miss your post about Japanese behaviour at home. What you are pointing out is the perceived hypocrisy about how Japan (with its restrictive immigration policies) can "lecture" the UK about their immigration demands.

What I was pointing out is that Japan is acting in its own self-interest, and the interests of the nation's companies and businesses, in pushing for more open immigration and in imploring the UK to either stay in the EU or to make some sort of agreement with the EU, similar to what Norway enjoys.

The US, btw, would likely do (or at least think) the same way as well. And you, as an American, would expect no less. Ultimately, you care more about the US than any place else.

 

[Vanadium 50]

, an outrageous (and stupid) move for a *foreign* head of state while a guest there. Obama probably helped Brexit.

I don't think President Obama thought of himself as a foreign head of state there. I think he thought of himself as between "Leader of the Free World" and the "Voice of Reason".

One thing that a certain segment of the political class on both continents fails to recognize is the argument "you are stupid, vile and deplorable people who don't deserve a say in how things are run" tends not to get many votes.

 

[EnumaElish]

Obama's stance was calculated. And rather American-like. Brexit is in US's long-term geopolitical interest. At best US does not care for, at worst unfancies a politically united Europe, however imperfect.

 

[Salvador]

Sure it was done because of US long term strategic interests.But quite frankly if the US is so worried about a divided Europe then Brexit is the lesser evil here.
The immigrant crisis and Europe being divided in general is a much larger alarm bell than single Brexit.

On the other hand I can perfectly understand the British , NATO serves a specific purpose which although got relaxed in the 90's and early 2000's but is now back on top and the highest priority meanwhile Europe doesn't serve a specific purpose , it now pretends to serve multiple ones but some of them doubtful and some just against Britain's national interests.The purpose of the original Europe is now so twisted and divided it literally cannot be seen anymore. Originally it was for Europe to have peace and stability and business ties for cooperation , now the EU is trying to save the world while being used and exploited from outside proxies and their agendas.
If Obama calculated his visit and speech then I think he clearly missed the sentiment going on in the current Europe and Britain , maybe he is blindfolded by this idea of liberal values who knows.
Given the outcome of Brexit in percentage I'd say he missed a big portion of the British people by the millions.

Or maybe he knew his speech won't change much but tried anyway simply because there's nothing better he could have done.

In the end the biggest reason for Brexit and possibly more cracks for Europe is not unbalanced crop payments or some countries investing more than others , that has been going on for decades , the biggest reason seems to be the influx of a vast amount of people with radically different beliefs and the underlying threat such a mix of soup and desert poses to a country and much more a union.

Well Obama or any US president today is not so much a "leader of the free world" as he was perceived back in the days of Cold war.Times have changed and now there is much more diversity in the "free world"P.S. Possibly another aspect only few have thought about , modern manufacturing doesn't rely on masses of people anymore , robots are outnumbering humans in manufacturing day by day , soon there will be hardly any people needed at plants anymore , maybe only some supervisors and janitors.Just as Karl Marx wrote about the future of labor back in his day.

So given that business doesn't need so much workers any more and there is a line of eastern Europeans always ready to do the job , I doubt one would want to hire a less skillful and less educated Muslim immigrant for the job.In the end all these immigrants as some of themselves say are only here for support money , and just because it's better here.Such parasitic lifestyle is not only a burden for the economy and completely useless and slows any advancement it also produces problems for the stability of a society as not everyone thinks someone deserves to get a free lunch without contributing anything to the society and just reproducing.
We may talk about economic problems because of Brexit etc but I think in the long run that was the right choice.Europe will end and split sooner or later.If not for any particular reason then for the one that all man made empires go down at some point , given how fast things change these days I think we won't have to wait long enough to witness it.

 

[EnumaElish]

I do not agree that immigration is a parasitic life form. Definitely not in the US. That accusation is similar to the discredited "welfare queen" narrative in the US. Let us look at incomes in the established capitalist countries since the 1980's before pointing a finger at the usual suspects. Such as immigrants, most of who are productive individuals, and some are definitely innovative enterpreneurs. And the poor robots are always an easy target.

1. Cross sectionally, the income growth of the mid-income segment of the population has stagnated relative to the high-income, and in some cases relative to the low-income segments of the population. In the UK the lowest-income segments have experienced the highest rate of income growth. Income growth for the high-income segment was lower but still ahead of the mid-income segment.

2. As far as factor incomes, wages have stagnated relative to capital income. This may have something to do with the anti-inflationary policies of the '80's. However, if the fall of communism had not happened, wages would have recovered from the effect of the anti-inflationary policies by now. The fall of communism at the end of the '80's and during the early '90's flooded the capitalist system with relatively qualified labor which had hitherto been isolated from the global marketplace. The effect was a drastic reduction in labor costs and a surge of production relative to what would have happened without it. For example, much of the Clinton years' economic uplift was an after effect of the fall of communism and the global boost in incomes that followed. EU also benefited from it. But, for the same reason, wages stagnated.

The economic aspect of the white angst that is now washing over the West has to do with the unequal growth of income segments and the integration of the formerly communist labor force to the global capitalist system more than anything else, IMO.

 

[Salvador]

ok, I haven't made myself entirely clear I suppose.First not the fall of communism , the fall of hardcore socialism would be a closer phrase.
I agree with much of what you say but here's the problem with immigration.
Not all immigrants are the same and they differ vastly if we compare the immigrants coming in right now especially in Europe and those who came here 20 years ago.
For example , in WW2 there were also many immigrants but they were first of all mostly white , second they were rather well educated and skillful and willing to work and find a better life , they went ot the US and later in many western European countries and surely the economy only benefited from such folks.

Then there's the Muslims and other folks who immigrated to both US and EU decades ago and they did it by low numbers and in a spread out fashion.They too were mostly folks who searched a better life but were willing to work and build that better life for themselves.

I don't know why hasn't anyone noticed this but the latest wave and this time it's really a wave almost like someone is paying and making this to happen (and I'm sure there are agendas that only benefit from a divided Europe) this current wave of influx is way different than the ones before on which the liberals like to sit upon and clap their hands and cheer how good it has been for economy and culture etc.
These people are here because either their home was blown up and their literally running from bombs incoming or as most of them they simply are here because they know they will be paid support money and will have the chance to simply live better.
Most of these latest folks have no real skills that could be useful in literally any job the modern western Europe has to offer , I'm not saying all of them I'm saying many.

The most contradictory and weird fact is that Germany has taken most of them , and now much like a hot potato in ones mouth they don't know what exactly to do with them. It feels almost surreal that the country which tried to eliminate all people of color not that long ago is sucking them in now.But anyway @EnumaElish I think you would also benefit by looking at the bad side of the statistics for example the "French immigrant riots" a phrase that when typed into google is already given as a tag.
And so many more things that are happening.
And in the end of the day we have to look at the culture of different societies and understand why mixing all these individuals is not the best idea.Sure most of them would either surrender to the dominant culture and many don't commit violent acts because their common sense wins the religious fanaticism but there are also many who sooner or later fall for their "inner heritage"
San Bernardino for example , one of the attackers was born in US the other immigrated from middle east.And yet with all the good life they had in the US they still decided that some of the strongest verses of Quran should be acted upon.

All in all we should focus on stability in the middle east and making life better for people to live in their motherland instead of having to swim over the sea to seek asylum. Toppling dictators is not always the best scenario and it most definitely backfires.Ok I am starting to get off topic.
I just want to say I'm not sure whether the middle east can be fixed at all , I personally tend to think that their very culture and religion is their biggest problem.
Given the forever ongoing fight between Palestine and Israel I think that's a good example of that.But anyway back to Britain , last time I checked it's not like they are in much need of jobs no matter what kind , most of them are already filled by eastern Europeans , some by Muslims and others , so I don't see the very need ofr immigrants because of no one who wants to work.

As for socialism skilled workers , sure , not only skilled some were among the worlds best scientists , engineers , architects and other folks talented with years of experience. Anyone would have benefited from them.

 

[mheslep]

MEP Nigel Farage gave his "You're not laughing now, are you" speech at the EU Parliament five days after the Brexit vote.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Politico has a piece by David Korski, deputy director of the policy unit in David Cameron’s government, entitled Why We Lost The Brexit Vote. It's quite in depth, and it does not start with the narrative "The Leave crowd were a bunch of stupid, irredeemable deplorables whom we should surely be able to steamroller" but rather why the Leave crowd felt the way they did, what policies and narratives fed into this, and what might have been done differently.

 

[Jonathan Scott]

Brexit court defeat for UK government: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37857785
Government are planning to appeal.

Theresa May was saying that referendum gave her right to use royal prerogative to initiate Article 50. High court says that only parliament has that right. This is a very interesting situation as majority of parliament were against Brexit in any form.

It's very clear that the UK population is not happy with the status quo of the EU situation, and the EU certainly needs reform, but it's also clear that the referendum does not give Theresa May a mandate to choose what it means.

Nick Clegg (ex Liberal Democrat leader), Tony Blair (ex Labour Prime Minister) and George Osborne (ex Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer) have all recently said that first referendum did not define what "Brexit" meant, in particular whether it mean "hard" Brexit, leaving the single European market, or "soft" Brexit, where many things stay the same including single market (incurring membership fees) and freedom of movement. They therefore say that people should have another chance to vote for whatever specific proposals the government wishes to make.

It's difficult to see how that would work. If the options were a three-way choice of "hard Brexit", "soft Brexit" or "no Brexit", it's clear that "no Brexit" would win. I'm not even sure that a repeat of the original referendum "Brexit" or "No Brexit" would give the same result as before now that many of the complications (and lies) have been revealed.

 

[Buckleymanor]

Brexit court defeat for UK government: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37857785
Government are planning to appeal.

Theresa May was saying that referendum gave her right to use royal prerogative to initiate Article 50. High court says that only parliament has that right. This is a very interesting situation as majority of parliament were against Brexit in any form.

It's very clear that the UK population is not happy with the status quo of the EU situation, and the EU certainly needs reform, but it's also clear that the referendum does not give Theresa May a mandate to choose what it means.

Nick Clegg (ex Liberal Democrat leader), Tony Blair (ex Labour Prime Minister) and George Osborne (ex Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer) have all recently said that first referendum did not define what "Brexit" meant, in particular whether it mean "hard" Brexit, leaving the single European market, or "soft" Brexit, where many things stay the same including single market (incurring membership fees) and freedom of movement. They therefore say that people should have another chance to vote for whatever specific proposals the government wishes to make.

It's difficult to see how that would work. If the options were a three-way choice of "hard Brexit", "soft Brexit" or "no Brexit", it's clear that "no Brexit" would win. I'm not even sure that a repeat of the original referendum "Brexit" or "No Brexit" would give the same result as before now that many of the complications (and lies) have been revealed.

It is also interesting that the BBC is putting it's pro Brexit stance from the start.Norman Smith insists that most MP's will vote for Brexit now where did he get that idea from.He surely would not be trying to put the the idea into MP's minds before any potential vote would he.The organisation is no longer impartial and has more effect on the outcome of events than it should.
Given the fact that as you mention the majority of parliament were against Brexit in any form he does not even bother to mention that this could be important.

 

[Vanadium 50]

But did not Parliament authorize the referendum? What is the legal argument here - that when Parliament authorized the referendum they did not intend to be bound by the results?

 

[Jonathan Scott]

The referendum was not a legally binding result, just an expression of the opinion of the UK public, although David Cameron had said that he would respect the results.

I think the position is that in general, undoing legal changes made by parliament (in this case to join the EU) requires an act of Parliament.

In addition, as previously mentioned, the referendum was on leaving the EU, i.e. "Brexit", but as this covers a very wide range of options, it is not considered acceptable for Theresa May to assume that the referendum gives her permission to choose which option.

 

[Buckleymanor]

But did not Parliament authorize the referendum? What is the legal argument here - that when Parliament authorized the referendum they did not intend to be bound by the results?

Yes thirty years ago was this a case of miss sold can people who believed rightly that we would remain a member of the EU be recompensed for al the financial losses we incur.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

But did not Parliament authorize the referendum? What is the legal argument here - that when Parliament authorized the referendum they did not intend to be bound by the results?

Referenda in the UK are typically not legally binding, they are mass opinion polls. Obviously the risk of going against the result is for the MPs who voted that way to get replaced come election time, but there's nothing illegal or improper about it. This specific case was a different legal argument as to whether or not the prime minister is allowed to declare article 50 without an act of Parliament. May has been arguing that the referendum gives her the right to declare it, the court disagreed reiterating that there's no legal basis for the UK to leave the EU without it being passed by parliament.

To use a US analogy: it's as if the Democrats ran an opinion poll on a policy and Obama tried to pass it without authorisation from congress.

As to what will happen now it's early days but there's a lot of speculation that Brexit will go ahead but parliament will slow down the process in an effort to properly define the goals. E.g Does Brexit mean leaving the single market and EU or just leaving the EU and negotiating EEA membership?

 

[Buckleymanor]

What is legally binding is that once a referendum is held and the government of the day acts upon the result say by joining the EU the laws that are passed and the advantages obtained by this process become incorporated in law through parliament.
As this takes an act or act's of parliament to implement it therefore follows that it should take another act of parliament to abolish these obtained advantages and not some ancient prerogative carried out by May without any input or act's from parliament.
The whole thing is going to get very messy like trying to remove an egg from an omelette.

 

[rootone]

Looks like Treeza. (ahem , the honorable member for MaidenHead), her plan is kick it into the long grass and hope that eternally long legal debates about the correct procedure makes people bored with it.
Ultimately though if A50 is not invoked, then the EU could do an A7 on the UK = they are expelled anyway due to continually demanding to be a special case and disagreeing with the club's rules.

 

[gleem]

A leaked http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/there-is-no-plan-for-brexit-leaked-memo-says/ar-AAkiVZA?li=BBnbcA1 indicates that there is no plan or exit strategy for Brexit. The memo notes that the complexity of an exit may require an adiditonal force of 30,000 civil servants to work out the details and money for this additional staff is not currently being acted on.

 

[DrGreg]

A leaked http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/there-is-no-plan-for-brexit-leaked-memo-says/ar-AAkiVZA?li=BBnbcA1 indicates that there is no plan or exit strategy for Brexit. The memo notes that the complexity of an exit may require an adiditonal force of 30,000 civil servants to work out the details and money for this additional staff is not currently being acted on.

However it's now known not to have come from Central Cabinet but from an external consultancy firm who say "This was a note intended primarily for internal audiences. It was not commissioned by the Cabinet Office, nor any other government department, and represents a view of the task facing Whitehall. This work was conducted without access to Number 10 or input from any other government departments."

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37983948

 

[Buckleymanor]

Here is a task that Whitehall faces which could potentially send us back in the UK to the dark ages if not done properly.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-38026875

 

[Jonathan Scott]

It appears that the main thing which Boris wants is to remain a member of the single market without paying the fees.

There's obviously only one way out of this situation...

Set up a "British Economic Community" and invite all those European countries to join it.

 

[Buckleymanor]

So long as Boris can keep up and bring the right notes to the Community meetings

 

[mheslep]

Here is a task that Whitehall faces which could potentially send us back in the UK to the dark ages if not done properly.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-38026875

Was the period just prior to the UK membership in the EU the dark ages? Do all countries not in the EU reside in the dark ages?

 

[Buckleymanor]

Of course not but are you inclined to imagine a more enlightened future without the co-operation and employment of the brightest and best or do you not understand the meaning of potential.

 

[rootone]

It appears that the main thing which Boris wants is to remain a member of the single market without paying the fees.

What a brilliant idea, I must see if my landlord would be amenable to a similar arrangement.

 

[mheslep]

Of course not but are you inclined to imagine a more enlightened future without the co-operation and employment of the brightest and best or do you not understand the meaning of potential.

My conception of an enlightened future: complex, contentious issues do not draw an apocalyptic response.

 

[Buckleymanor]

My conception of an enlightened future: complex, contentious issues do not draw an apocalyptic response.

Well tell me why I get the impression that you have not taken on board most of the important issues and implications of Brexit and continue to bury your head in the sand.
It looks like government have concerns about it and have coincidently made an announcement hope it does not turn out to be little and late.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38044015

 

[phinds]

Here is a task that Whitehall faces which could potentially send us back in the UK to the dark ages if not done properly.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-38026875

The Dark Ages? Seriously? What was the state of education in the area that is now the UK back in the Dark Ages?

I agree w/ you that it is a serious issue but hyperbolic overstatement is not helpful.

 

[Vanadium 50]

re you inclined to imagine a more enlightened future without the co-operation and employment of the brightest and best

Perry Mason would say "Objection! Assumes facts not in evidence!"

I think it has not been established that the "brightest and best" are in Brussels, nor that if that were true that the proper reaction to that is meek acceptance of rule by one's betters. I think Progressivism would be better served if it dropped the argument "We're smarter than you - heck, we're just plain better than you. Accept our benevolent rule!"

 

[Buckleymanor]

Perry Mason would say "Objection! Assumes facts not in evidence!"

I think it has not been established that the "brightest and best" are in Brussels, nor that if that were true that the proper reaction to that is meek acceptance of rule by one's betters. I think Progressivism would be better served if it dropped the argument "We're smarter than you - heck, we're just plain better than you. Accept our benevolent rule!"

I agree it's not by any means established that the brightest and best come from Brussels. what is established is that there are "brighter and better people" .
It matters that these people no matter where they come from can move.
Shooting these people and yourself in the foot by not allowing these people into yours or any ones country by imposing immigration controls is just plain daft.
It's nothing to do with "We are smarter than you" it's more to do with you are smarter than us come and work here.
Sorry you can't get a visa because immigrants are not allowed.

 

[russ_watters]

The Dark Ages? Seriously? What was the state of education in the area that is now the UK back in the Dark Ages?

I agree w/ you that it is a serious issue but hyperbolic overstatement is not helpful.

Yeah, I've said it a thousand times - hyperbole is counterproductive to one's point.

 

[rootone]

Theresa May is now talking of a 'transitional deal' - this in response to question from leaders in UK commerce and industry,
What that appears to mean is that some new trading arrangement will be put in place ahead of formally declaring article 50 intention to leave.
I can't see how this would be accepted by the EU other 27.
It's a bit like somebody saying to their partner, "I definitely will be leaving you but not sure when, Are we still good for sex until I make my mind up".

 

[Buckleymanor]

Yeah, I've said it a thousand times - hyperbole is counterproductive to one's point.

Seems like the most guilty of hyperbole don't get a mention or criticism by some.
Quote.
"No surprises, when it comes to the big picture, the prime minister was abundantly clear (again) that she won't be pushed into giving more details of her plans for how we leave the EU and life afterward. That was despite the fact that she took to the stage moments after the CBI President who could not have been any clearer in making the organisation's demand for more information".
Probably heard that statement a thousand times too.

 

[Jonathan Scott]

The Leave side has always effectively maintained that we could have our cake and eat it, that is opt out of EU law and membership fees but continue to enjoy at least most of the benefits, which is simply not possible in practice, as Boris Johnson has been recently told by multiple European politicians. Any realistic government plan, regardless of the details, is therefore clearly going to be unpopular with a majority of the public, as it cannot satisfy the conflicting requirements of many of the Leave supporters, and certainly cannot satisfy the Remain supporters.

It appears that the only way for the government to avoid having to back down on its commitment to the referendum is to try to force through some change which would be opposed one way or another by a clear majority of the population, claiming justification from the referendum result. The attempt to invoke Article 50 under Royal Prerogative (defeated in the High Court but being appealed in the Supreme Court) clearly demonstrates this approach, making it clear that the government doesn't even trust Parliament to support it.

What is needed is a list of options for open discussion and debate.

 

[phinds]

What is needed is a list of options for open discussion and debate.

I think the best thing to do would be to make Trump the Emperor of the UK and let HIM deal with Europe (he is SUCH a great deal maker, just ask him) and we'd get rid of him. A win all the way around

 

[mheslep]

Well tell me why I get the impression ...

Beyond my finite abilities.

 

[mheslep]

... that is opt out of EU law and membership fees but continue to enjoy at least most of the benefits, which is simply not possible in practice,...

Has anyone ever referenced the examples of Norway, Switzerland? Norway, Switzerland.

 

[Jonathan Scott]

Has anyone ever referenced the examples of Norway, Switzerland? Norway, Switzerland.

I don't recall anything being said about Switzerland, but during the campaigns it was pointed out that although Norway is not an EU member, it still pays substantial fees to be a member of the single market (specifically the European Economic Area, EEA), and for the UK the equivalent fees are a large part of the total EU membership cost. Also, Norway and Switzerland have similar agreements about immigration and free movement to the EU countries, partly as a condition of belonging to the single market. So the Norway model would be a very "soft" Brexit - avoid some EU laws, but still pay to be in the single market and still allow freedom of movement.

 

[mheslep]

So the Norway model would be a very "soft" Brexit - avoid some EU laws

The wiki suggests Norway's membership in the EEA and EFTA obliges it to be "subject to roughly 21% of EU laws", and that the Norwegian parliament reserves the power to refuse any significant EU legislation, though it rarely does so. My guess is that the EU and the UK have at least that much in common legislatively.

...and still allow freedom of movement.

Several EU countries have instituted border checks or barriers in the past year - Hungary, Austria, Sweden. And Schengen participant Switzerland was about to implement same ...

 

[Buckleymanor]

Has anyone ever referenced the examples of Norway, Switzerland? Norway, Switzerland.

Too many shandies or just having a double.

 

[Buckleymanor]

http://www.thepoke.co.uk/2016/11/21/comment-reader-ft-gone-viral-nails-remainerleaver-brexit-row/A comment from the FT made me smile which is rare these days.

 

[rootone]

Both of those countries have never been in the EU,
Norway because it's economy is 95% based on large oil reserves, Switzerland because of it's historic private banking. (Switzerland also declared itself 'neutral' in WW2" for the same reason.)
However both are signed up to Schengen, which is the free travel area and because of this they have partial access to the markets.
They pay for this access and must comply with EU law while having no say in the making of laws.
The exit argument in the UK definitely does not want schengen, does not want the Euro, and does not want to pay for benefits of the common market.
(Incidentally UK was opted out of Schengen anyway whilst still a member, so had no obligation to allow fully free travel of other EU citizens.

 

[mheslep]

Wiki indicates the UK opted-out of the Schengen Area. So too Ireland. Norway is obliged to follow only part of EU law as referenced above, not all.

While paying for access to the EU market appears to be the standard, the UK would be foolish not at least try to negotiate fees down, as the UK has enormous leverage over German auto makers in particular. I don't know that all of them could withstand a loss of access to the UK.

 

[rootone]

Yes, they only have to implement EU law as regards trading and product standards.
I think for example laws relating relating to things like working conditions, wages, and environmental controls they don't.
However their governments' policies in those areas are not substantially different to EU policies.

 

[mheslep]

Right, as is the case with most international trade agreements

 

[Buckleymanor]

Wiki indicates the UK opted-out of the Schengen Area. So too Ireland. Norway is obliged to follow only part of EU law as referenced above, not all.

While paying for access to the EU market appears to be the standard, the UK would be foolish not at least try to negotiate fees down, as the UK has enormous leverage over German auto makers in particular. I don't know that all of them could withstand a loss of access to the UK.

What is the point to try and negotiate the fees down when the emerging facts point to a 122 billion pound black hole.
Fees paid and the amount lost by German carmakers pail into insignificance when you take a look at losses due to exiting.http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/brexit-bill-migrants-16bn-autumn-statement-2016-obr_uk_5835c11ce4b0207d191712c3?icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl1|sec1_lnk3&pLid=-460866671_uk
It is not a question of all of them suffering a loss to us it's evidently a question of us suffering a loss to them as there is considerably more of them than us.

 

[mheslep]

What is the point to try and negotiate the fees down when the emerging facts point to a 122 billion pound black hole.
Fees paid and the amount lost by German carmakers pail into insignificance when you take a look at losses due to exiting.http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/brexit-bill-migrants-16bn-autumn-statement-2016-obr_uk_5835c11ce4b0207d191712c3?icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl1|sec1_lnk3&pLid=-460866671_uk
It is not a question of all of them suffering a loss to us it's evidently a question of us suffering a loss to them as there is considerably more of them than us.

122B on a tally sheet over 13 years per HuffPo, some unkown share of which may be due to the current status of Brexit.

Trade leverage is not a head count, but a money count.