The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
Treaties don't generally explicitly name all the states and territories to which they don't apply, so the absence of a specific statement that the Treaty doesn't apply to every other state or territories doesn't imply that it does, or can.
Of course there is no reason why EEA members couldn't voluntarily continue to consider the UK a member post Brexit, but the Treaty certainly doesn't require that they must. Given the EU has consistently insisted that the Four Freedoms are indivisible, it is very unclear why they would wish to do so.
So in summary, it appears you are grasping at a straw no one has shown any interest in pursuing! Index of Frank's Diaries
In your last paragraph you appear to imply that the other members of the Agreement can expel the UK from the EEA. No such provision exists in the Agreement. There is however a procedure to temporarily suspend a member (Article 102) in case it fails to implement the required legislation. As long as the UK complies with its obligations it can not be suspended this way. I expect the ultimate decision on EEA membership to come up to the European Court.
I follow the British media at some distance, but close enough to understand that membership of the EEA remains an hot topic. The Government itself has vented the desire for a "transition period" during which it would remain in the EEA. luis_de_sousa@mastodon.social
Clearly the EEA agreement didn't envisage or provide for a situation where the UK might leave the EU, so we are on virgin territory here. I don't see a problem if every member agrees to the UK remaining within the EEA, but if some want it in, and others don't, then the matter could end up being determined by the ECJ or whatever the relevant legal authority is. But if the UK has no representation on the EEA Council, why would it want to remain in? It would have less say on matters effecting it than Liechtenstein. Index of Frank's Diaries
so you have to ask the question; in what capacity did the UK sign it - as a member of the EU, or as an independent member of the EEA in it's own right?
Yes, this another way of synthesising the issue. The UK is directly identified as a "Contracting Party" in the Agreement, independent of the EC (this is different from a ratification). My impression is therefore that indeed it is an independent member of EEA. But I agree this is likely to end up with the ECJ. luis_de_sousa@mastodon.social
Since the composition of the EEC/EC/EU has changed since, the new member states relation shows if being a EEC/EC/EU member automatically gives EEA memberships.
AGREEMENT ON THE - EEAagreement.pdf
Article 128 Any European State becoming a member of the Community shall, and the Swiss Confederation or any European State becoming a member of EFTA may, apply to become a party to this Agreement. It shall address its application to the EEA Council.
So it isn't automatic, but it is mandatory. The EEA Council could in theory deny membership to new EU members, showing that it is not a package deal even though they go hand in hand.
I think that is a strong argument that the EEC/EC/EU states are members in EEA as such, just as the EFTA states. So it coud be argued that leaving the EU isn't the same as leaving the EEA.
As to why the UK government would want it, I think there are two different answers:
UK unlikely to stay in single market, Tory document suggests | Politics | The Guardian
Britain is unlikely to be able to remain a member of the single market, according to a document photographed in the hands of a senior Conservative official on Downing Street. A handwritten note, carried by an aide to the Tory vice-chair Mark Field after a meeting at the Department for Exiting the European Union, could be seen to say: "What's the model? Have cake and eat it."
A handwritten note, carried by an aide to the Tory vice-chair Mark Field after a meeting at the Department for Exiting the European Union, could be seen to say: "What's the model? Have cake and eat it."
The article is not arguing that the UK government will want to stay in the EEA though.
The document appears to reflect a discussion about the prospect of a trade deal like that of Norway, which is a member of the European Economic Area. "Why no Norway - two elements - no ECJ intervention. Unlikely to do internal market." That appears to refer to the drawbacks of taking on the Norwegian model, which has the country outside the EU and its customs union, but inside the single market. The reason Brexit supporters do not want to follow that idea is the requirement that Norway accepts free movement of people and is under the jurisdiction of the European court.
The document appears to reflect a discussion about the prospect of a trade deal like that of Norway, which is a member of the European Economic Area.
"Why no Norway - two elements - no ECJ intervention. Unlikely to do internal market."
That appears to refer to the drawbacks of taking on the Norwegian model, which has the country outside the EU and its customs union, but inside the single market.
The reason Brexit supporters do not want to follow that idea is the requirement that Norway accepts free movement of people and is under the jurisdiction of the European court.
by Frank Schnittger - Dec 18 16 comments
by gmoke - Jan 13 9 comments
by gmoke - Dec 22
by Oui - Feb 71 comment
by Oui - Feb 7
by Oui - Feb 6
by Oui - Feb 5
by Oui - Feb 53 comments
by Oui - Feb 4
by Oui - Feb 3
by Oui - Feb 1
by Oui - Jan 31
by Oui - Jan 30
by Oui - Jan 29
by Oui - Jan 28
by Oui - Jan 281 comment
by gmoke - Jan 27
by Oui - Jan 27