Is the EU going to dissolve to a simple free trade area?

[Ramo]

I was wondering the other day why France's agrisubsidy lobby is so strong. In the US, it's because underpopulated states in the midwest that rely upon farming are vastly over-represented. Is there a similar thing going on in France?

[Dauphin]

The French have gastronomic snobbery.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Park Avenue
"Including the free trade area, that seems a little low to me. If we can keep free trade"

And why the hell would we lose it.

We don't have the right to pick and choose. We can't say "actually, we'd like out of the political union, but keep the free trade agreement". The EU could turn round and say no, we're in or out. There is no provision for removal from the EU but keeping the free trade agreement. In short, the UKIP cannot go through with their pledge, wherever they're elected, without the consent of the EU itself.

I think one MEP actually said we'd have to pull out first, before we could even have talks of rejoining the free trade area. That's at least a few years without it.

Originally posted by Park Avenue
"we might lose a couple of billion a year though EU investment going to other nations"

Why do they invest here as a result of our membership of the EU (free trade aside, as that will remain under the UKIP's policy)?

Because we look like we'll join the euro at some point, because they'd be in a country that's government has a say on the EU regulations they have to follow (and so they have leverage). Probably other reasons too. Nevertheless, someone mentioned before how much inward investment as a % of EU has fallen to the UK, through being out of the Euro. if we took that policy away completely, it would likely fall further.

Originally posted by Park Avenue
"but we'd gain much of the £10 billion we spend."

All of it. And we can distribute it a whole lot better than EUrocrats can.

No we wouldn't. We get at least £5 billion back, in the form of subsidies, that the government would have hell to pay to try to cancel, if we pulled out. I agree we'd gain, but we don't waste £10 billion on the EU every year.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Drogue

We don't have the right to pick and choose. We can't say "actually, we'd like out of the political union, but keep the free trade agreement". The EU could turn round and say no, we're in or out. There is no provision for removal from the EU but keeping the free trade agreement. In short, the UKIP cannot go through with their pledge, wherever they're elected, without the consent of the EU itself.

I think one MEP actually said we'd have to pull out first, before we could even have talks of rejoining the free trade area. That's at least a few years without it.

In the unlikely event that the UK withdraws from the EU I don't think they'd pull out until they have the free trade agreement renegotiated. I would hope that neither side would cut their nose to spite their face on that issue, as the UK expelled from the free trade area would also be bad for the EU.

[Drogue]

I would agree. But at the current time, the UKIP position is not on offer. We cannot presume we can just leave and keep the free trade. They aren't two seperate agreements. If we want to keep one and not the other, it needs renegotiating.

[JimmyCracksCorn]

I still don't understand what individual member states have to gain, even theoretically, from being part of the EU aside from the free trade area.

With no unified foreign policy, no unified defense, no unified national agenda and no unified immigration/citizenship procedures, what has been gained? Seems pretty much the same as the EEC to me, only with more money wasted and more powers ceded.

[Ted Striker]

The French Union is teh gay

UK

[Bereta_Eder]

The EU is way beyond free trade area (except 3 countries uk, denmark and sweden). there's been harmonization of trading laws, competition laws, u name it.
the gains are many to those well equipped to compete.
same laws make it easier for companies to expand hugely their clientel and base of operations etc etc

this is the unified market area way beyond a free trade area.
apart from that anotehr EU aim is to be able to shed off influences. to do that you need unification.

divided we fall. united we stand

[Bereta_Eder]

in order to have unification we need to secure 4 things

freedom of passage of:
persons
capital
establisment (staying in whichever country of the EU)
goods


to do that we need to unify certain laws and harmonize them

this has already been done

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by Ramo
I was wondering the other day why France's agrisubsidy lobby is so strong. In the US, it's because underpopulated states in the midwest that rely upon farming are vastly over-represented. Is there a similar thing going on in France?

Not only france.

2 reasons for the common agricultural policy and subsidies in general:

_Farmers have historically held a disporpotionate to their population influence on european politics. (at least continental europe AFAIK)

_There was an EEC directive to be able to feed the continent on its own. This has suceeded. The problem is that it has suceeded too much. We are overflooded with food now and it is because of our too much success in implementing that policy. and not changing it in time, for various reasons.

but since cap is almost 50% of EU budget some think this ought to chance. we'll see what will be done.

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Originally posted by paiktis22
in order to have unification we need to secure 4 things

freedom of passage of:
persons
capital
establisment (staying in whichever country of the EU)
goods


to do that we need to unify certain laws and harmonize them

this has already been done

But in order to function as a unified state (federal or confederal), you need a unified foreign and immigration policy, which we will probably never see in our lifetime, or at least in all of the EU... which makes a single tier EU sort of pointless and stagnating as Spiffor said.

And all the laws that you've harmonized are the equivalent of a free trade agreement. I still don't get what each country has to gain by giving up billions to the central EU government.

[Bereta_Eder]

well single curerncy goes beyong just free trade for one...


federation is one of the two thoughts. money going to central eu is for structural funds but most importantly for impementing the CAP and other policies which are now part of the single market area.


also i think spiffor uses the stagnation as an argument to go forward with foreing policy unification.

that's a tricky subject. theere were many theories and many new ones for the future on how to do that.
there are countries in favor against or neutral.

[Bereta_Eder]

BTW doe s a free trade agreement gives free move to persons, the right to establishment etc?

I dont think so, but correct me if you think im wrong.

[Ted Striker]

you're wrong

[Spiffor]

And Ted should know: in NAFTA, the Mexicans are sooooo free of movement