Could the UK not have free trade with the EU without free movement of people?

[dub_nerd]

Accordingly, living standards within the US are such that you don't have a Britain-Poland type difference.

You clearly have never spent time in the poorer parts of the deep south such as Alabama or Louisiana, if that is what you think.

That occurred to me too. (I have visited some of those places). But it seems appearances can be deceptive. When I went and checked the figures, at least in terms of median household incomes odyssey06 appears to be correct. The Britain-Poland gap is about twice as wide as the richest to poorest US states.

 

[odyssey06]

Well first of all we (Switzerland) accept the free movement of people...

No you don't. From the BBC:
Switzerland has negotiated a series of bilateral deals that give it access to the single market for most industries, although it also has to apply EU rules and pay the EU money. This deal is under threat of renegotiation after a Swiss referendum on limiting immigration. The EU insists on free access for EU citizens to EFTA countries.

If you just want the free trade then sign up the EFTA and WTO

No you can't. As noted above. The EU insists on free access to EU citizens to EFTA countries. Why? It is an ideological position.
I'm sure the UK would be happy with EFTA membership as long as they can apply restrictions on free movement of labour. By denying the UK the deal that they want they will hurt the EU as much as the UK.
There's about to be a 10 billion hole in the EU's annual budget if they lose the UK's contributions. Why not say to UK and Switzerland (who had contributed over 1 billion euros to enlargement projects in last 10 years) if you want freedom of movement restrictions, we want solidarity payments? Let the haggling begin.

There is a lot wrong with the EU that is for sure, but there are definitely may better models to follow than the UK.

The UK isn't perfect, what country is? But there are hundreds of thousands of EU citizens who are voting with their feet to take advantage of opportunities in the UK that they cannot get at home. The flow in the other direction is retirees and expats, not the best and brightest qualified workers.

 

[Jim2007]

No you don't. From the BBC:
Switzerland has negotiated a series of bilateral deals that give it access to the single market for most industries, although it also has to apply EU rules and pay the EU money. This deal is under threat of renegotiation after a Swiss referendum on limiting immigration. The EU insists on free access for EU citizens to EFTA countries.

At the moment we accept the free movement of people, but if we can't come to a new agreement in the autumn we will either have to continue with the current situation or we will end up with nothing. So most likely either there will be another vote in Switzerland or the Swiss government will ignore the last vote and challenge the SVP to call an enforcement referendum which they most likely will not do as they have been on a loosing streak recently on such issues.

No you can't. As noted above. The EU insists on free access to EU citizens to EFTA countries. Why? It is an ideological position.

Of course you can, Switzerland is a member of EFTA, but not a party to the EAA-EFTA agreement.

I'm sure the UK would be happy with EFTA membership as long as they can apply restrictions on free movement of labour.

No because it excludes financial services.

The UK isn't perfect, what country is? But there are hundreds of thousands of EU citizens who are voting with their feet to take advantage of opportunities in the UK that they cannot get at home.

Which is exactly how the single market is intended to operate....

 

[darag]

The EU insists on free access to EU citizens to EFTA countries. Why? It is an ideological position.

You've been given plenty of benefits of the right for EU citizens to work in other EU countries - which you acknowledge - but then you ignore these reasons and repeat the word "ideological" like a mantra. It's no more ideological than insisting on the freedom of movement of microwaveable breaded chicken breasts.

The goal of the EEA is to provide a common market which is not a 1950s era "free trade" area - which only provided duty free import and export of bulk commodities like steel and coal. Part of being in a single market is allowing Italian bankers to work in London, British fashion designers to work in Paris, French engineers to work in Germany, Polish plumbers to work in Ireland, Irish software engineers to work in Amsterdam, etc.

I'm sure the UK would be happy with EFTA membership as long as they can apply restrictions on free movement of labour. By denying the UK the deal that they want they will hurt the EU as much as the UK.

This is delusional; it will not hurt the EU as much as the UK. Less than 10% of EU exports go to the UK while 60% of the UK's exports go to the EU. Sterling has lost 11% to the Euro since the referendum which indicates who the markets believe will be damaged by brexit. Worse for the UK is that they are a service oriented and exporting economy - exactly what is NOT covered by WTO rules - and trade deals on services can take a decade or more. The UK has already seen a massive contraction in inward investment - which has funded their trade deficit for years - and most economists and the BoE are predicting recession before the end of the year.

The UK is facing negotiations where they have no trump cards and will simply be offered the EEA deal or nothing - and they will take the EEA deal which is effectively non-negotiable and includes free movement of people plus a hefty annual bill. You should read the letter from the Norwegian minister for European affairs in the last Economist to get a picture for what the UK is facing.

There's about to be a 10 billion hole in the EU's annual budget if they lose the UK's contributions. Why not say to UK and Switzerland (who had contributed over 1 billion euros to enlargement projects in last 10 years) if you want freedom of movement restrictions, we want solidarity payments? Let the haggling begin.

They will not lose the UK's contributions - like Norway and the others they will continue to have to pay to have access to the single market. I'm willing to bet money that the net UK contribution will be within 20% of what they are paying now when they take the EEA deal. The EU can simply name their price and the UK will have no option - besides a return to pre-single market 70s stagnation - but accept.

The UK isn't perfect, what country is?

The UK was doing great; blessed by EU membership, as a service oriented exporter, to find itself in a position to be able to sell services to a continent instead of an island. London was transformed from a crumbling backwater in the 70s to a genuinely global city because it could serve an economic hinterland of 500 million people; able to compete with the great American cities, which have always had the advantage of a large hinterland, for the first time in a century. But all the benefits of being part of a huge market - last enjoyed when they controlled an empire - is threatened by the hubris of brexit. Just have a look at a historical graph of UK GDP and you will see a long post-war relative decline before joining the EEC.

 

[odyssey06]

They will not lose the UK's contributions - like Norway and the others they will continue to have to pay to have access to the single market. I'm willing to bet money that the net UK contribution will be within 20% of what they are paying now when they take the EEA deal. The EU can simply name their price and the UK will have no option - besides a return to pre-single market 70s stagnation - but accept.

Except the EU won't let the UK into the single market, because the UK want to apply restrictions on freedom of movement. So they will lose the UK's contributions, unless they come up with a creative fudge that balances the UK's budget contributions v the single market v additional labour restrictions.
The economies stagnating in the EU right now are ones trapped into an inappropriate single currency with an inflexible domestic labour market, which is why their best and brightest are going to the UK. It was the reforms the UK adopted in the 1980s that revived the economy, just joining the single market wasn't enough.
We have been a basket case economy several times in our lifespan of single market membership.

 

[darag]

The UK will not reject EEA membership because of freedom of movement. Over 70% of UK immigrants are from outside the EU - from ex-British colonies. Admitting these people into the UK had nothing to do with the EU and if the UK wanted to restrict this immigration, the were completely free to do so by changing their own laws. Even of the remaining 30%, nearly a quarter are Irish who are entitled to move to the UK under the Common Travel Area. So the EU freedom of movement is responsible for just over 20% of UK non-nationals.

Funny enough, Teresa May was minister responsible for immigration and could have done something about this 70% but failed to deliver on her promises. Like politicians all over Europe, she used the common tactic of blaming her own failure to deliver on Brussels. And unfortunately, there is a large gullible audience willing to swallow this sort of anti-EU propaganda.

EU freedom of movement was hijacked by the brexit campaign in order to appeal to anti-immigrant sentiment and latent xenophobia. When it comes to the realpolitic of negotiating brexit, it will be forgotten.

 

[odyssey06]

My final post on this thread as I've already spent waay too much time on it...

I don't understand the attitude that it's xenophobic to seek to control EU immigration but not other immigration - what does it matter if the people affected are Polish or Pakistani? I don't think it's anti-immigrant or xenophobic for Britain to seek the same level of control over immigration in its borders as Australia, Canada or New Zealand has.

There is clearly opposition to allowing UK continuing access to the single market (EEA) without corresponding freedom of movement. It's less clear why the EU insists on freedom of movement for non-EEA countries who are in EFTA (e.g. Switzerland), whose basis is more 'free trade' rather than 'single market'.
It should be noted that Switzerland's contributions to the EU budget are much smaller as an EFTA member than they would be as an EEA member (e.g. Norway). EEA member contributions appear to be almost on the same level as full EU member contributions.

As noted earlier from BBC website:
"Switzerland has negotiated a series of bilateral deals that give it access to the single market for most industries, although it also has to apply EU rules and pay the EU money. This deal is under threat of renegotiation after a Swiss referendum on limiting immigration. The EU insists on free access for EU citizens to EFTA countries."

But I haven't heard anything so far to convince me that if realpolitik dictated it, freedom of movement couldn't be thrown under the bus by the EU - if they wanted to ... or in some EEA-EFTA fudged bilateral deal where everyone agrees to look the other way - officially, the UK would not be in the single market, but to almost all intents and purposes, it would be.
We will have to see how the chips fall on the negotiating table between single market access, EFTA membership, EU budgetary contributions, and freedom of movement.