It's a hard one. I feel the UK were wrong to leave but Norway and Switzerland have a fantastic overall quality of life without and I'm not sure the benefits of membership unless you are financially poor country. Iceland is probably better off joining the Schengen but not EU.
In practice, these countries implement already a lot of EU law. It isn't that difficult for say a Switzerland to join the EU and they have good reasons to, as access to programs like Horizon is a huge benefit. The economies of these countries are quite interwoven with the second largest economy of the world. The EU market comes with rules but is is a very big win for neighboring countries. In fact, Switzerland backtracking on previous accession tracks and thus not qualifying anymore for Horizon etc is causing some serious regrets, so I won't be surprised if Switzerland bites the bullet somewhere in the future.
Secondly, the world got a lot more unstable since the US is pushing for a lawless might-makes-right world and taking an increasingly predatory posture there. From that perspective, the EU is becoming even more relevant. Poignant example is Canada taking more and more steps to integrate their economy with the EU, as well as to become part of its security architecture.
UPDATE: Leaving the Horizon program has apparently been too painful [1], seems the Swiss were retroactively allowed back from 2025 [2]. I don't know about Horizon 2028 though.
Switzerland is currently in the process of implementing a third wave of bilateral agreements with the EU, and the federal government has indicated that in their opinion the "bilateral way" is the best of both worlds in terms of sovereignty and integration, so I don't think joining the EU will be on the agenda anytime soon
Yes, but the average Swiss voter is very proud of its direct democracy, and scared that joining the EU would significantly weaken it.
Therefore, having to follow EU law in some very specific areas, while remaining independent in others is a decent path, and a compromise very typical of Swiss policy
Far from it, EU law would need to be transposed in some very specific areas covered by the agreement, and mechanisms are in place to limit what retorsions can be put in place if Switzerland refuses such transposition.
Switzerland has been kicked out of Horizon programs so many times and had to build alternatives. By now everyone involved knows, Horizon is high risk program and access can be pulled at any time for political reasons, so it hasn't that much appeal anymore.
Because Swiss scientists and businesses want to collaborate and trade with European partner networks of science and industries.
One of the EU main principles is collaboration and win-win. It is not zero sum. Example: The Netherlands is wealthy and a net contributor, but would be poorer off from not being in the EU.
Also, be aware that your question easily leads to a follow-up question:
"Why don't we fund our own research and innovation?"
=> "Why do we fund research and innovation?"
That's because the PM's party brokered that half-way deal with EU against the will of the people, after they had voted no to EU for the second time[1].
Not saying some of our export companies aren't enjoying the access to EU, but the people was against it.
> PM's party brokered that half-way deal with EU against the will of the people, after they had voted no to EU for the second time
what polls have to do with it? if the will of the people was against the eu deal, they should've voted against, they had 30 years to do it. norway is a democracy, right?
Iceland already heavily integrated into the EU, the only outliers are currency, foreign policy, security, political institutions, customs and some trading sectors like fishing.
Currency (since the exchange rate to the Euro is what sets pricing in Iceland) and security are the reasons many want to get closer.
Norway gets all the money it wanted from offshore gas, and Switzerland from being the bank of Europe when world wars happened (not mentioning gold nor laundering). When money is handed down to you like this by geography or history, the benefit of joining the eu and paying more for others is probably not given for the population.
Yes, Luxembourg has a higher GDP per capita than Switzerland, also for banking reasons.
If anything when your economy is based on European countries relying on your banking services, being part of EU makes it even easier for said countries to pour their money to your banks.
Norway and Switzerland are in the EU in all but final signatures ar this point: they are fully ibtegrated into EU economy, apply EU's laws and regulations and even pay into EU funds.
Speaking of Switzerland - no it absolutely is not.
Is far from being fully integrated into EU.
You have to pay customs on shipments, which can be delayed for weeks on borders.
You need to apply for the residence permit and you can lose it for trivially sounding reasons.
- E.g. lying on the application which could mean " you mentioned in the application you wull look for job but lied and went to learn the language instead".
- also look at the recent case of a woman and her daughter abused by some Swiss politician facing deportation because she moved to Switzerland for work officially, but in reality she moved to live with her Swiss romantic partner.
Switzerland still have bottles of water without permanently attached lid.
It's integrated in many ways but still far from being a member state.
They should have considered not lying in their residence permit applications. I mean, what you are saying sounds like completely reasonable reasons to deport someone. They lied because they knew their application would’ve been denied had they said the truth.
> You need to apply for the residence permit and you can lose it for trivially sounding reasons. - E.g. lying on the application
"Trivially sounding reasons".... lying on the application.
Lol.
----
Yes, I hyperbolized a little in my comment. But I'm tired of people oretending that Norway and Switzerland are somehow completely separate from the EU.
Quote: "I feel the UK were wrong to leave but Norway and Switzerland have a fantastic overall quality of life without and I'm not sure the benefits of membership unless you are financially poor country."
They are not "without". They are integrated through and through.
But they are not IN the EU, and the UK doing a Brexit (aka. leaving the EU) does not make them incapable of having the same arrangement as Norway and Switzerland.
As we all know, being somewhere makes you instantly know everything there is to know about that particular there. Of course, this is the inly way to know anything.
My comment hyperbolizes the integration, but it's not too far from the truth.
Yes, these are bad examples. Norway - rich beyond belief due to its energy resources. Switzerland - rich beyond belief because of its developed banking sector. Not sure how Iceland stacks up here. Fishing will be an issue for them, no doubt here.
> Norway and Switzerland have a fantastic overall quality of life
Well, one sits on vast amounts of oil and the other has been doing some dodgy financial stuff for very long time.
> Iceland is probably better off joining the Schengen but not EU.
It irritates me so much how some countries get to pick and choose. It's just ridiculous how some countries refuse to join Eurozone. The UK used to be in the EU, but wasn't part of Schengen. Now it's not part of anything, but is still in Horizon Europe?
Whether it was the correct decision or not, it was done via a democratic vote. Now the leaders of the UK look to entangle the UK into the EU structure that is evidently against their mandate.
The current UK government was also elected by democratic vote, so they have a mandate that postdates the referendum.
You can argue their mandate is invalid due to the first-past-the-post system, but in that case the original decision to hold a referendum, and all subsequent governments that negotiated the terms of the EU exit are also invalid, since they all derived from first-past-the-post elections.
The current UK government have a mandate with regards to running the UK more generally, but leaving the EU was its own very clear message. There was a vote in 1975 to continue EU membership, and again in 2016 [1]. It very much feels likely something that should only be undone on another vote.
The vote was to leave or stay - there was no mandate for or against a specific relationship to the EU before even considering how drastically opinions have shifted since.
And there was considerable debate prior to the referendum within the Leave camp as to whether to go for a "soft Brexit" (close regulatory alignment) or "hard Brexit" (what the final deal ended up being).
Indeed parts of the leave movement explicitly used as an argument that a soft Brexit was possible, including explicitly airing the possibility of a Norway-style EEA membership. Given how close the result was, it's highly unlikely that there wouldn't have been greater support for a very soft option than for what we got.
I'd fully support a vote if rejoining was one of the options. It's pretty clear from polls that support to rejoin is far stronger than the support for Brexit was (in June, it was 55% for vs. 34% against, vs. 59% in support of a closer relationship and 20% against, and 29% supporting the current relationship).
But in the meantime it is also entirely unambiguous that there is a clear mandate for a closer relationship - the gap is so huge (much larger than the support for the current status quo ever was) that there's no real need for another vote for that and voters can punish parties that support it at the next general election.
> I'd fully support a vote if rejoining was one of the options.
Of course it would be, but people would need some kind of understanding on what basis that would be on.
> It's pretty clear from polls [..]
I think there is only one way to know for sure.
> But in the meantime it is also entirely unambiguous that there is a clear mandate for a closer relationship [..]
People of the UK do not hate Europe, but there is evidence to suggest that people of the EU do not view the people of the UK favorably [1]. But I think the point of sovereignty and cost is a big one.
It wasn't binding so the normal procedure and checks around a referendum could be ignored. Like disenfranchising the British citizens living in the EU.
It was just an exercise in testing the mood of the nation, don't you see? Just like a general election, if the electorate vote the wrong party, it is perfectly fine to just ignore the result.
The vote was non-binding due to the sovereignty of parliament [1]. It means that if a war broke out or the economy crashed, they would not be forced to continue at great detriment to the UK. But it doesn't mean that the vote was a mere suggestion - anybody who suggests such doesn't understand democracy.
Fair enough, the "advisory" nature of referendum in the UK does have clear reasoning that i wasn't fully aware of. However the idea of it being "advisory" was itself exploited, and used to make people think that Brexit would't happen anyway, even if the vote was to leave.
My suggestion was not that the referendum shouldn't stand because it was "advisory", but that there should have been rules applied around a referendum that could affect peoples lives so much. But, there are no such rules it seems, the majority in the Commons gets to decide that.
Which is why (almost a million?) British citizens in the EU were not allowed to vote, which doesn't seem very democratic.
And Europeans who were born in the UK and lived their entire life here.
It was a referendum of the the right sort of British citizen.
> However the idea of it being "advisory" was itself exploited, and used to make people think that Brexit would't happen anyway, even if the vote was to leave.
It could be argued also the other way, maybe people didn't engage or chose to continue because they were led to believe it wasn't possible to leave the UK.
> My suggestion was not that the referendum shouldn't stand because it was "advisory", but that there should have been rules applied around a referendum that could affect peoples lives so much. But, there are no such rules it seems, the majority in the Commons gets to decide that.
I think it was fumbled because nobody involved in enacting it were actually supportive of it, and the semi-permanent state (i.e. civil servants) were largely not in support.
> It was a referendum of the the right sort of British citizen.
I have more general thoughts about this, I think a country should be very careful about who or who can't vote.
Does that mean when a government is elected by a low turnout, that it is also not democratic? The current UK government was elected on a 59.7% electorate turnout [1], whereas Brexit was decided based on a 72.2% electorate turnout [2].
Democratic isn’t binary, it’s a spectrum. And I said it’s not a good example of a democratic vote, not that it is undemocratic. It’s closer to the undemocratic end of the spectrum. Though that turnout number is actually way higher than I remember, 70% is actually very high!
I don't know how it can be argued towards the undemocratic end of the spectrum, it was possibly one of the most democratic processes the UK has undergone in a long time?
If only there was a type of nation-wide poll that could be conducted to make such claims so strongly. Maybe we pick a single day, each side makes their cases to the people, and then they cast their choices to be counted. But I guess it can't be done.
Democratic vote which has since then been proved to be heavily influenced by the Cambridge Analytica campaign, so which probably did not reflect the actual opinion of the population. It was a manipulated vote.
I remember the UK government at the time spent £9.3 million of taxpayer's money to push a pro-EU leaflet out [1], not to mention a concerted effort from the news media. It's not as if there was not strong campaigning happening on both sides.
Iceland is already part of Schengen, EFTA, and NATO. They're in the best position there is, having negotiated the best the EU has to offer but not the bad parts, such as the Euro, Pfizer deals, the migration and asylum pact, or age verification. I can't imagine them joining the EU being anything but a massive downgrade for them.
