Ignorant Knowledge

There is a great deal of ‘ignorant knowledge’ where Brexit and the EFTA/EEA ‘solution’ is concerned; highlighted today when this article by Greg Hands of 2018 was referred to on twitter; one which, to the disgust of one person on twitter, I described as crap.

I must perforce point out, yet again, that there is membership of the European Union and there is membership of the political construct of the European Union. What follows will, I trust, make the foregoing point clearer to those with ‘ignorant knowledge’ – such as Greg Hands. So let us take his article point by point.

He writes: This proposal (EFTA/EEA) is not only ill-informed, it is in effect a new guise for not leaving the EU at all. It also shows a possibly wilful lack of understanding of the
realities of EFTA. I write this as someone who both campaigned for Remain in 2016 and served, until recently, for two years as one of the country’s Trade Ministers. All one can say is that Greg Hands learned nowt during his two years as a Trade Minister; and obviously does not appreciate one can leave the political construct of the European Union whilst our nation thus frees itself from membership of the European Union.

This doyen of ignorant knowledge further writes: The advocates of EFTA (currently comprised of Norway, Iceland, Switzerland, and Liechtenstein) suggest simply that joining would give us access to the Single Market, but without ever closer political union. Sadly, this is wrong on both counts. Unfortunately, as I will show it is Greg Hands that is incorrect on all counts.

To my knowledge no-one has ever suggested that membership of EFTA provides access to the Single Market. As he acknowledges it is membership of the European Economic Area (EEA) that provides access to the Single Market. Just how can leaving the political construct of the European Union mean ‘ever closer union’? Why would we not wish to remain members of the EEA if it maintains seamless trade twixt the United Kingdom and the European Union, when the alternative would increase the mess in which we find ourselves today?

He writes also: EFTA countries are only able only to make relatively minor tariff adjustments – one to many ‘only’ methinks. Besides mastering nowt while a Trade Minister, he obviously cannot master English composition – but I digress.

When he also writes that: So when they suggest that the UK and EFTA
would create “a global trading titan”, all they would accomplish would be another trading vassal to the European Union; perhaps he should take a look at this statistic. One can hardly believe that ‘trading vassals’ would be able to arrange over Euro 566million of trade – and bear in mind the United Kingdom, in trade terms, is bigger than the current 4 EFTA states.

Further, Hands writes: Not only would membership prevent trade freedom and sovereignty, it would also maintain current EU immigration rules. While its proponents claim we would be “in a Single Market with a brake on free movement”, Single Market membership does not come with a brake on free movement, which applies to all EFTA states except tiny Liechtenstein. Does this man ever do ‘research’? Methinks not as Efta states not only possess trade freedom and, more importantly sovereignty, they also have, if they wish to invoke it, a brake on free movement – or has Article 112 of the EEA Agreement ‘passed him by’ – as so much about EFTA/EEA and full membership of the European Union also has.

Following on, Hands writes: Furthermore, EFTA backers proclaim we would have immediate access to the EFTA’s own trade agreements already signed. It is extremely doubtful that the counterparts to these deals would simply roll over the deals done with markets totalling 14 million people, to suddenly apply to markets totalling 80 million people. In fact, the quintupling of the size of EFTA would likely even make the EU seek to re-write the rules of EFTA to bring it even closer into alignment with Brussels. In regard to his second sentence, his basis to deny that is? The last time the EU tried to rewrite the rules of EFTA resulted in a rebuff for Jacques Delors who having initally promised an ‘equal voice’ to EFTA then back-tracked but eventually had to give ground when EFTA ‘dug in its heels’.

We then arrive at the biggest lie of all from Greg Hands when he writes: When EFTA proponents claim we would only “be subject to 20% of EU rules,” there is simply no evidence for this: even the Norwegian government estimates the real figure to be 75%, and the European Parliament itself notes that EFTA countries “have little influence on the final decision on the legislation on the EU side”.

To take the first half of that sentence, this is absolute crap! If we return to 2015, the last figures I can find, we learn that the EFTA Secretiarat reported that, since 1992 (the inception of the EEA Agreement) 10,862 acts have been incorporated into the EEA Agreement. It has to be realised that acts repeal other acts; and remember that some acts are  time-limited, so cease to have any effect. Taking this into account, there are 4,957 acts remaining in force as of that date.  The latest count (at that time) of the EU laws in force then stood at 23,076. As a percentage of that number, the EEA acquis of 4,957 acts herecurrently stood at 21 percent. The figure of 75% came from a report by the Norwegian Government in 2012 which utilised what I can only describe as a new method of maths (see here).

In regard to the second part of Hands’ assertion, why is it that Norway and EFTA states sit on over 200 EU committees having input into EU legislation? Coupling that point with the origin of ‘European Law’ I would refer to a dossier I presented to my MP (David Cameron) when I resided in the constituency of Witney – do read it all, please. From that dossier it is interesting to note that Norway, who has no automotive industry to speak of, sitting on WP.29, has a voice in the formation of vehicle standards – while we, the United Kingdom, who do have an automotive industry (just) and sitting on that UN/UNECE body, are subjucated to the views of the EU – ie, made subordinate or subject to the dominion of someone else. It should also be noted that ‘laws’ on such diverse subjects as fishing, banking, health, for example, all originate from similar bodies – on all of which Norway has a seat.

It should also be noted that where membership of the EEA is concerned that the EEA Agreement is a ‘bespoke’ arrangement in that Norway’s settlement differs from that of Iceland which in turn is different from that of Lichtenstein. Go do the  research? It should also be noted that the so-called EFTA/EEA option is not a ‘quick fix’ and would take  a great deal of time to implement for the benefit of the United Kingdom – mind you, had we gone for this option three years ago we would be well on the way to ‘leaving’ the European Union by now.

Another misunderstanding, or dare I say ignorance, is that Schengen is part of the EEA; this is incorrect (source). While we have politicians like Greg Hands – who know nowt about ‘matters EU’ – a media and a commentariat likewise possessing ‘ignorant knowledge’ – is it any wonder some of the electorate are unfortunately so endowed?

Finally, let me state that, understandably, while those who wish for a ‘divorce’ from the European Union are no doubt well intentioned, they really do need to do a tad of research about the European Union, ‘matters EU’, the origin of law, etc, etc.

6 thoughts on “Ignorant Knowledge

  1. David, as far as WP29 is concerned the EU doesn’t have a its own vote, although its a contracting party to the 1958 agreement

    The EU expresses its vote through its member states as a block vote following an internal decision-making procedure

    The EU has made 122 submissions to WP29, Germany over 600! Norway only 13

    I’d suggest it’s Germany who shape EU policy, and not some sort of omnipotent power of the EU who hold sway over its member states

    are we seriously suggesting that Norway has more influence than Germany?

    I’d suggest this whole WP 29 thing is grasping at straws,desperate propaganda dreamt up by Richard North to bolster his Norway option thing

  2. The EU speaks and casts its vote having taken soundings from the 28 Member States. The fact that one or more of the member states views are outweighed by the remainder and possibly discarded, means that those Member states voices are muted or overridden.

    I do suggest that Norway has more power than Germany in that Norway speaks for herself on WP29 (or any other other bodies whereas in fact the EU speaks and votes for Germany.

    In my opinion your last comment does you no credit. There may be an element of truth in your statement, however bearing in mind the foregoing it does hold water.

    That principle holds good on Codex (fishing & food) Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (banking). In fact, go read this factual article about Norway and her influence in the derivation of ‘law’ and standards (you may not like the author): https://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2013/01/eu-politics-decoupling-from-little.html

  3. David I’m more than familiar with Norths work and all the arguments he’s put forward, as I’ve religiously read his blog every day for the last ten years, even though he banned me, including all the comments!

    it’s not that i particularly dislike him its just the one sided propaganda he’s peddled about the Norway Option and flexcit as a means to leave the EU, i think he’s simply wrong, but thanks for the link as it confirms his bias towards narratives designed to win a referendum and tackle the ‘FUD’ of remain which are no longer relevant or needed

    But we appear to be still persistently trotting out old and frankly failed mantras

    talking of which i see his son,Pete, is currently trotting out more blather about the THA on his own blog not that it’ll do much good,oh and he’s been off to Cambridge or Oxford blathering about EEA Norway options, its tiresome!

    getting back to WP27, which is frankly irrelevant, Norths wrong as he is about much of his claims about the UK being shackled to the EU in terms of global governance institutions, as these institutions don’t work in the kind of zero sum way Richard North described to his readers

    this is more a reflection of his personality, which is confrontational,aggressive and totally without compromise, but i suppose this was something for the UKIP crowd as it’d seem like Britain could sit at the ‘top table’

    Of course North had to create this kind of narrative because on the one hand he had to undermine the Tory obsession with red tape and at the same time claim Europe was irrelevant,ie ‘little Europe ‘ it was clever,….sort of, but opened up all sorts of other questions, which got reduced by North to ‘coffin lid’ analogies,remember?

    So much for taking back control!

    as for the claim about little Europe, well he soon changed his tune once Ivan Rodgers spoke out, suddenly Europe was some sort of menacing omnipotent soft global supper power! I

    But by then North was peddling his own kind of FUD, basically because nobody wanted ‘his’ exit plan, ie flexcit, brexit became a disaster waiting to happen,and this would be preferable for North as he’d be vindicated, how sad and childish, but thats honesty how i see him

    as for the EEA agreement, well its a dynamic agreement which means the UK would be bound to implement more and more EU law ironically we’d be officially out but still in, just like Norway, how can you reconcile that?

    Simple you can’t! as a result there’s actually growing opposition in Norway to the EEA Agreement, apparently they’d prefer an FTA

    i don’t suppose North ever bothered to write anything about the so called flanking areas of the EEA Agreement which basically means the ability of EU law to come through the back door in literally dozens of policy areas,you’ll find it all in Protocol 31, last time i looked, last year, it was 55 pages long its now 57!

    I’ve never seen flanking areas or Protocol 31 ever mentioned by North, but why would he? as it clearly states that the EFTA states ‘ shall participate fully, without the right to vote’ now if the that sounds like the kind of relationship you want fine, but don’t pretend this is in any way a meaningful brexit, brino absolutely, brexit no!I

    You may as well stay in!

    and don’t pretend this ‘subordinate’ position, Norths word incidentally, in the EEA will lead to the glorious upland magical world of flexcit, because there’s no way the EU would ever surrender the Single Market to UNECE , Norths big idea!

    North now understands his position for such a plan is over,he understands it was never likely to happen as the EU would never agree to such an arrangement, he stated as much a few months ago

    The facts are thus,if you’re in EFTA using the EEA agreement to trade with the EU, you’ll end up incorporating hundreds of EU laws,Acts and Directives simple as that,oh and we’d also have state liability which means anyone could take the government to the EFTA Court or the EFTA Surveillance Authority to make sure all that EU law is implemented within the the context of the ever expanding Single Market rules which are in accordance with those of ECJ they have to be otherwise the Single Market couldn’t work, so no cherry picking I’m afraid

    Sorry David but me thinks you’ve been had, taken in by snake oil salesmen
    Richard North&Son who frankly sound like a pair of raving remainers these days

    forget all that nonsense about ‘little Europe’, in or out, we chose out which i personally never thought would come without major costs, unfortunately North tried to dress it up as something else with all his daft ‘off the shelf’ solutions or whatever it was he called it….totally unrealistic and wrong IMO which i said years ago

  4. Re his personality: I can concur.

    I will look at this protocol 31 and revert.

    We may have to end up agreeing to disagree – we’ll see.

    However, I am fed up with the entire damn thing and want out, deal or no deal – then I demand the adoption of direct democracy.

    1. David you’re a true gent!

      and frankly it doesn’t matter if we disagree, because this whole brexit journey has been a hell of a learning curve and I’ll credit Richard North with one thing without his blog I’d have thought a lot less about a whole bunch of things than i currently do

      All the best,oh and welcome back i was beginning to worry about you

Comments are closed.