LIECHTENSTEIN HAS IT ALL
One of the chief
tasks of eurosceptics is to tighten up the exit offer from the EU which will be
made to the electorate generally, and specifically in any forthcoming
referendum.
One proposal which has gained strength is for Britain to exit from the EU by invoking Article 50 of the EU Treaty and rejoining EFTA, thereby remaining in the EEA. This is basically the proposal put forward by the NO Campaign in the 1975 referendum. The advantage of this is that exit is then by mutual consent – the UK would remain in the Single Market but would shed all the political baggage of the EU, including most budget contributions, the customs union, justice and home affairs, foreign policy, etc. All the pro-EU business arguments centre on the advantages of the Single Market. Whether or not they are correct, business at present believes in the Single Market. It is therefore, essential to re-assure business and the electorate in general and remove the pro-Single Market arguments from the debate.
There are, of course, those who say that it is unnecessary to offer a clear post-EU scenario to the electorate and it is unnecessary to reassure business. It is also argued that the EU is not trustworthy and will enmesh the departing UK government in protracted unsatisfactory negotiations with the intention of keeping the UK in the EU.
The purpose of this study is not to discuss these two potential ‘offers’ to the electorate but to concentrate on one weakness in the EEA arrangements, and how this could be rectified.
It is believed EEA membership involves accepting the EU acquis of freedom of movement, allowing mass migration from backward or failing economies in the EU. An influx of labour without capital reduces wages, GDP per head, wealth and standard of living. It is, therefore, impoverishing as has conclusively been demonstrated in the UK since 2007. But it is possible to be in the EEA and to restrict immigration and Liechtenstein shows how it has been done.
When the EEA agreement was being negotiated (before 1st January 1994) Liechtenstein negotiated transition arrangements on migration. It has also used Article 112 of the EEA agreement, where action can be taken on ‘an extraordinary increase’ in immigration of EU nationals. In effect, Liechtenstein has resisted EU pressure and now, after prolonged negotiations, has a defacto veto right on further immigration but does allow 71 new immigrants from the EEA each year.
Liechtenstein has been effective in keeping steady the foreign percentage of the population. It was already at 38.4% in 1994 and it now down to 33.1%.
It does, however, have a rising population of commuter workers from Switzerland and Germany.
Contrary to the urgings of ‘free market’ economists, Liechtenstein has managed to do without the alleged economic benefits of extra immigration, and the alleged entrepreneurial bent of migrants, and has a Gross National Income per head of £75,000 (111,000 Swiss Francs in 2012) - around three times that of the UK. GDP is not relevant here because of commuter workers to Liechtenstein from Switzerland and Germany taking home their wages
Liechtenstein is so successful that it makes Switzerland and Germany look like economic laggards. Indeed, most of those trying to migrate to, or commute to work in, Liechtenstein are Swiss or German.
There is no need for the UK to accept an EEA membership entirely on the terms laid down by the EU. It would be perfectly justifiable and, indeed, an act of wisdom to state at the beginning of negotiations under Article 50 that control of migration (and Britain accepts 38% of all migrant EU workers) is a redline non-negotiating point.
Liechtenstein has not argued against the EU principle of free movement, it has simply negotiated out of it.
FUTURUS/10.03.14.
One proposal which has gained strength is for Britain to exit from the EU by invoking Article 50 of the EU Treaty and rejoining EFTA, thereby remaining in the EEA. This is basically the proposal put forward by the NO Campaign in the 1975 referendum. The advantage of this is that exit is then by mutual consent – the UK would remain in the Single Market but would shed all the political baggage of the EU, including most budget contributions, the customs union, justice and home affairs, foreign policy, etc. All the pro-EU business arguments centre on the advantages of the Single Market. Whether or not they are correct, business at present believes in the Single Market. It is therefore, essential to re-assure business and the electorate in general and remove the pro-Single Market arguments from the debate.
There are, of course, those who say that it is unnecessary to offer a clear post-EU scenario to the electorate and it is unnecessary to reassure business. It is also argued that the EU is not trustworthy and will enmesh the departing UK government in protracted unsatisfactory negotiations with the intention of keeping the UK in the EU.
The purpose of this study is not to discuss these two potential ‘offers’ to the electorate but to concentrate on one weakness in the EEA arrangements, and how this could be rectified.
It is believed EEA membership involves accepting the EU acquis of freedom of movement, allowing mass migration from backward or failing economies in the EU. An influx of labour without capital reduces wages, GDP per head, wealth and standard of living. It is, therefore, impoverishing as has conclusively been demonstrated in the UK since 2007. But it is possible to be in the EEA and to restrict immigration and Liechtenstein shows how it has been done.
When the EEA agreement was being negotiated (before 1st January 1994) Liechtenstein negotiated transition arrangements on migration. It has also used Article 112 of the EEA agreement, where action can be taken on ‘an extraordinary increase’ in immigration of EU nationals. In effect, Liechtenstein has resisted EU pressure and now, after prolonged negotiations, has a defacto veto right on further immigration but does allow 71 new immigrants from the EEA each year.
Liechtenstein has been effective in keeping steady the foreign percentage of the population. It was already at 38.4% in 1994 and it now down to 33.1%.
It does, however, have a rising population of commuter workers from Switzerland and Germany.
Contrary to the urgings of ‘free market’ economists, Liechtenstein has managed to do without the alleged economic benefits of extra immigration, and the alleged entrepreneurial bent of migrants, and has a Gross National Income per head of £75,000 (111,000 Swiss Francs in 2012) - around three times that of the UK. GDP is not relevant here because of commuter workers to Liechtenstein from Switzerland and Germany taking home their wages
Liechtenstein is so successful that it makes Switzerland and Germany look like economic laggards. Indeed, most of those trying to migrate to, or commute to work in, Liechtenstein are Swiss or German.
There is no need for the UK to accept an EEA membership entirely on the terms laid down by the EU. It would be perfectly justifiable and, indeed, an act of wisdom to state at the beginning of negotiations under Article 50 that control of migration (and Britain accepts 38% of all migrant EU workers) is a redline non-negotiating point.
Liechtenstein has not argued against the EU principle of free movement, it has simply negotiated out of it.
FUTURUS/10.03.14.