Sir, – Eric Crean (Letters, April 1st)(April 1st) injects a good measure of sense into the so-called Brexit debate.
The idea that the United Kingdom would be given a “sweetheart” deal in the event of its leaving the European Union ignores the complexity of the relations that already exist between the European Union and its closest neighbours.
As Mr Crean notes, “Surely such an outcome would encourage other external partners, such as Norway and Switzerland, to argue for significant changes to their trading agreements with the EU, in line with those that were given to the British”.
In this regard, it is worth noting that Switzerland was only given access to six key areas of EU co-operation (air and road traffic, agriculture, technical trade barriers, public procurement, and science) if it agreed to implement fully the EU’s rules on free movement of people.
These treaties (known as the “Bilateral I” treaties) contain a “guillotine clause”, which states that “The seven agreements are intimately linked to one another by the requirement that they are to come into force at the same time and that they are to cease to apply at the same time, six months after the receipt of a non-renewal or denunciation notice concerning any one of them.”
The Swiss people, against the pleas of their government, voted in 2014 to restrict severely migration into Switzerland. The result of this is that the Swiss government must, within three years, introduce quotas which will be in breach of the EU rules.
As matters currently stand, this will trigger the guillotine clause, which will (for example) deprive Switzerland of participation in the Erasmus student exchange programme, and of participation in European scientific agencies.
If, however, the UK were to be given a deal which allowed for full trade and technical co-operation, without any obligation to continue to respect free movement, then the Swiss would surely argue that the guillotine clause is a dead letter.
This is not something which the European Commission (nor, indeed, the member states) would easily countenance.
The “Brexiters” need to explain to the public exactly what arrangement they foresee after a vote to leave. Vague assertions that it will be “all right on the night” do not inspire confidence. – Yours, etc,
CATHAL MALONE, BL
Carrigaline,
Co Cork.
Sir, – Eric Crean ponders why proponents of a Brexit are so convinced the EU would accede to much more favourable trading terms for the UK than those currently provided to non-EU countries such as Norway and Switzerland.
Speaking to Brexit-supporting friends and colleagues, I have heard them argue cogently that as the world’s fifth largest economy, and the second largest in Europe, the UK would be in a much stronger negotiating position than those countries mentioned. Economic necessity would guarantee trading terms favourable to both sides.
Personally, as an Irishman living in London, I feel the referendum is asking me to choose between receiving a kick or a punch, but I will, presumably like many millions of others, in the end grudgingly vote to remain in the EU. – Yours, etc,
CÍAN CARLIN,
London.