Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by hackerboos 4203 days ago
Yet it's forced to implement most of the EUs rulings whilst having no say on said rulings. Same for Norway and Iceland.
1 comments

That's said rather often, but I'm not at all certain that it's true.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100194407/out...

> Switzerland signed up to the EU’s customs union in 1972, which abolished subsidy and tariff barriers. Since then, it has also decided to sign up to the majority of the single market: it is a full member of the single market for goods, a signatory to the Schengen agreement, and it has signed up to most of the single market for capital. In many areas, therefore, Switzerland is effectively a member of the single market. But like Norway, it does not have the ability to affect the rules that govern it. [1]

Just because the Swiss are not in the EEA doesn't mean they aren't force to adopt EU policy. Their exports depend on it.

[1] - http://centreforeuropeanreform.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/britai...

Same as Norway, indeed. But Norway has implemented just 5,000 pieces of EU legislation in the last 22 years, whereas the UK has, on average, implemented 3,000 pieces per year. [I'm sticking to Norway, because it is the region that I have facts and figures for - I don't know the figures for Switzerland.]

The claim the Norway and Switzerland are governed remotely by the EU is therefore not true - either that, or the Norwegian law somehow pre-empts EU law, and thus complies with it before it is passed? (Which makes it sound like Norway governs the EU, and not the other way around :p).

I'm not claiming that Norway is de-coupled from the EU, just that the claim that it is governed remotely by a body in which it has no say is false.

If you didn't know Daniel Hannan is a /very/ partisan politician, who is incredibly anti-European.
Well, he would claim that he was anti-EU, and not anti-European. But if he has the figures wrong, you should tell him (and me!)