英国脱欧后的两全其美?反驳挪威和瑞士模式是英国的长期选择

Pérez Crespo, M. José
{"title":"英国脱欧后的两全其美?反驳挪威和瑞士模式是英国的长期选择","authors":"Pérez Crespo, M. José","doi":"10.1093/YEL/YEX021","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"On 23 June 2016 the UK held a referendum on EU membership; with a slight majority the ‘Brexit’ option won. Since then, political and economic uncertainty have prevailed regarding the structure of the future long-term relationship between the UK and the EU. Two widely cited alternatives before and after the referendum, presented as offering the best of both worlds , are the EEA or ‘Norway model’ and the negotiated bilateral agreements path or ‘Swiss model’. This article builds on and complements the scarce existing literature in order to inquire whether these two models would be feasible in the UK–EU framework and would suit the former’s expectations for this new relationship. To this end, the main features of the ‘Norway model’ and the ‘Swiss model’ are analysed mainly through the lens of the guiding principles for the establishment of the new partnership with the EU referred to by HM Government in its February 2017 White Paper. The conclusion is that, notwithstanding granting market access to a greater or lesser extent and freedom to secure free trade agreements with third countries, these models would still require the UK to make contributions to the EU budget and to be broadly subordinated to the EU in the area of immigration control. Regarding the impera-tive principle of the UK to take control of its own laws, the ‘Swiss model’ would arguably be less constraining than the EEA model; however, its current configuration would probably be impracticable in the UK-EU context.","PeriodicalId":41752,"journal":{"name":"Croatian Yearbook of European Law & Policy","volume":"85 1","pages":"94-122"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2018-01-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"After Brexit…The Best of Both Worlds? Rebutting the Norwegian and Swiss Models as Long-Term Options for the UK\",\"authors\":\"Pérez Crespo, M. José\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/YEL/YEX021\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"On 23 June 2016 the UK held a referendum on EU membership; with a slight majority the ‘Brexit’ option won. Since then, political and economic uncertainty have prevailed regarding the structure of the future long-term relationship between the UK and the EU. Two widely cited alternatives before and after the referendum, presented as offering the best of both worlds , are the EEA or ‘Norway model’ and the negotiated bilateral agreements path or ‘Swiss model’. This article builds on and complements the scarce existing literature in order to inquire whether these two models would be feasible in the UK–EU framework and would suit the former’s expectations for this new relationship. To this end, the main features of the ‘Norway model’ and the ‘Swiss model’ are analysed mainly through the lens of the guiding principles for the establishment of the new partnership with the EU referred to by HM Government in its February 2017 White Paper. The conclusion is that, notwithstanding granting market access to a greater or lesser extent and freedom to secure free trade agreements with third countries, these models would still require the UK to make contributions to the EU budget and to be broadly subordinated to the EU in the area of immigration control. Regarding the impera-tive principle of the UK to take control of its own laws, the ‘Swiss model’ would arguably be less constraining than the EEA model; however, its current configuration would probably be impracticable in the UK-EU context.\",\"PeriodicalId\":41752,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Croatian Yearbook of European Law & Policy\",\"volume\":\"85 1\",\"pages\":\"94-122\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-01-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Croatian Yearbook of European Law & Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/YEL/YEX021\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Croatian Yearbook of European Law & Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/YEL/YEX021","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

摘要

2016年6月23日,英国就是否退出欧盟举行全民公投;“脱欧”选项以微弱多数获胜。从那时起,英国和欧盟之间未来长期关系的结构在政治和经济上的不确定性占据了上风。公投前后被广泛引用的两种选择,被认为是两全其美的,是欧洲经济区或“挪威模式”,以及谈判双边协议路径或“瑞士模式”。本文建立并补充了稀缺的现有文献,以探究这两种模式在英国-欧盟框架下是否可行,是否符合前者对这种新关系的期望。为此,“挪威模式”和“瑞士模式”的主要特点主要是通过英国政府在2017年2月白皮书中提到的与欧盟建立新伙伴关系的指导原则来分析的。结论是,尽管给予或多或少的市场准入以及与第三国签订自由贸易协定的自由,这些模式仍将要求英国为欧盟预算做出贡献,并在移民控制领域广泛服从欧盟。就英国控制本国法律的必要原则而言,“瑞士模式”可能比欧洲经济区模式约束更少;然而,其目前的配置在英欧背景下可能是不切实际的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
After Brexit…The Best of Both Worlds? Rebutting the Norwegian and Swiss Models as Long-Term Options for the UK
On 23 June 2016 the UK held a referendum on EU membership; with a slight majority the ‘Brexit’ option won. Since then, political and economic uncertainty have prevailed regarding the structure of the future long-term relationship between the UK and the EU. Two widely cited alternatives before and after the referendum, presented as offering the best of both worlds , are the EEA or ‘Norway model’ and the negotiated bilateral agreements path or ‘Swiss model’. This article builds on and complements the scarce existing literature in order to inquire whether these two models would be feasible in the UK–EU framework and would suit the former’s expectations for this new relationship. To this end, the main features of the ‘Norway model’ and the ‘Swiss model’ are analysed mainly through the lens of the guiding principles for the establishment of the new partnership with the EU referred to by HM Government in its February 2017 White Paper. The conclusion is that, notwithstanding granting market access to a greater or lesser extent and freedom to secure free trade agreements with third countries, these models would still require the UK to make contributions to the EU budget and to be broadly subordinated to the EU in the area of immigration control. Regarding the impera-tive principle of the UK to take control of its own laws, the ‘Swiss model’ would arguably be less constraining than the EEA model; however, its current configuration would probably be impracticable in the UK-EU context.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
25 weeks
期刊最新文献
The unified patent court Corporate tax reform in the European Union: are the stars finally aligned? Rescuing transparency in the digital economy: in search of a common notion in EU consumer and data protection law The impact of the Digital Content Directive on online platforms’ Terms of Service The European Union’s Preferential Trade Agreements: between convergence and differentiation
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1