| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
145565
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The domestic scenario following a Brexit vote is likely to be characterised by high stakes, uncertainty and fissile political debate. No off-the-peg arrangement touted for Brexit—be it Norwegian, Swiss, Turkish or Canadian—was designed to engage with such a context. Nor does it seem wise to rush to medium-term commitments which might pre-empt democratic politics and wise choices. Far more important will be the legitimacy of any institutional settlement governing this arrangement, which will provide the context for its revision and development and the space for democratic reflection over how these policies are to be governed. It will be suggested that here there is much insight to be gained from looking at regional arrangements beyond the EU.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
154066
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Since World War II, Europe has seen dramatic transformation of its borders. It has covered the full circle from the hard notions of territorial sovereignty enshrined in the Treaty of Westphalia to the Schengen Agreement wherein Europe allows free movement of goods, services, people and capital within the European Economic Area. The article looks at the changing borders in the European Union and their impact on the immediate neighbourhood of Europe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
071603
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2006.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
A theoretical appraisal of the Swiss and Norwegian models of relations with the European Union (EU), as well as an empirical assessment of experience accumulated, shows that the European Economic Area (EEA) model is quite constraining. Both models have semi-colonial features. In the EEA model, the non-EU member has a little more influence on decision-making but is less independent of the EU than with the Swiss approach. The latter is time-consuming and is subject to much give and take. In the long run, however, countries expected to benefit from the new European Neighbourhood Policy, such as Israel, might find that an EEA approach is not acceptable if it does not offer membership as a long-term possibility, because it is undemocratic. Finally, in the eventuality of a trade war between the United States and the EU, a scenario of high relevance for Israel, the Swiss model would give it more freedom of manoeuvre than the EEA model. Israel would not be part of the EU trading bloc in the eyes of the United States.This is much less clear in the event of EEA membership. On the other hand, an in-depth examination of the Swiss model shows that the 'à la carte' approach does not allow for any degree of depoliticization in relations with the EU, as Israel was hoping for.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|