7 thoughts on “Saving Brexit from the Brexiteers: why free-market liberals should support the EFTA/EEA option”

  1. Posted 14/07/2016 at 19:15 | Permalink

    “. . . those liberal reforms which are incompatible with single market membership are also the ones which are least likely to happen anyway . . .”
    Oooh, you are a tease Dr Niemietz.

    I like the idea of farmland owner subsidies being reduced to the correct level ( 0 ), and fisheries policy being devolved to local governments that have coastline. These are possible in the EEA, but impossible in the EU.

    I voted Leave in the hope of getting the EEA Option, and am curious to know what’s the worst, most illiberal thing about this preference.

  2. Posted 18/07/2016 at 17:56 | Permalink

    Funny you should mention agricultural subsidies as something that will be slimmed down after Brexit when Norway, Iceland and Switzerland all pay their farmers considerably more subsidies per capita than the EU under the CAP. As for the EU’s fisheries policy, the UK’s fishermen association recently told its memebers not to expect an increase in quotas post-Brexit, since the UK is still bound by international agreement on quotas, fish stocks have declined too much to expect higher catches and the UK’s stocks (unlike most of Iceland’s) migrate between the territorial waters of multiple nations. In any event, after CETA comes into force, Canadian salmon will be much cheaper than the Norweigian or Icelandic varieties, so both those countries better question the wisdom of being outside the EU’s common fisheries policy, which is one of the few “perks” of EEA/EFTA membership. As for a reduction in bureacracy EEA/EFTA states are bound by approxinately 80% of EU legislation, so no real respite on bureaucracy ther, but with no say on how those rules are made a real loss of sovereignty. With the EFTA Court slavishly following ECJ case-law, the EEA/ EFTA alternative is really awful, but it’s the best Britain can possibly hope for post-Brexit.

  3. Posted 20/07/2016 at 08:27 | Permalink

    Interesting that the IEA rejected every submission in the Brexit Prize Competition which proposed continued EEA membership, and now we have you telling us that we should be “saving Brexit from the Brexiteers” by supporting the Efta/EEA option, “at least as a short-to-medium-term solution”.

  4. Posted 20/07/2016 at 09:58 | Permalink

    ‘Trade Deal’ is NewSpeak fro ‘prtectionist regulation designed to harm consumers’
    The simple fact is that NO trade deal is required to have access to the EU’s Common Market: individual companies can comply with EU regulations should they wish to sell there.

    or not.

    A simple 100%-Brexit, with WTO-only rules whilst we declare FREE trade with the whole rest of the world means we can unite the globe against the EU and so force them to comply with a GLOBAL, FREE trade arrangement whereby every company can buy and sell in every market, without tariffs, quotas – or subsidies.

    the truth is – governments harm consumer and consumer interests and the quicker they STFU and simply leave trade to the companies and individuals concerned, the better for everyone.

  5. Posted 20/07/2016 at 10:20 | Permalink

    @Chris Palmer: The IEA has no corporate view, and on anything EU-related, you’ll find an especially broad range of positions among staff (see e.g. http://www.iea.org.uk/about/iea-stance-on-the-european-union). It’s not that ‘the IEA’ now endorses EFTA/EEA. I, personally, endorse it, and write about it wearing my IEA hat. But I know that some of my colleagues disagree. Which is fine.

  6. Posted 20/07/2016 at 17:29 | Permalink

    Yes agreed, let’s hope David Davis comes round to the same conclusion too.

  7. Posted 25/07/2016 at 10:43 | Permalink

    For the sake of balance please see http://eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=86156

Comments are closed.