10 thoughts on “The EEA option for Brexit: a stepping stone in choppy waters”

  1. Posted 08/08/2016 at 10:01 | Permalink

    I don’t get it. The article asserts that the EEA Option should be a ‘stepping stone’ or a ‘transition’, but why should it not be a long term trading relationship.
    Many successful territories operate a variant of the EEA option and it looks like quite a good outcome to me, one that includes 3 of the 4 happiest countries in the world apparently. If there was a better outcome as a next step beyond the EEA option, then all those territories would be progressing onto that next step, whatever it may be.

  2. Posted 08/08/2016 at 11:12 | Permalink

    EEA membership is not an option. As the remain camp pointed during the referendum it means ‘fax democracy’ with the U.K. having to accept EU law that is has no influence over, making financial contributions to the EU budget which are (in the case of Norway) as much per person as the UK as a member, and having to accept EU freedom of movement and the unlimited migration of unskilled workers that this implies. It is obviously a bad option and the City of London is recoiling from it because it would mean it and all other industry in the UK being regulated from Brussels without any say in the regulations they would be forced to comply with.

  3. Posted 08/08/2016 at 11:57 | Permalink

    Hmmmm, Ben, is it just me or is this in anyway a concept from Dr Richard North’s plan flexcit? from http://www.eureferendum.com?

    IEA must be embarrassed to allow this, as they essentially rejected it when they ran their brexit plan competition.

  4. Posted 08/08/2016 at 14:52 | Permalink

    I dare say we can all agree that concluding Trade Agreements with the European Union
    takes a very long time. That is not so much because of the nature of Trade Agreements,
    but because of the nature of the European Union. Incidentally, it was not ‘the IEA’ that
    ‘rejected’ Richard North’s entry to the IEA Brexit prize competition, but the independent
    judging panel.

  5. Posted 08/08/2016 at 18:15 | Permalink

    “making financial contributions to the EU budget which are (in the case of Norway) as much per person as the UK as a member”
    That isn’t true, although I suspect it came from none less than David Cameron so people trusted it ( at least a bit ). If the contribution was in proportion to the UK/NOR GDP ratio, then it would be £2.4bn a year, quite a saving from the £10bn gross contribution currently being made.
    ( http://www.eu-norway.org/eu/Financial-contribution , tradingeconomics.com , and a £ to Euro exchange rate of 1.18 will get you the numbers to arrive at around the £2.4bn figure ).

  6. Posted 09/08/2016 at 05:28 | Permalink

    This has been commented on by Flexcit author Dr Richard North on his blog here http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=86174

  7. Posted 09/08/2016 at 08:02 | Permalink

    I agree with Stuart Mackey that the thoughts expressed above have already been very fully explored by Dr North in his Flexcit document, with further explanations in the monographs he has produced since the referendum. However, Mr Kelly’s summary is well written and easy for someone new to the concept of a phased withdrawal from the EU to understand. All that needs to be added is a formal acknowledgement of Dr North’s detailed work.

  8. Posted 09/08/2016 at 09:39 | Permalink

    Why is the IEA getting Ben Kelly to pen what amounts to a thinned down version of Dr. North’s FLEXCIT plan?

    I can’t understand why the IEA simply don’t just hire Dr, North to do the explaining…..

  9. Posted 09/08/2016 at 13:13 | Permalink

    To Andrew Carey: even £2.4bn UK contribution is totally unacceptable. In practice the UK has 15 times the population of Norway so I think your figures underestimate what we would pay as EEA members.

    All the UK desires is free trade with the EU similar to that which Canada, Mexico, South Korea, Northern Africa etc. Have, none of whom pay pay for it. So difficult to see why UK should pay anything for free trade, and suffer the other disadvantages of membership of the single market such as having our domestic industry regulated by Brussels and unlimited unskilled migration.

    WTO rules are the benchmark against which any other deal should be viewed. WTO rules would see the UK exchequer raise £1.7bn in tariffs on German cars alone (10% tariff on £17bn Trade deficit with Germany in cars alone, £51bn total deficit). The 10% eU common external tariff on agricultural goods would also hit French and Irish food exporters much more than the UK where less than 1% are employed in agriculture. So there should be no question of UK desiring to pay £2.4billion to avoid a WTO tariff regime which would not touch the UK’s service exports as trade in the EU tariff on services is 0%. If German industrial and French agricultural producers want tariff free access to a UK market then it is they who should pay for it. Frankly even if they were to pay the UK should still reject single market membership as the loss of sovereignty and unlimited unskilled migration have been rejected in the referendum.

  10. Posted 09/08/2016 at 14:27 | Permalink

    To “Anonymous” (Today at 14.13):
    Did you miss the sentence in paragraph 3, namely “We must leave the same way we came in; gradually, in stages.”? What was recommended above was just Stage 1.
    I recommend that you read the Flexcit document (or The Market Solution summary) and, especially, Dr North’s recent Monograph 2 (The WTO Option and its application to Brexit).
    All available from http://www.eureferendum.com

Comments are closed.