A couple of points here, arising from Lord Owen’s article.
First, I entirely agree that an EEA solution is a real option. The EU has made that clear and as far as I can tell the EEA3 would agree. (Whether it’s the right option is a different question: I happen to think it could well be, but that’s not the point I’m making.)
Second, though, it can’t replace a transition/implementation period. The EEA doesn’t cover the CAP, CFP, VAT, Customs, home affairs (eg European Arrest Warrant) etc and we’d need transitional arrangements for these given general unpreparedness.
Third, as has been pointed out frequently, the EEA model doesn’t resolve the Irish border issue (it helps, but isn’t enough). Long term customs and VAT arrangements would also be needed.
Fourth, using the EEA merely as an airlock on the way out, as Lord Owen suggests, would, I suspect, cause some concern in the EEA3 and EU27.
There is a legal argument that the U.K. stays in the EEA Agreement anyway on “no deal” given the absence of notice under A127 EEAA, which could strengthen the UK’s hand: but the point is controversial and it’d be risky to rely on it without squaring the politics.
Nonetheless, it is interesting that thoughtful MPs like @GeorgeFreemanMP are interested in this route.
My hunch, though, is that it’s better seen not as a device to get us to 2020 but as a more medium term solution, with an eye to developing it in the long run to a more up to date model that suits us, and perhaps the existing EEA3, rather better.
