1/n @iainmartin reports that the Cabinet believes the EEA does not 'deliver' the referendum result. There seem to be three possibilities here: (a) they have not read the EEAA, (b) it's been read, but with zero understanding, (c) they're insane. Any 2 or all 3 is also possible.
2. On a strict reading of the ref. question, the EEA delivers 100%: Norway & Iceland are not in the EU. But it also delivers on the main motivations for the Leave vote, sovereignty & immigration: e.g. every EEAA competence that now falls to the EU would transfer to the UK.
3. That includes competences to put limitations on free movement of workers, see Articles 28(3) & 112. A good diagnostic question to ask is why, in the 1980s, did the EFTA states (including Austria, Finland, Sweden & Switzerland) seek to negotiate the EEA in the 1st place.
4. Why not an FTA? Why not something Chequers-like? A significant part of the answer was a desire to gain influence over EU rule-making, to soften an otherwise sharp trade-off between rule-taking & rule-divergence that would increase trade barriers. They mostly achieved the goal.
5. In fact, the EEAA over-delivers. It returns to the UK substantially more power than our domestic systems (the Home Office, Defra, HMRC, our trade negotiating capacity, et al) are capable of handling. Hence the necessity for transitional agreements in the relevant areas
6. It might be conjectured that the underlying psychological resistance to the EEA is that it will, more quickly than any other option except 'No deal', make severe deficiencies in UK market-governance, regulatory and enforcement systems even more transparent than they are now.
7. That would be a good thing, since the deficiencies need to be identified & adddressed asap. But it would tend to raise the question of how & why the deficiencies were allowed to develop & linger. And that's an uncomfortable question for present & former Cabinet ministers.
