Thread by @piris_jc

1)THREAD on CM 2. I listened to a Chatham debate on this « CM2». If I understand well, the partisans of the U.K. joining EEA introduce their case by saying U.K. after Brexit will not need to apply to accede EFTA (which has now 4 members: Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Swiss).

2)This is because they think that U.K. will « remain » an EEA member after Brexit. This is legally incorrect.
Exit EU goes automatically with exit EEA.

3) They say that the U.K. will not be obliged to apply Free Movement of Persons because they pretend U.K. will (always?) use a safeguard clause (art 112 EEA), while that clause is supposed to be sectorial or regional and temporary and limited and ...has never been used.

4) They pretend that, as an EEA/EFTA member, the U.K. will pay half the current contributions it is paying now to the EU as one of its members, while presently, as an EEA/EFTA member, Norway is paying nearly as much per head as U.K. is paying today.

5) They pretend that, as an EEA/EFTA member, the U.K. will not be « a rule taker » because it will be able to refuse to accept and apply a great number of EU internal market rules it will dislike or not to be convenient for its economy.

6) I do not think that these views and such an « enthusiastic » candidacy will be very appealing to the EEA 31 members (EU as such +27 EU members+3 EEA /EFTA members).

7) A kind of EEA might be good for the U.K. after Brexit, but I do not think it is politically wise to try to come in the existing EEA while announcing in advance that the U.K. does not intend to implement in good faith all its rules.