,
9 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
Nice of @SKinnock to take the time to reply to my piece on the Norway option (though maybe the editors could occasionally ensure my name is spelt right?). As I doubt @prospect_uk would want to waste more space with my ramblings, some thoughts on his piece here
The 'move house, stay in the neighbourhood' line is a nice one, though based on the assumption that the key issue for leavers is the economic relationship. For those for whom sovereignty was the issue, EEA is more staying in the same house but with all the utilities cut off
When Stephen talks about a solution based on existing treaties, these are treaties with small states. The fundamental point is that there is no guarantee such a treaty would be acceptable for the EU when it comes to the UK. And of course it's not in Barnier's gift to offer it.
On free movement, Stephen again seems to think that EEA offers free movement minus - in between what 'hardline anti-immigration leavers' demand, and 'the seemingly limitless nature of free movement.' It doesn't.
And, again, if restricting it would lead to retaliation that presumably would remove some of the benefits of being in the EEA, then I don't see how this is a solution
On derogations from EU law, my point was simple. Would, eg, the French government be happy to allow a major competitor economy the same freedom as it grants Iceland? I suspect not - cf level playing field debates over WA
On whether they want us, he makes a fair point about the quote I use. But there are genuine concerns among EEA officials about what UK joining would mean. All the more so because the fact we want CU as well would deprive them of one of the major benefits of having us.
And of course - the bottom line here - we won't really know what is on the table until we start negotiating after we leave. We can promise what we like now, but without being sure it's on offer. What is on offer will depend on the Govt here that negotiates it and the EU posn
So ultimately, Brexit will be blind to a significant extent, whatever the PD hints at. Which means the choice is: take the plunge and pass the WA without pretending the future is negotiated and agreed, leave with no deal, or remain.
