Mrs May, Hero of the Brexiters.

[Flexo]

For me Brexit means full separation. EEC membership is not Brexit. EFTA membership on the right terms might be.

 

There's a lot to work through on the EFTA option: Norway may block UK return to European Free Trade Association

 

Norway could block any UK attempt to rejoin the European Free Trade Association, the small club of nations that has access to the European single market without being part of the EU.

 

One concern is that Norway, through Efta, has signed trade agreements with 38 countries, including Mexico, Canada, Colombia, Morocco, Kuwait and Qatar. If the UK joined, those trade agreements might have to be renegotiated and future trade deals would become more complex.

 

During the UK referendum campaign, Norwegian government members, including the prime minister, Erna Solberg, repeatedly urged British voters not to follow the Norway example, saying: “Do not leave the EU, you will hate it.”

 

The largely pro-EU political class in Norway argue that the high price for access to the single market is a loss of sovereignty, since the country is bound by EU decisions without having a vote on how they are taken.

 

By opposing a British return to Efta, where decisions are made by consensus, Norway would in effect block the UK’s chances of accessing the single market via the EEA, since only EU and Efta members can be part of the EEA.

 

This all sounds horribly complicated and therefore likely to take many months or years to work out. Yet Teresa May will start the 2-year clock ticking from the New Year?

 

Shouldn't this have all been worked out before the referendum so that everyone understands just what the proposal actually is?

[unbeliever]

There's a lot to work through on the EFTA option: Norway may block UK return to European Free Trade Association

 

Norway could block any UK attempt to rejoin the European Free Trade Association, the small club of nations that has access to the European single market without being part of the EU.

 

One concern is that Norway, through Efta, has signed trade agreements with 38 countries, including Mexico, Canada, Colombia, Morocco, Kuwait and Qatar. If the UK joined, those trade agreements might have to be renegotiated and future trade deals would become more complex.

 

During the UK referendum campaign, Norwegian government members, including the prime minister, Erna Solberg, repeatedly urged British voters not to follow the Norway example, saying: “Do not leave the EU, you will hate it.”

 

The largely pro-EU political class in Norway argue that the high price for access to the single market is a loss of sovereignty, since the country is bound by EU decisions without having a vote on how they are taken.

 

By opposing a British return to Efta, where decisions are made by consensus, Norway would in effect block the UK’s chances of accessing the single market via the EEA, since only EU and Efta members can be part of the EEA.

 

This all sounds horribly complicated and therefore likely to take many months or years to work out. Yet Teresa May will start the 2-year clock ticking from the New Year?

 

Shouldn't this have all been worked out before the referendum so that everyone understands just what the proposal actually is?

 

It should have indeed been arranged before the referendum. The pro-remain government decided not to do so and the opposition seemed happy with that.

Again. It's not access. You're describing single market membership.

[Gamston]

I hear Mrs May on the radio to-day re-stating that Brexit will be Brexit, nothing more nothing less. I think she was firing a shot across the bows of the moaning half wits who want another vote on the in/out referendum. Thankfully she is standing by her guns, but I wish she would invoke article 50 and set in stone our decision to leave the corrupt and failed institution that is/was the EU.

 

Angel1.

I agree Article 50 should now be invoked. Mrs May will respect the wishes of British voters and the UK will leave the EU. During Mrs May's time as Home Secretary she managed to remove a number of high profile Muslim terrorists from our shores which previous Home Secretaries failed to do, which implies to me she is determined to achieve goals.

 

My only concern is that parasite lawyers will fleece honest UK taxpayer and will invent problems to attempt to justify their extortionate fees.

[Flexo]

Again. It's not access. You're describing single market membership.

 

I was wondering about your proposal of EFTA membership. If that's not your proposal, what is precisely?

 

Ta

[999tigger]

Only about 7% of UK businesses trade with the EU. Bilateral agreements can smooth this without surrender of sovereignty.

I'm looking for something closer to option B. But the arrangement will likely be Swiss-style. A set of bilateral agreements rather than simple membership of a scheme.

There's a massive EU trade surplus with the UK which they'll want to protect.

 

Nice number, but they do happen to be the biggest businesses and not the local kebab shop who earn important foreigh currency and employ tens of thousands of people.

 

You cant do bilateral agreements about access to the market becayse the EU is a trading block. What do you think all the kerfuffle was about Ireland and Apple. If you want access to the single market as a member then you have to reach some sort of agreement with the EU as a whole. You cna try and negotiate limited access for certain sorts of businesses, which is what they might try and do, but that has more to do with pauing a reduced contribution.

 

The swiss are currently in a big pickle at the moment because they are being told they have to accept free movement and if not they will be denied single market access.

They have much higher level of immigration than we do.

 

It doesnt benefit either side if we both lose out on trade, but it matters more to us as a % of our trade than it does to the EU as a % of theirs.

 

Its very complicated, they dont have a clear plan yet, so its poointless activating article 50 until we do although may Brexiters would love to even though that would be to the detriment of the UK in being able to negotiate an effective exit.

[Dardandec]

Shouldn't this have all been worked out before the referendum so that everyone understands just what the proposal actually is?

 

That would have been a silly way to do it. Best way would have been to lie in some sort of campaign, get out of Europe and then try and wing it. Oh hang on....

[unbeliever]

My ideal solution would be a literal free trade agreement. i.e. an agreement not to apply tariffs.

 

 

I'm quite bored of the whole matter now, so I suggest that we send the article 50 letter, immediately repeal the 1972 European Communities Act and then dare them to introduce tariffs or other barriers and start a pointless trade war in the run up to the French and German national elections.

Edited August 31, 2016 by unbeliever

[I1L2T3]

And here we go again.

 

Where's the recession I ask? (not for the first time):

1) It's already here and we haven't noticed yet.

2) It will come after the article 50 activation.

3) It will come after Brexit completes

 

 

All of those

[999tigger]

My ideal solution would be a literal free trade agreement. i.e. an agreement not to apply tariffs.

 

Its a bit more complicated than that especially when you talk about financial services because you have the issue of regulation. Its not just tariffs as I pointed out.

 

 

The only examples we have so far are really the deal Norway and Switzerland negotiated.

 

Access to free market via EFTA means paying a contribution to the EU and free movement of people. The EU funnily enough is resistant to letting he UK cherry pick, especially because it needs to show other countries that if you leave then you cnat expect to negotiate all the benefits without responsibilities.

[I1L2T3]

 

Nor was the £350m/week headline the whole of the story, but it seems that attacking the headline is fair game in this thread.

 

It's absolutely fair game because it was a very specific pledge/promise/suggestion.

 

Nobody was promising a war or suggesting one, just pointing out the (very real) dangers of Europe becoming less united.