There was only ever one solution to Brexit. I often talk what what you might term bollocks; I’d merely call it nonsense. But in 2016 I made two good calls: that Parliament would obstruct Brexit and the best way forward was to join the European Economic Area (EEA).
A former Prime Minister of Iceland, David Gunnlaugsson, makes a compelling case for the UK becoming a temporary EEA member in last week’s Spectator. Iceland withdrew its application for EU membership in 2015 but retained its EEA membership. He explains what happened.
“Soon Iceland had the highest GDP growth rate of any developed country. We saw the sharpest fall in government debt achieved by any nation in modern history. Unemployment shrank and, at the same time, we invested heavily in healthcare and other essential services. Yet the methods we used to bring this remarkable transformation about would not have been possible had we joined th EU and adopted the euro and become bound by EU regulations. Had we done so, our fate would very likely instead have resembled that of Greece.”
If there is a flaw it is that Iceland has a different economic model to the UK and, like Ireland, has a more cohesive society.
Last year I asked Dominic Grieve why he did not support joining the EEA. His answer was that it’s too late and anyway they wouldn’t have us. It is probably too late to join by the end of October. If we had chosen this route earlier, David Gunnlaughsson points out the advantages:
- Retaining free trade with the EU.
- Able to make new free trade agreements internationally.
- A smooth transition instead of a cliff-edge Brexit.
- Guaranteed citizens’ rights.
- Uninterrupted continuity in trade in goods, services and capital.
- No hard border in Ireland; like Sweden (EU) and Norway (EEA), Germany (EU) and Switzerland (EEA).
- EEA rules allow the UK control of its fisheries.
The UK would have to implement some EU regulations. Iceland implemented 13% per year over twenty years. There would be issues over agriculture; but it sounds a good deal to me. One that honours the outcome of the referendum but does not destroy the UK economy. One that returns sovereignty to the UK. It is hard to forgive politicians on both sides of the debate from swerving this sensible compromise which of course doesn’t need to be permanent. But it’s too late now …
Are you entirely correct in saying that there is no trace of a hard border between Sweden and Norway? Travelling from Trondheim to the soon to be closed Favikken foodie destination, all the paraphernalia of a border was in place but with no guards in sight that day. There is free movement of people although the border posts have been manned in recent years to control non eu migrants. Goods though do need paper work which is occasionally checked. People wanting to cause trouble might suggest this is a hard border.
The notion that the UK would chose to join the EEA runs counter to the belief that when Britain leaves the EU the country will regain “control of our borders and of our laws.” However, EEA countries must permit freedom of movement of citizens from EU member states, make financial contribution to EU institutions and adhere to rulings by the European Court of Justice. Given the “leavers” present position, joining the EEC would be a betrayal of the results of the referendum.