Among the possible models for a relationship between a newly-independent UK and the EU, the so-called "Norwegian Option" has a number of influential advocates including the columnist Christopher Booker and the researcher and author Dr Richard North. The Freedom Association, whose magazine I edit, recently hosted an event entitled "Why the Norway Option" with Peter Troy giving his reasons why this alternative should be considered.
Norway isn't a member of the EU, but it is part of the European Economic Area. This means it part of the so-called "Single Market." it is therefore required to implement EU legislation in certain trade-related areas, but although it, along with Liechtenstein and Iceland, is consulted in the framing of relevant legislation, it does not have any voting powers. For this reason, supporters of Britain remaining a member of the EU paint the EEA alternative in very negative terms, saying that this would be a worse deal. - "Government by fax" being the favourite phrase. What they fail to point out is that there would be a drastic reduction in the amount of European legislation that would actually apply to Britain, as the EEA does not cover, including Agriculture, Fisheries, Justice and Home Affairs and the EU’s Common Foreign Policy.
There is no doubt that Norway's relationship with the EU is better than full-blown membership, but it has its problems. Firstly, Norway has found itself on a collision course with the European Commission over its plan to charge import duties on a number of items, including cheese. Secondly, and more importantly, membership of the EEA requires participation in the four "freedoms " of the single market, including free movment of people, and herein lies the flaw in the Norway option as far as an alternative to membership for the UK is concerned.
Only this weekend, the Swiss people voted in a referendum to curtail free movment of people from the EU. Switzerland is not a member of the EEA. Its relationship with the EU is governed by a series of treaties, including one which did allow for free movement of people to and from the EU. Some 25% of the current inhabitants of Switzerland are foreign-born, with many of these coming from the EU, and the Swiss people have decied, albeit only by a narrow majority, that enough is enough. Among those who hailed the result was UKIP's leader Nigel Farage, who said, "This is wonderful news for national sovereignty and freedom lovers throughout Europe." He also claimed that if a similar referendum has been held in the UK, the result wold have been an even more decisive vote to end free movment.
I am sure he is right. I would have definitely voted to end free movement of people, as would most people I know. Concern about immigration is one of the main reasons why many people want to see our country leave the EU. But, of course, we can't have a vote on the subject while we're a mamber of the EU, and we wouldn't be able to curtail free movment of people if we chose the Norway Option either. Its advocates believe that it may not be the best deal, but the only alternative that would convince the British electorate to vote to leave, as anything else wold be too scary. Given the result of the Swiss referendum and the very negative noises coming out of Brussels, that argument does appear somewhat less than convincing - indeed, any proposed arrangement between a newly-independent UK and the EU that insisted on the continuation of the free movement of people would actually be more likely to deter people from voting to leave.
Norway isn't a member of the EU, but it is part of the European Economic Area. This means it part of the so-called "Single Market." it is therefore required to implement EU legislation in certain trade-related areas, but although it, along with Liechtenstein and Iceland, is consulted in the framing of relevant legislation, it does not have any voting powers. For this reason, supporters of Britain remaining a member of the EU paint the EEA alternative in very negative terms, saying that this would be a worse deal. - "Government by fax" being the favourite phrase. What they fail to point out is that there would be a drastic reduction in the amount of European legislation that would actually apply to Britain, as the EEA does not cover, including Agriculture, Fisheries, Justice and Home Affairs and the EU’s Common Foreign Policy.
There is no doubt that Norway's relationship with the EU is better than full-blown membership, but it has its problems. Firstly, Norway has found itself on a collision course with the European Commission over its plan to charge import duties on a number of items, including cheese. Secondly, and more importantly, membership of the EEA requires participation in the four "freedoms " of the single market, including free movment of people, and herein lies the flaw in the Norway option as far as an alternative to membership for the UK is concerned.
Only this weekend, the Swiss people voted in a referendum to curtail free movment of people from the EU. Switzerland is not a member of the EEA. Its relationship with the EU is governed by a series of treaties, including one which did allow for free movement of people to and from the EU. Some 25% of the current inhabitants of Switzerland are foreign-born, with many of these coming from the EU, and the Swiss people have decied, albeit only by a narrow majority, that enough is enough. Among those who hailed the result was UKIP's leader Nigel Farage, who said, "This is wonderful news for national sovereignty and freedom lovers throughout Europe." He also claimed that if a similar referendum has been held in the UK, the result wold have been an even more decisive vote to end free movment.
I am sure he is right. I would have definitely voted to end free movement of people, as would most people I know. Concern about immigration is one of the main reasons why many people want to see our country leave the EU. But, of course, we can't have a vote on the subject while we're a mamber of the EU, and we wouldn't be able to curtail free movment of people if we chose the Norway Option either. Its advocates believe that it may not be the best deal, but the only alternative that would convince the British electorate to vote to leave, as anything else wold be too scary. Given the result of the Swiss referendum and the very negative noises coming out of Brussels, that argument does appear somewhat less than convincing - indeed, any proposed arrangement between a newly-independent UK and the EU that insisted on the continuation of the free movement of people would actually be more likely to deter people from voting to leave.