Richard W wrote:Shifting to EEA status actually is compatible with limiting EEA immigration. The model is not Norway, but Liechtenstein, and I've seen a UKIP paper on it. (Perhaps Secret Simon can find it - I can't.)
I hope that you are not suggesting that I am a UKIPer, though I do like the occasional kipper for breakfast.
I could not find a document
per se, but there is
a website that seems to broadly restate the point that
RichardW is making.
Once one gets over the shock of Brexit, one realises that there are fifty shades of grey...eerr, alternatives to both full EU membership and EFTA-EEA membership (which itself contains two distinct formulations; Norway and Switzerland).
a) Turkey - I believe that German officials are looking at something like an "associate state" status on the lines of Turkey. That would include membership of the Customs Zone, allowing free movement of goods, but not of services or people. However, given that most of our economy is service-based, this alternative may not suit us too well. Also, this status is usually given to countries acceding to the EU, not those leaving it.
b) Denmark - Denmark is also a realm of multiple nations; continental Denmark, the Faroe Islands and Greenland. And each part of Denmark has a different status with the EU. Continental Denmark is a full member of the EU, with some optouts, just like the UK. Conversely, the Faroe Islands have never been a part of the EEC/EU. Greenland joined with continental Denmark in 1973 (with the UK), but withdrew in 1985 (after a referendum). Greenland is currently the only precedent of a nation withdrawing from the EEC (as then). Greenland changed from being a part of the EEC to being an OCT (Overseas Countries and Territories) of the EEC/EU, which gives it freedom in many aspects, but it is still subject to some EEA law.
The Danish model would suit the UK particularly well, with Scotland and Northern Ireland getting a distinct status in the EU without leaving the UK. As a great person on these forums said, there is more than one way to skin a cat (though that could lead to trouble with the RSPCA).
There is already a somewhat similar solution right next door, where the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man are not full members of the EU, but are associated with the UK with regards to some aspects of EU law. They can also require permits for EEA citizens. Channel Island citizens are full British citizens, but not citizens of the European Union.
So, it is possible to have a range of different statuses in the EU, not just in, EFTA or out.
c) Freedom of movement regulations realier in time: As
Richard W had covered in a different post, before 1992, freedom of movement was restricted to workers. I believe (I could be wrong) work permits (equivalent to the T2G visas) were issued to EEA citizens on providing proof that they had a job offer in the UK. They could come to the UK with their family (the Surinder Singh case is from 1992), but it did not give an independent right to settle down. Settlement would be under the then UK Immigration Rules.
Between 2000 and 2006, a similar situation existed, where there was freedom of movement in the modern sense (you could arrive without a job offer), but settlement was governed by national laws, not EU law.
Now this is not exactly as interesting as Fifty Shades of Grey, but one can see that it is not as straightforward as in or out of the EU. There are alternatives that the government can discuss and negotiate with the EU.
It is interesting to observe the difference in attitude between the EU Commission and the heads of government of the Member States. To clarify, the EU Commission is effectively the head of the EU Civil Service. It is composed of one commissioner appointed by each member-state for a period of five years and who are now vetted by the European Parliament. They have fixed terms and are, in a sense, loyal to the EU rather to their member state. Only they have the power to propose legislation. They are not subject to public pressure or interaction with the public will. In recent days, after the announcement of the referendum, it is worth noting that M. Juncker, President of the Commission is the one that has been driving for the UK to be thrown out of the EU institutions and he is the one pushing for the trigger of Article 50.
By contrast, the heads of government of the Member-States, who interact with their own citizenry and maintain a national perspective have been noticably reticent about pushing for the trigger of Article 50. Germany has suggested that we take some time. Only France is pushing for us to trigger Article 50. The entire pressure for Article 50 is being driven by the French or by the Commission that is immune from public pressure.
Personally, I think that the Prime Minister is right in postponing Article 50. It allows frayed tempers to cool and emotional responses to give way to rational responses. Another reason for delaying invocation of Article 50 is that elections in EU countries would allow the increasingly Eurosceptic public of those countries to elect national governments that will be more favourable to a looser federation and possibly even tighter freedom of movement rules, which is a lesser eveil than a complete breakup of/breakaway from the EU.
Elections coming up;
Spain this weekend
Romania - November 2016
France - May 2017
Germany - August 2017
Italy - February 2018
Austria - September 2018
And these are just the major countries that I looked into. I ignored the Baltic states and the A8+2 states. So, one can see that the efflux of time itself will give us an advantage. So, it makes sense not to trigger Article 50.
Other thoughts
Finally, I find it strange and regrettable that there is such bitterness and rancour expressed by some people on the Remain side that they wish to destroy the UK rather than let it prosper outside the EU. That they are unable to accept that half the country has an opinion opposite to them is ironic when they accuse the other side of beloved. At the end of the day, their vocal hatred of the opposite opinion is, like beloved, a form of hatred. And two opposite hatred don't cancel each other out, they reinforce each other. I am not very conversant with the Bible (or the Quran), but I believe there are passages in both those books that recommend forgiveness and acceptance. Let us start it here, by letting go of the bitterness, turning the other cheek and not retaliating with hatred, but accepting what is and being constructive to
make the best of the situation for everybody.
(Taking off my priestly robes now).
I am not a lawyer or immigration advisor. My statements/comments do not constitute legal advice. E&OE. Please do not PM me for advice.
