4 ms·

> That's a bit of a misrepresentation, because those "successful non-members" are members of the single market, which is currently something that the UK is acti

> That's a bit of a misrepresentation, because those "successful non-members" are members of the single market, which is currently something that the UK is actively trying to leave. The UK is trying to leave the EU and stay in the single market. The EU is trying to deny the UK access to the single market.

pjc50 8y ago
The UK has the option of staying in the single market .. if it accepts freedom of movement. This is the "Norway" option everyone keeps talking about.
- rst 8y ago
  The UK had the Norway option, if they'd adopted it as an initial negotiating position -- but it involves agreeing to more than freedom of movement; there are also ECJ rulings and restrictions on external trade agreements. And it's far from clear that the EU27, having been through a fairly torturous negotiation, would have the patience to effectively restart from scratch. (They've signaled willingness to extend the Article 50 deadline for a referendum or election, but not in any other circumstance, and repeatedly stated that the current deal is not now open to renegotiation.) Might also be interesting to have the view of an actual Norwegian on the Norway option, and how Britain is managing the process generally. She's not the only person on the continent who regards British politicians as malcontented fools who, at this point, deserve whatever they get: https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status/1071078003780870146 https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status/1071078003780870146
matthewmacleod 8y ago
No, the UK is not planning or attempting to stay in the single market. That is not government policy, it is not the basis of the withdrawal agreement, and it is not even the policy of the opposition.
- repolfx 8y ago
  It was the original proposal. Rewind the clock to the start of 2016 and there were leave campaigners and prominent remainer politicians both suggesting that. The UK is not actually attempting to terminate all economic and cultural collaboration with the rest of Europe. Nobody is talking about it anymore because the EU refused point blank to even contemplate it and stated very loudly and clearly they'd rather die than ever allow such "cherry picking". Note the terminology - the quality of EU governance is very low and the lack of imposed trading barriers is the primary incentive (an artificial incentive!) that countries see for putting up with it. So that idea got dropped. In fact at this point it's clear that there's no way to retain any form of cooperation with EU countries at all, on anything, without accepting ALL the EU's terms, which are unacceptable as they amount to not leaving at all. This is a bad approach for the EU to take. Its supporters like to pretend this position is some sort of natural law or inevitability, but it's not. The EU could easily disconnect trade deals and customs unions from the other aspects of its project, but chooses not to, because they know that most people outside France and Germany would not accept transfers of all powers to Brussels without some serious incentives to do so.
  - matthewmacleod 8y ago
    I don’t share your view of this. First off, you can disregard any statements made by Leave campaigners during the referendum campaign. The same people who are now advocating a “cut all ties” approach were the ones who were saying things like “nobody is talking about leaving the single market”. Looking for ideological consistency is a dead end. Second, the UK and campaigners should have been well aware of what would be required if the UK wished to retain single-market membership. Those are foundational principles of the EU. There’s no ambiguity there. Anybody who advocated a position that wasn’t reconcilable with those principles was either ignorant or lying. Third, you are deliberately misrepresenting the nature and state of the EU and it’s negotiating position. There are a clear number of different forms the UK’s relationship with the EU could take. The UK could end up in an EEA-style relationship, being single market participants but with more freedom in some areas. Or the UK could have a more distant relationship and remain within the European customs union. Or a border could have been instituted in the Irish Sea. Or a generally more distant relationship could have been negotiated in good faith. These scenarios were obvious and known, made clear by the EU, and it’s a monumental failure of governance that the UK failed to understand their negotiating position. The EU has little incentive to change its underlying principles to reflect the demands of the UK, and expecting them to do so is obviously fantasy mismanagement. I’ll tell you what the actual problem is - Brexit is a project with no real shape or form, into which people can pour their own fantasies. It is totally legitimate for a country to decide it no longer wishes to be a member, but to disentangle a close relationship like that requires clarity about what you want to achieve and why you want to do it, as well as honesty about what is possible and what it will cost. Honesty and clarity are both in short supply.
JAlexoid 8y ago
"Single market" includes the free movement of people. Norway is in the single market, Turkey is in customs union. UK government has been trying to reframe this into an FTA, which it isn't. There's also Good Friday Agreement... that is an international treaty.

pjc50 8y ago

The UK has the option of staying in the single market .. if it accepts freedom of movement. This is the "Norway" option everyone keeps talking about.

rst 8y ago
The UK had the Norway option, if they'd adopted it as an initial negotiating position -- but it involves agreeing to more than freedom of movement; there are also ECJ rulings and restrictions on external trade agreements. And it's far from clear that the EU27, having been through a fairly torturous negotiation, would have the patience to effectively restart from scratch. (They've signaled willingness to extend the Article 50 deadline for a referendum or election, but not in any other circumstance, and repeatedly stated that the current deal is not now open to renegotiation.) Might also be interesting to have the view of an actual Norwegian on the Norway option, and how Britain is managing the process generally. She's not the only person on the continent who regards British politicians as malcontented fools who, at this point, deserve whatever they get: https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status/1071078003780870146 https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status/1071078003780870146

matthewmacleod 8y ago

No, the UK is not planning or attempting to stay in the single market. That is not government policy, it is not the basis of the withdrawal agreement, and it is not even the policy of the opposition.

repolfx 8y ago
It was the original proposal. Rewind the clock to the start of 2016 and there were leave campaigners and prominent remainer politicians both suggesting that. The UK is not actually attempting to terminate all economic and cultural collaboration with the rest of Europe. Nobody is talking about it anymore because the EU refused point blank to even contemplate it and stated very loudly and clearly they'd rather die than ever allow such "cherry picking". Note the terminology - the quality of EU governance is very low and the lack of imposed trading barriers is the primary incentive (an artificial incentive!) that countries see for putting up with it. So that idea got dropped. In fact at this point it's clear that there's no way to retain any form of cooperation with EU countries at all, on anything, without accepting ALL the EU's terms, which are unacceptable as they amount to not leaving at all. This is a bad approach for the EU to take. Its supporters like to pretend this position is some sort of natural law or inevitability, but it's not. The EU could easily disconnect trade deals and customs unions from the other aspects of its project, but chooses not to, because they know that most people outside France and Germany would not accept transfers of all powers to Brussels without some serious incentives to do so.
- matthewmacleod 8y ago
  I don’t share your view of this. First off, you can disregard any statements made by Leave campaigners during the referendum campaign. The same people who are now advocating a “cut all ties” approach were the ones who were saying things like “nobody is talking about leaving the single market”. Looking for ideological consistency is a dead end. Second, the UK and campaigners should have been well aware of what would be required if the UK wished to retain single-market membership. Those are foundational principles of the EU. There’s no ambiguity there. Anybody who advocated a position that wasn’t reconcilable with those principles was either ignorant or lying. Third, you are deliberately misrepresenting the nature and state of the EU and it’s negotiating position. There are a clear number of different forms the UK’s relationship with the EU could take. The UK could end up in an EEA-style relationship, being single market participants but with more freedom in some areas. Or the UK could have a more distant relationship and remain within the European customs union. Or a border could have been instituted in the Irish Sea. Or a generally more distant relationship could have been negotiated in good faith. These scenarios were obvious and known, made clear by the EU, and it’s a monumental failure of governance that the UK failed to understand their negotiating position. The EU has little incentive to change its underlying principles to reflect the demands of the UK, and expecting them to do so is obviously fantasy mismanagement. I’ll tell you what the actual problem is - Brexit is a project with no real shape or form, into which people can pour their own fantasies. It is totally legitimate for a country to decide it no longer wishes to be a member, but to disentangle a close relationship like that requires clarity about what you want to achieve and why you want to do it, as well as honesty about what is possible and what it will cost. Honesty and clarity are both in short supply.

JAlexoid 8y ago

"Single market" includes the free movement of people. Norway is in the single market, Turkey is in customs union. UK government has been trying to reframe this into an FTA, which it isn't. There's also Good Friday Agreement... that is an international treaty.