4 ms·

> No other country or state structure in the world allows its constituent members to carve out only the bits that they themselves like The EU more or less does

> No other country or state structure in the world allows its constituent members to carve out only the bits that they themselves like The EU more or less does exactly that with Norway, a non-EU country with common market access and freedom of movement etc. That was the model I recall being promoted for a UK/EU relationship. They never intended to leave the common market or eschew all regulatory commonality.

kmeisthax 4y ago
Norway was a nonstarter because the UK said they wanted an opt-out for freedom of movement, which is the EU's red line. They do not want market access for only capitalists. If the UK had actually asked for a Norway-style deal they probably would have gotten it. The UK also regularly complains that the EU won't let them opt-out of ECJ jurisdiction in any trade deal negotiations, which is pretty basic as far as a deal goes. US trade deals demand ISDS processes which are arguably worse, and the WTO has its own court jurisdiction for trade disputes under its treaties. All global trade requires an agreement as to who can sue where for what, which means surrendering some sovereignty.
pavlov 4y ago
Norway is a rule-taker that pretty much implements every EU directive but has no say in how they’re made. Britain is too proud to agree to that. It would have been very hard to explain to voters why UK resigned all its influence in the EU but still has to follow all the rules. And anything else meant losing access to the common market. This was explained many times during the Brexit campaign and subsequent years of confusion, but somehow the idea persisted that UK would eventually get an exception that breaks the fundamental design of the common market by allowing one country to produce goods and services that don’t follow the common market’s rules.
malermeister 4y ago
The UK was offered a Norway-style deal, where they kept market access in exchange for following EU rules. They refused, because that would effectively mean they still have to follow all the same rules, but now without any say in how they're decided. But turns out you can't just demand all the benefits of a club without following any of the obligations and now the UK is where it is. People were being sold a lie and they believed it. The optimum relationship with the EU was always the one they already had, membership with a few extra carve-outs.
- I-M-S 4y ago
  Precisely. The UK probably had the best status with the most privileges in the EU, and even that wasn't enough.
rsynnott 4y ago
> They never intended to leave the common market or eschew all regulatory commonality. That is how some people advertised it to yes voters, but from the start May's and then Johnson's government were clear that they would not accept freedom of movement or the jurisdiction of the ECJ (both of which Norway has). And even if the EU was willing to do another Switzerland (unlikely), that _still_ has to accept freedom of movement and, well, something that, while not the ECJ, could easily be mistaken for it in a dark alley.
jlokier 4y ago
A lot of Remainers, myself included, would have been happy enough with a Norway- or Switzerland-style model. And the EU did offer the UK various flavours of "a non-EU country with common market access and freedom of movement etc.", according to the news in the UK at the time. Those were all turned down by the UK government. What you're describing was called by many a "soft Brexit". As you may recall, there were many voices demanding a "hard Brexit" instead. In the end, the hard-Brexiters won by political strategy. I don't think they were even in the majority. So I don't think it can be said correctly that "they never intended to leave the common market". The UK wanted some trade benefits of the common market, but they also wanted something they could sell politically as a "hard Brexit". That meant a lot of things had to be seen to be changed, and also it required "freedom of movement will end" - that is, the UK in the end insisted that it be nothing like the Norway or Switzerland models.

kmeisthax 4y ago

Norway was a nonstarter because the UK said they wanted an opt-out for freedom of movement, which is the EU's red line. They do not want market access for only capitalists. If the UK had actually asked for a Norway-style deal they probably would have gotten it. The UK also regularly complains that the EU won't let them opt-out of ECJ jurisdiction in any trade deal negotiations, which is pretty basic as far as a deal goes. US trade deals demand ISDS processes which are arguably worse, and the WTO has its own court jurisdiction for trade disputes under its treaties. All global trade requires an agreement as to who can sue where for what, which means surrendering some sovereignty.

pavlov 4y ago

Norway is a rule-taker that pretty much implements every EU directive but has no say in how they’re made. Britain is too proud to agree to that. It would have been very hard to explain to voters why UK resigned all its influence in the EU but still has to follow all the rules. And anything else meant losing access to the common market. This was explained many times during the Brexit campaign and subsequent years of confusion, but somehow the idea persisted that UK would eventually get an exception that breaks the fundamental design of the common market by allowing one country to produce goods and services that don’t follow the common market’s rules.

malermeister 4y ago

The UK was offered a Norway-style deal, where they kept market access in exchange for following EU rules. They refused, because that would effectively mean they still have to follow all the same rules, but now without any say in how they're decided. But turns out you can't just demand all the benefits of a club without following any of the obligations and now the UK is where it is. People were being sold a lie and they believed it. The optimum relationship with the EU was always the one they already had, membership with a few extra carve-outs.

I-M-S 4y ago
Precisely. The UK probably had the best status with the most privileges in the EU, and even that wasn't enough.

rsynnott 4y ago

> They never intended to leave the common market or eschew all regulatory commonality. That is how some people advertised it to yes voters, but from the start May's and then Johnson's government were clear that they would not accept freedom of movement or the jurisdiction of the ECJ (both of which Norway has). And even if the EU was willing to do another Switzerland (unlikely), that _still_ has to accept freedom of movement and, well, something that, while not the ECJ, could easily be mistaken for it in a dark alley.

jlokier 4y ago

A lot of Remainers, myself included, would have been happy enough with a Norway- or Switzerland-style model. And the EU did offer the UK various flavours of "a non-EU country with common market access and freedom of movement etc.", according to the news in the UK at the time. Those were all turned down by the UK government. What you're describing was called by many a "soft Brexit". As you may recall, there were many voices demanding a "hard Brexit" instead. In the end, the hard-Brexiters won by political strategy. I don't think they were even in the majority. So I don't think it can be said correctly that "they never intended to leave the common market". The UK wanted some trade benefits of the common market, but they also wanted something they could sell politically as a "hard Brexit". That meant a lot of things had to be seen to be changed, and also it required "freedom of movement will end" - that is, the UK in the end insisted that it be nothing like the Norway or Switzerland models.