It amounts to wishful thinking, not a workable, sustainable answer. And it’s not as easy to implement as some of its advocates make out.
It would be swift, fair and democratic solution to this sorry saga, allowing us to get back to meeting the challenges that helped fuelled the Brexit vote in the first place.
“The EU may do that deal, it may not – either way, Britain is not in a position to deliver any further compromises.”
Plus: We must be the Party for social housing as well as home ownership. And: why don’t we trumpet our history of social reform?
The plan is not perfect. It is a compromise. But as its popularity grows, it has attracted some unfair and inaccurate criticism.
Norway-to-Canada was one thing. Norway-plus-the-backstop is another. It is inferior even to the Prime Minister’s proposed deal.
If all this is correct, the EEA route seems to me a sensible way forward if Parliament can’t agree on a deal.
Instead of leaving the Customs Union but retaining chunks of the Single Market – we shall end up staying in the Customs Union but leaving most of the Single Market.
Cowardice and lack of vision have brought us to this pass – facing all the costs and obligations of EU membership, but with no voice, no vote and no veto.
“There’s still time to pull out of this nosedive, but only if we’re prepared to put aside the partisanship and concentrate on the national interest.”
A response to Jean-Claude Piris and others who argue that the idea simply won’t fly.
Frankly, any outcome – no deal, Norway, Canada, even the risk of a second referendum – would be better than what is currently on the table.
Whitehall’s touted model is inherently flawed. It was ruled out during the referendum and by the Conservative manifesto.
The former Foreign Secretary says May’s team are inexperienced in EU negotiations and are “pushing out disinformation”.
There is no Commons majority for no deal, for a Canada deal mark two, or at the moment for a second referendum. But there is a majority for EFTA/EEA.