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.
The idea that we park the difficult challenges for a few years, by remaining in the EU in all but name, is for the birds.
In the long-term, we should be pursuing a Canada-style free trade agreement. In the short, we should park ourselves in the EEA.
We prefer Canada Plus Plus Plus. But a question could emerge over the next few months: is it a better option than an unmanageable No Deal – or even no Brexit at all?
In the third piece in our mini-series evaluating the EEA, our columnist wonders how both sides managed to become so hostile to moderate concepts.
In the first of a new mini-series evaluating the EEA, the author of ‘Norway then Canada’ argues the route has been wrongly neglected.
The UK plus EFTA would have a greater GDP than Germany. As one, we would be the largest economy in Europe.
Preparing for no deal ought therefore to be our national priority – cuts in corporate and personal taxes, removal of regulations, openness to global business.
“Showing a combination of angry rhetoric and then irresolution in the talks has been the worst possible combination.”