Other European countries not in the EU have none of the privileges the Leave campaign says it can secure
If the UK votes to leave the EU, it will be the first member state to have done so in the history of the union. This is why it is difficult to predict the implications for trade, economy and the future tone of relations with the EU.
Because there is no precedent, Eurosceptic ministers have often cited Norway as being a model of Britain’s possible post-Brexit future, with all the benefits of a close relationship with the EU but none of the bureaucracy or ‘red tape’ forced on members.
If the UK withdraws, it will be just the start of negotiations, as member states would have to decide whether the UK can remain part of the European Economic Area (EEA). Norway, along with Iceland and Liechtenstein, is part of the EEA without being part of the EU. This means:
- It still has to comply with European rules on free movement. The EU has repeatedly made clear that full integration into these laws are the price Norway must pay for access to the single market. Norway has a much higher level of immigration proportional to its population than the UK (it is also a member of the Schengen area).
- Continued access to the single market (which many advocating Leave insist Britain would still have) means that Norway still has to comply with EU’s product standards, financial regulations, employment regulations, and substantial contributions to the EU budget. The difference is, it plays no part in writing those regulations.
- It still has to pay. Norway pays around €656m to the EU; OpenEurope has calculated that Norwegians pay about €32 less per capita to the EU than Brits.
If the UK stays in the EEA, there is no reason to think that the UK would get a better deal than Norway has currently. On the other hand, if it leaves the EEA, the UK would have to negotiate multiple trade arrangements in a process that would be hugely costly and risky.
Switzerland is not a part of the EEA but negotiates instead through the European Free Trade Area (EFTA) which means it has more than 120 bilateral agreements. It is also still bound by many EU rules and regulations, although its refusal to integrate some of these has in recent months led to a ‘formal cooling’ of relations with the EU – ‘bilateral relations have been severely strained since the February 2014 anti-immigration initiative, the outcome of which called into question the principles of free movement and the single market that underpin those relations.’
The UK cannot, whatever the Leave campaign would have us believe, have its cake and eat it. As the Norwegian and Swiss examples show, no other country can either.
There is no reason to believe that the UK, if it rejects deals already offering special treatment, would be entitled to further privileges; in fact, it’s likely to be quite the opposite.
Ruby Stockham is a staff writer at Left Foot Forward
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
10 Responses to “The UK cannot have its cake and eat it”
Steve
Interesting piece – you might also enjoy this on why Brexit would weaken the UK’s relations with America and Commonwealth countries http://youth4inuk.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/britain-doesnt-have-to-choose-between.html
Jimmy Glesga
We do not require special treatment we should just leave and trade as normal.
Adam
have found Norway’s a very good campaign line. People’s idea of leaving the EU is often shaped by fanciful rhetoric. When the truth is we either lose access to the EEC (which makes up the majority of our exports), or have to pay in, abide by their rules, and allow free movement without a vote, leaving sounds a little pointless.
Lamia
It still has to comply with European rules on free movement. The EU has repeatedly made clear that full integration into these laws are the price Norway must pay for access to the single market. Norway has a much higher level of immigration proportional to its population than the UK (it is also a member of the Schengen area).
You are mistaken, and the reason for this is in the final part of your claim. Norway chose to be part of the Schengen area. The Schengen area specifically enables no borders among member states. That’s the point of it. The UK is not and would not be a member of the Schengen area.
The UK will get the best deal it can, and so will the countries negotiating with it. That’s how business works. The UK is the fifth largest economy in the world, and has plenty of other things going for it. It may not be plain sailing, but in the long run we will manage.
A club that tries to threaten its members into staying is not worth being part of.
Chester Draws
To show that it is worth being in the EU you need to show the benefits. The UK won’t get a better deal than Norway or Switzerland, that is true. Yet those two seem to being quite well — better than most of the EU — and are in no hurry to join. If being in is so good, why don’t they join?
In Switzerland’s case the answer is simple: the Swiss value their sovereignty above all else. They are prepared to pay a little bit for that privilege. And the “Leave” campaign argues the same thing — sovereignty is worth more than a few trade advantages.