It has been a relief to many of us that the Prime Minister’s awful Brexit deal was defeated decisively in the Commons. But the question on everyone’s lips is, what now? In a desperate attempt to find a pragmatic way forward, an increasing number of MPs are looking towards ‘the Norway model.’ This would see the UK join the European Economic Area (EEA), currently consisting of Norway, Iceland and Lichtenstein. With the country so conflicted it is tempting to view this option as a middle way; a classic British compromise. But nothing could be further from the truth.
There are many reasons why people voted to Leave the EU, not least of which was it gave people an opportunity to kick back against a government that had inflicted crushing austerity and cuts to public services. But the popular reasons are often listed as concerns about migration, resistance to making payments to the EU, and a feeling that we were losing sovereignty. The Norway option exacerbates all of these concerns.
Norway is bound by many of the laws that I and my fellow MEPs work on in the European Parliament, but without any influence over their content. So, being a member of the EEA without full EU membership is a serious and significant loss of sovereignty.
An EEA arrangement would also mean accepting freedom of movement of people. This is a principle I will always vigorously defend, but it is not something that will satisfy many leave voters who believed Brexit would mean we would gain ‘control of our borders’. Proponents of this model point to an ‘emergency brake’ on free movement that can be applied where there are ‘serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties’ but in reality this has only ever been used by the micro-state of Liechtenstein.
When it comes to payments to the EU, Norway is required to pay about the same amount as the UK currently pays simply in order to access EU laws – that are determined for them not by them – and the single market.
Entering an EEA relationship, assuming other members would accept us, which is not certain at all, would mean we continue to argue about our relationship with the EU for years to come. In addition, only the Withdrawal Agreement is legally binding and our future relationship with the EU remains open, so there can be no legal certainty that future parliaments wont renege on the EEA route.
Given the failure of an EEA-style deal to meet the promises made in June 2016, such an arrangement should not be agreed without another public vote. Indeed, it is clear that it would not be democratically acceptable to agree the loss of sovereignty involved in such a proposal without consulting the people through a People’s Vote. And when it comes to a People’s Vote, we must also be allowed to choose the option which is the best deal of all, the one we currently have as members of the EU.
Molly Scott Cato is Green MEP for the South West
24 January 2019
