Post-referendum options for the UK
Discussion
Firstly, I apologise for creating (yet another) referendum thread but I wanted this to be about the actual next steps rather than talking about the ifs, buts and maybes of what has already happened.
I think that holding a 2nd referendum or a general election on the result of the referendum will not help the country to come back together and instead effort should be put into what should happen next.
As I see it the UK has 3 options:
1. Do nothing. Ignore the referendum and continue as an EU member state. The referendum isn't legally binding on the Government but I think that this is the worst possible option as it will only further deepen the resentment the public have for the "political elite" and will inevitably lead to a similarly unpleasant campaign at the next general election (and beyond).
2. Leave the EU and go it alone. This option satisfies the majority view from the referendum but is the most dramatic in terms of impact on peoples lives and the UK economy. The EU has said that they will agree a trade deal with the UK as a "third country". This wording is important as it means that the EU won't open talks on a trade deal with the UK until after we have left. In addition the trade deal will have to get the unanimous agreement of all EU member states and national and regional parliaments. For example, in order to gain the approval of Belgium it would have to be approved by all 6 of their parliaments, anyone of which could veto the whole thing. It may take many years (even decades) to agree a trade deal and in the intervening period we will have to manage on WTO terms.
3. Leave the EU and rejoin the European Free Trade Association (EFTA). This also meets the majority view from the referendum as the question was 'should the UK remain a member of the EU?' not 'should we leave the single market?'. When the UK joined the EEC they did it in 2 stages. Firstly in 1960 we joined the EFTA which gave us access to the single market and allowed us to manage the transition for countries in the Commonwealth who were reliant on UK trade. We then joined the EEC in 1973. Membership of the EFTA could be used as a stepping stone to a complete exit (as per option 2) or as a compromise that suits us by re-establishing the supremacy of the UK Parliament whilst not burning our bridges with the rest of Europe. The UK would remain inside the single market and outside of the eurozone and schengen. EU law would not surpass UK law. We get UK passports and our ability to move freely within the EU is unaffected. Our contributions could fall as we would no longer pay in based on the size of our economy but instead there is an "EEA and Norway Grant" that contributes to a variety of programs to reduce inequality across the EU. Important to note that this does not apply to countries that joined after the 2004 expansion so is far less extensive than it may sound.
The major point of contention would be the free movement of labour as it remains one of the conditions of EFTA membership. However, I think that after this referendum the EU have no option but to review this unless other member states want to find themselves in the same situation as the UK is in now. It is worth noting that whilst Switzerland is a member of EFTA they have placed some restrictions on the free movement of labour. They have not been expelled for this but have had some access to the single market restricted. Obviously the Swiss feel that the benefit of this outweighs the downside and I don't think it is meant to be a permanent measure but a solution to a temporary problem.
The other downsides are:
We won't have a vote in the EU but I think that we will still be able to influence the EU. Norway thinks they have influence from their EFTA membership and the UK is considerably bigger than Norway (economically).
We will lose access to EU funding (common agricultural policy, grants etc.). Assuming that we can negotiate an appropriate grant contribution to the EU then the money saved on our previous EU contributions can offset this.
TL:DR We should invoke article 50 and exit the EU and rejoin EFTA thus allowing us retain most of the important parts relating to trade and without getting into the unpleasant task of asking EU immigrants to leave and having to re-home expats. We can then look to negotiating trade deals of our own and making a decision in the future as to whether it is worth taking the next step of leaving EFTA.
I think that holding a 2nd referendum or a general election on the result of the referendum will not help the country to come back together and instead effort should be put into what should happen next.
As I see it the UK has 3 options:
1. Do nothing. Ignore the referendum and continue as an EU member state. The referendum isn't legally binding on the Government but I think that this is the worst possible option as it will only further deepen the resentment the public have for the "political elite" and will inevitably lead to a similarly unpleasant campaign at the next general election (and beyond).
2. Leave the EU and go it alone. This option satisfies the majority view from the referendum but is the most dramatic in terms of impact on peoples lives and the UK economy. The EU has said that they will agree a trade deal with the UK as a "third country". This wording is important as it means that the EU won't open talks on a trade deal with the UK until after we have left. In addition the trade deal will have to get the unanimous agreement of all EU member states and national and regional parliaments. For example, in order to gain the approval of Belgium it would have to be approved by all 6 of their parliaments, anyone of which could veto the whole thing. It may take many years (even decades) to agree a trade deal and in the intervening period we will have to manage on WTO terms.
3. Leave the EU and rejoin the European Free Trade Association (EFTA). This also meets the majority view from the referendum as the question was 'should the UK remain a member of the EU?' not 'should we leave the single market?'. When the UK joined the EEC they did it in 2 stages. Firstly in 1960 we joined the EFTA which gave us access to the single market and allowed us to manage the transition for countries in the Commonwealth who were reliant on UK trade. We then joined the EEC in 1973. Membership of the EFTA could be used as a stepping stone to a complete exit (as per option 2) or as a compromise that suits us by re-establishing the supremacy of the UK Parliament whilst not burning our bridges with the rest of Europe. The UK would remain inside the single market and outside of the eurozone and schengen. EU law would not surpass UK law. We get UK passports and our ability to move freely within the EU is unaffected. Our contributions could fall as we would no longer pay in based on the size of our economy but instead there is an "EEA and Norway Grant" that contributes to a variety of programs to reduce inequality across the EU. Important to note that this does not apply to countries that joined after the 2004 expansion so is far less extensive than it may sound.
The major point of contention would be the free movement of labour as it remains one of the conditions of EFTA membership. However, I think that after this referendum the EU have no option but to review this unless other member states want to find themselves in the same situation as the UK is in now. It is worth noting that whilst Switzerland is a member of EFTA they have placed some restrictions on the free movement of labour. They have not been expelled for this but have had some access to the single market restricted. Obviously the Swiss feel that the benefit of this outweighs the downside and I don't think it is meant to be a permanent measure but a solution to a temporary problem.
The other downsides are:
We won't have a vote in the EU but I think that we will still be able to influence the EU. Norway thinks they have influence from their EFTA membership and the UK is considerably bigger than Norway (economically).
We will lose access to EU funding (common agricultural policy, grants etc.). Assuming that we can negotiate an appropriate grant contribution to the EU then the money saved on our previous EU contributions can offset this.
TL:DR We should invoke article 50 and exit the EU and rejoin EFTA thus allowing us retain most of the important parts relating to trade and without getting into the unpleasant task of asking EU immigrants to leave and having to re-home expats. We can then look to negotiating trade deals of our own and making a decision in the future as to whether it is worth taking the next step of leaving EFTA.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff