On Sun, 17 Jul 2016 15:01:24 -0000 (UTC), Anna Noyd-Dryver
put finger to keyboard and typed:

Mark Goodge wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jul 2016 20:20:09 -0000 (UTC), bob put finger
to keyboard and typed:

Mark Goodge wrote:

In real life, I think it's likely we will end up as members of EFTA. The
benefits are useful, and the downsides of belonging are minimal (membership
carries far fewer obligations than EU membership). Whether we then go for
EEA membership will depend, I think, on whether or not we can negotiate a
suitable set of Swiss-style bilateral treaties with the EU or whether the
only way to get what we want is to join the EEA.

The difficulty is both EEA and EFTA involve paying money to the EU and
accepting free movement of people. An awful lot of people who voted "leave"
we're under the impression these were the things they were voting to get
rid of, and will be pretty miffed if they are retained.

EEA membership requires acceptance of the "four freedoms", including
freedom of movement, across the whole of EFTA and the EU. EFTA membership
alone doesn't. Switzerland has a bilateral treaty with the EU which
includes freedom of movement, but it would be possible not to have it.


The Swiss voted to restrict freedom of movement two years ago but haven't
yet found a way to implement it.

Indeed; they can't do that without renegotiating the treaties which include
it, because if they simply impose it then the treaties become invalid. That
doesn't mean it's impossible, simply that the other benefits of the treties
that would be lost are too important to simply give up on.

If we want the same benefits then we, too, would almost certainly need to
accept freedom of movement, either via EEA membership or a bilateral
treaty. But it's not entirely implausible that the UK, being a considerably
larger, richer and more populous country than Switzerland, can either do
without if that's what it takes, or negotiate a better deal to begin with.

Mark
--
Insert random witticism here
http://www.markgoodge.com