Latest from UKIP Daily

EU referendum: EFTA Swiss or EFTA Norway

Vote to Leave
What alternative to the current EU or a pro-EU renegotiated choice, would win the ‘Leave’ vote?

Following on from the previous article, and looking at the EFTA/EEA Norway option, as a possible winning choice

Since the UK is already in the EEA/Single Market, switching to EFTA/EEA is simple as there are already 2 treaties, the EU treaty and the EEA treaty. The EU treaty could be swapped with the EFTA Convention – in a week of a referendum win. Easy. Similar to when Britain came out of the ERM in the early ‘90s and the economy took off.

There are powerpoint presentations that people can see for themselves:

There is also another EEA seminar coming up in Brussels in the EFTA offices:

There is considerable restoration of self-government:

  • Agriculture
  • Fisheries
  • Home Affairs, no EAW
  • Justice, no ECJ
  • No EU taxes or bailing out of other EU countries
  • Freedom to make Free Trade Agreements with other countries
  • Sitting on world organizations and speaking and voting
  • Less financial contributions, billions savings, over 3 billion a year
  • Only the 4,500 EEA regulations apply, the 15,000 EU regulations can be amended or repealed
  • – veto of EEA regulations
  • Use of article 112 for ‘unilateral measures’ e.g. Liechtenstein, special provisions on immigration:

special solution page 36:

  • The EFTA Convention of 30 pages:

  • The EEA agreement:

a good start.

Some ideas for using article 112, that UK voters and other countries might also feel beneficial:

– new eastern Europeans can only get 1 year working visas, with no children, and a points system for skills based for longer time

– other EEA countries new immigrants can have free movement as long as their unemployment is below 7%, otherwise only a 1 year working visa, points system for longer

– if UK unemployment is over 7%, then all new EEA countries immigrants can only have 1 year working visa, points system for longer

– people from outside the EEA who acquire EEA passports e.g. a Russian getting a Malta passport, could have a 1 year working visas, with point system for staying longer

– the first year of being in the UK, new immigrants could not claim any benefits, then for next 2 years, they can claim benefits, comparing the UK and the country of origin benefits, and receiving whichever is the lowest

– EEA people with previous serious criminal offences – i.e. not parking or speeding fines – are barred from entering the UK

– anyone wishing to buy a new residential property, EEA or from around the world, would need to live in the UK for at least 5 years continuously, for at least 7 months of the year

All the above could be implemented within weeks of a referendum.

Currently there are around 150 MPs in the House of Commons who are pro-democracy, with the others pro-EU or renegotiation.

With a sizable win, it will be easier to implement EFTA/EEA and using article 112, with momentum for referendums in northern Europe, and moving the centre of gravity in Europe to democracy.

What has Britain’s role been in Europe over more than 200 years? A. Helping restore self-government to European countries. Other countries that could be able to win an EFTA/EEA referendum: Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Austria and the Netherlands.

Strategy – choosing battles to win and so win the war

Tactics – organising resources to win battles

Our core vote of 30% will vote for self-government. Let’s engage the 40% who want something simpler renegotiated, since the pro-EU will be doing the same. Then be open to having a second referendum on more self-government.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
About Hugo van Randwyck (41 Articles)
Hugo van Randwyck has been researching fast track options for self-government, via EFTA options, including opinion polls. He has business experience in change management and management training.

4 Comments on EU referendum: EFTA Swiss or EFTA Norway

  1. Unfortunately, we can’t use Article 112 to curb immigration, except in very special ‘extr-ordinary’ circumstances as a safeguard, and even then it’s subject to approval and temporary.

    As a member of the EEA outside the EU we would be bound by the EJC decisions rather than the EEC, but one of the EJC’s primary roles is to ensure consistency on how the EEA Agreement is implemented with regard to EU countries. The EJC are going to use the same criteria on whether our safeguards are acceptable as the EEC for that reason. If they don’t agree on our curbs, they’ll refer it to arbitration and possibly ultimately the European Court of Justice.

    The question has to be asked, since even EU countries are signatories to the EEA Agreement and therefore so are we, why haven’t we taken the arbitration or ECJ route already? Could it be that the EEC have rejected our claim that we could apply safeguards, and any legal challenge would fail because the ECJ would uphold the EEC’s decision?

    Any arguments that say that we have some kind of immigration control while being out of the EU while and a member of the EEA are, I’m afraid, fundamentally flawed.

  2. Thank you for your comments. It is about winning. Turning the tide and easy implementation.
    EFTA is still an open opportunity. There is still an opportunity for a political party or national news media to informed the public of the EFTA website and/or that they can google ‘efta seminars’ and see for themselves powerpoint presentations of EFTA and the EEA.

  3. Stephen Barraclough // November 23, 2015 at 9:09 pm // Reply

    After I’ve read those articles – or at least ‘skimmed’ them – I have an idea this will ‘do it’ for me – EVEN THOUGH I’D WANT !OUT! ANYWAY.

  4. I would be happy with this. An EFTA free trade agreement is exactly what we want. Also there would no dispute with the rest of the eu over leaving. It fits nicely with the “leave the eu” core vote which as the article says hovers around 30%. It also offers security which is what worries the electorate. I say it’s a vote winner.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.