Eurosceptics don’t want the Norwegian model

If and when  the UK leaves the EU there is no need to accept any EU migrants the UK does not choose to let in. Euosceptics do not recommend accepting Norwegian type arrangements with the EU. We just want to restore UK democracy which means removing all EU bossiness and controls which stop us making our own democratic decisions.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

106 Comments

  1. Mick
    Posted October 28, 2015 at 6:32 am | Permalink

    I agree, and we should build more coal fired power stations and forget about all this green crap that the EU and other tree hugging cave dwellers have stuffed down our throats

    • Lifelogic
      Posted October 28, 2015 at 6:54 am | Permalink

      Tree (and husky) hugging cave dwellers – vote blue get greencrap.

      Get huge energy bills, massive job loses in steal etc, and cold frozen pensioners

      • Lifelogic
        Posted October 28, 2015 at 8:31 am | Permalink

        steel – and many other energy intensive industries.

    • Leslie Singleton
      Posted October 28, 2015 at 9:06 am | Permalink

      Mick–It all gets a bit boring and repetitive but given how important it is has anyone ever explained (“Slowly, so I can understand it”) how Germany can build new, whereas we are closing coal mines and power stations that are already in place? If conversion of our coal powered stations to clean the exhaust so to speak is expensive, so what when one sees the enormous numbers to be spent on nuclear and Chinese nuclear at that? And I understand that UK coal is cleaner than Germany’s. There certainly are very different types of coal.

      • Hefner
        Posted October 29, 2015 at 6:09 pm | Permalink

        You may want to have a look at ec.europa.eu Look for “Energy production and imports” and see for yourselves how the UK fares relative to other EU countries w.r.t. nuclear, gas, oil, renewables (first table compares the different sources for the 27 EU countries).

        A quick look shows that the UK is far from being the brilliant country that the media (and some on this blog) love to harp about (a remnant of the Age of Empire?)

        • Leslie Singleton
          Posted October 30, 2015 at 11:59 am | Permalink

          Was this supposed to give any clue why Germany can do what according to the UK EUmaniacs we cannot, especially as our coal is cleaner than theirs? If so beats me. We should immediately reverse what we are doing on coal and much else on green crap.

          • Leslie Singleton
            Posted October 30, 2015 at 4:01 pm | Permalink

            And if there was any doubt– there isn’t with Cameron doing the talking–today’s letters and article in the Torygraph give the lie and totally demolish everything he said on Norway. The mystery is that he should have chose to speak as he did–even more tosh than usual. I think it would be wonderful to be in Norway’s position but I am not sure that that is the same thing as saying that the goal of the Outers is to jump in to their shoes. We should obviously be able to do better.

  2. Lifelogic
    Posted October 28, 2015 at 6:51 am | Permalink

    Exactly the UK just needs to restore democracy and make its own decisions in the interest of the UK voters.

    Hopefully, having escaped the EU. we might get a real Tory government that will actually cut the bloated government waste, cut taxes, enable the economy to grow property and allow everyone to be better off for a change. Even if we do not, we are still far better off out.

    Cooperation with Europe and not control by the dead hand EUSSR please.

    • agricola
      Posted October 28, 2015 at 8:50 am | Permalink

      You are fast becoming a man of infinite afterthoughts. Try putting pen to paper first.

  3. Mark B
    Posted October 28, 2015 at 7:10 am | Permalink

    Good morning.

    Whilst the ‘Norway Option’ is not ideal, it does serve as a useful ‘halfway house’. To negotiate a suitable trade agreement with both the EU and other countries will take sometime , and throughout that time the uK would still be in the EU.

    Going down the EEA / EFTA route would allow the UK to exist the EU more quickly and less painlessly (sp). We could then begin to go through the motions of negotiating more favourable terms.

    EU migrants are not an issue. The treaties allow for freedom of movement for ‘workers’ not sherkers. It is the UK governments resposibility to send not working EU migrants home. The fact it does not do so is telling.

    More non-EU migrants entered the UK than EU ones. The UK still retains the right to stop these people, so why does it not do so ?

    And lastly. We have to accept that we will not get everything that we want. I want an independent Englsih parliament like the Scots have. Instead, I being fobbed off with EVEL. That’s not what I want, but at best, it is what I am going to get. So called Euorsceptics need to learn that we need to exit the EU as soon as possible with the least distrucption. The Norway Option is the key.

    • Leslie Singleton
      Posted October 28, 2015 at 3:05 pm | Permalink

      Mark–I just listened to a woman MP on WATO and I thought it a disgrace how she kept prattling on about how she loved Europe, how we needed to trade with Europe and all the rest (Who’s arguing?) without (from memory) using “EU” (which alone is what people despise) once; and we had to listen to the blather about influence of course which is beyond me because we have very little influence now (and that highly diluted) whereas we would have at least some (perhaps quite a lot) as a sovereign nation once more. I don’t particularly want to stand shoulder to shoulder (contra mundum) with the wretched EU

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted October 28, 2015 at 4:03 pm | Permalink

      Actually the EU treaties, and the EEA agreement, both refer to “persons”.

  4. Richard1
    Posted October 28, 2015 at 7:10 am | Permalink

    Somewhat off topic I note that by far the most robust and coherent Defence of the govts tax credit policy is being offered not by any minister, but by Ken Clarke, so often denigrated on this site.

    With respect to what an Out vote would mean it’s undoubtedly a great advantage for the Ins that there is no united vision on the Out side as to what deal the UK would/could get. If not the Norwegian model maybe the Swiss? (Switzerland has much higher net immigration proportionally than we do). The Out campaign to have any chance at all is going to have to offer a very clear and coherent vision of what the UK’s relationship with the EU would be and why it would be better – not just unchanged -for jobs and investment than the current rather unsatisfactory one.

    Reply I have done that, and it is not either the Norwegian or the Swiss model!

    • Tony Harrison
      Posted October 28, 2015 at 9:34 am | Permalink

      You’re right about Switzerland’s inward flow of migrant workers, but they have far more robust laws and a commonsense, patriotic approach to citizenship and residence rights, compared with this country. We could usefully emulate the Swiss in this and a few other respects, such as their citizen army and local cantonal democracy.

    • Bob
      Posted October 28, 2015 at 10:01 am | Permalink

      @Richard1

      ” Swiss? (Switzerland has much higher net immigration proportionally than we do).”

      Surely the whole point of UK Independence is that we control our own borders? If we regain self rule we can decide which EU rules suit us, and which ones don’t!

      As for Mr Cameron’s “hundreds of millions” claim, perhaps he hasn’t noticed that membership is already costing us far more than that., and his comparison of the UK to countries like Norway which have trade surpluses with the EU is completely vacuous.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted October 28, 2015 at 10:47 am | Permalink

      Well Ken Clark is reliably wrong on nearly every issue just like John Major, the BBC, and the Libdims. So what did you expect?

      Cut tax credits yes but you have to put other taxes down not just pass a wage law ( that is just a further
      Damaging tax increase). START CUTTING THE BLOATED INCOMPETENT STATE SECTOR and release the productive from their balls and chains.

      • Richard1
        Posted October 28, 2015 at 9:02 pm | Permalink

        I think Ken Clarke will go down as a successful chancellor. He rescued the UK economy following the early 90s recession and bequeathed a budget heading for balance, only to see it wrecked by Brown’s tax-borrow-spend.

    • Richard1
      Posted October 28, 2015 at 11:40 am | Permalink

      I do not think people are clear why the Out option means in practice. The Swiss deal seems to me quite reasonable in most respects.

  5. Mike Stallard
    Posted October 28, 2015 at 7:29 am | Permalink

    Mr Redwood, I am surprised. You are usually bang up to date.

    1. Most of the regulations are not made in the EU at all: they are actually made globally. We are not represented globally at the moment. Once we are free of the EU we can once again be at the top table having our say in setting the standards – just like Norway, Switzerland and, yes, Iceland are at the moment. The EU is just a load of expensive and bossy bureaucracy between us and the standards authorities.

    2. It is pretty obvious after the Five Presidents’ Report and the Bertelsmann-Spinelli Fundamental Law that we are going to be offered Associate Membership. How this will affect whether or not we vote to remain as AM or leave as AM, I really do not know. Date in \Spinelli by the way is end of 2017.

    http://ec.europa.eu/priorities/economic-monetary-union/docs/5-presidents-report_en.pdf

    http://www.eureferendum.com/documents/fundamentallaw.pdf

    Reply I often make the argument that out of the EU the UK would be represented at the top table deciding world regulations.

    • Mike Stallard
      Posted October 28, 2015 at 9:06 am | Permalink

      There is a lot of homework to be done now. Dr North has produced his Flexcit today.
      http://www.eureferendum.com/documents/flexcit.pdf

      As this long document makes clear they are not recommending adopting The whole Norway option and sticking with it. they rightly for example want different arrangements on freedom of movement.

    • stred
      Posted October 28, 2015 at 12:17 pm | Permalink

      The guests at the ‘top table’ are fussy about who they allow to sit around it. Someone who they did not want is the recently ousted Australian PM, who was a climate change skeptic and trying to insist on an audit of claimed warmist figures, while not committing Australia to greencrap. He also managed to stop illegal migration by boat and is over here telling us how to stop Europe having mass migration. He says that we need to abandon ‘love thy neighbour’ sometimes. How terribly out of tune with international thinking.

      So who did his Liberal party choose to replace him?- Malcolm Turnbull, who used to run a logging company in the Solomon Islands, a lawyer and a partner and MD at an investment bank called, er, oh yes- Goldman Sachs. GS has very large interests in the Green industry and carbon trading.

      Who else sits at the top table? Well Peter Sutherland the UN migration toppy, who thinks migration is good for Europe and anyone living in poverty in Africa or Asia should be classed as a refugee. He ought to know what is right and legal, as an ex Attorney General in Ireland, EU commissioner, World Trade organisation and Chairman of Goldman Sachs.

      Also there for him to talk to will be Mario Draghi, Chairman of the ECB, who also was an executive for Goldman Sachs. And for the British and Canadians we have Mark Carney, the Bank of England governor, who Gideon thought was so clever, he would pay him £800k pa to give us advice- such as his talk last week about how we must be very green, like his Mrs. By the way, Mark was an executive with Goldman Sachs too.

      Then there are the ex GS top folks who work for Pres Obama ….

      Re Wiki

    • Steven Granger
      Posted October 28, 2015 at 1:23 pm | Permalink

      That is correct John, you have indeed made that point on many occasions. What you haven’t done (to my knowledge) is comment directly on the “associate membership” option despite it being raised by Mike Stallard and a number of others on this site and by other commenters such as Owen Patterson. It is quite clear that there is no actual renegotiation going on and also quite clear that Cameron intends to present the “associate member” option as something that he has negotiated, when in fact it is already on the table. Could it be that you are assisting Cameron in his deception? Could it also be the case that, when Cameron finally reveals this proposal a short time before the referendum that you and some of your other so called Eurosceptic Friends will fall into line and back this proposal? You could perhaps counter my cynicism by (a) directly acknowledging the existence of the associate membership proposal and (b) setting out your views as to how you would vote if this option were on the table.

      Reply. No, I do not support Associate membership. As I understand it that means no Treaty change, no restoration of UK democracy, no end to our contributions.

      • Denis Cooper
        Posted October 28, 2015 at 4:02 pm | Permalink

        Well, once again I point out that the government’s EU referendum Bill does not actually say what would happen after a vote to leave; it could say that in that event the government must immediately give formal notice to the EU that we are leaving, but it doesn’t; if we voted to leave but then ended up staying in as some kind of “Associate Member” then that would be perfectly legal with the Bill as it stands.

        Reply If the nation votes to leave, we leave. The referendum campaign should make that clear, as the PM has already done

        • Denis Cooper
          Posted October 29, 2015 at 10:52 am | Permalink

          Then what is the objection to putting it in the Act?

          • Vanessa
            Posted October 29, 2015 at 4:54 pm | Permalink

            To have it in the Act would make a mockery of Cameron’s campaign to stay IN. You cannot have something in the Act which Cameron and his government does not agree with.

            It is anybody’s guess what will happen should there really be a vote to LEAVE – probably nothing !

      • Timaction
        Posted October 28, 2015 at 4:10 pm | Permalink

        I read an accurate report this morning that the associate membership is the end game as part of the Five Presidents report that will create the United States of Europe by 2020. The remaining 9 states including the UK will form the associate membership. There will be treaty change to accommodate this in 2018.
        Your lying leader will spin this into some nonsensical claim of reform when none of any consequence will be forthcoming. It is further reported that many Cabinet members were astonished last week in the absence of any substance to the proclaimed (non) renegotiation.
        Mr Cameron is a quisling and needs to be removed.
        It is further reported that some of those who currently claim to be Eurosceptic will have a change of heart once Mr Cameron states his inconsequential renegotiation outcome.
        All spin and lies to deceive the public to create the treacherous Superstate by stealth. They should be held to account for this treachery that was once called treason. They got rid of that legislation, I wonder why?
        Reply. Some people may look at Mr Caneron’s final deal and decide it is sufficient for them. That does not make them traitors. Others will look at it and vote to leave because they judge it inadequate. Instead of attacking people who might vote to leave, why not help persuade them to vote to leave? The referendum is not a purity it loyalty txt but a democratic vote on the best course for our country. Many people do not have a strong view either way, so we need to persuade, not lecture or condemn.

        • Timaction
          Posted October 29, 2015 at 9:04 am | Permalink

          Mr Redwood it goes much further than that. You know that ALL parties have lied to the British public over many years and have not been held to account on the EU. Their intention from the outset was to create a United States Of Europe but to deceive the electorate into believing it was always about trade. Now when UKIP have finally exposed the truth your leader was forced into giving us a referendum, denied to us for over 40 years. The various stealthy treaties were enacted and sneaked through without the knowledge or consent of the British people by the legacy parties.
          The parties still lie on a daily basis about the EU. They rely on the peoples lack of interest and knowledge of what the politicians are actually doing to them under false pretences.
          We do not live in a democracy with most of our laws made by unelected officials in the EU and nodded through by Westminster. Let me hear your leader state this clearly and unequivocally in the debate so that people actually know what they are voting for in this referendum. The continued and furthering of a unelected dictatorship or the return of an independent sovereign democratic Nation. How do you define people and parties who act to favour an unelected foreign body and not in our national interest?

  6. JJE
    Posted October 28, 2015 at 7:31 am | Permalink

    So if we copy someone else’s bad deal we will have a bad deal.
    If we fail to take back control of our borders and retain freedom of movement with the EU we will have immigration that we can’t control.

    If only there was some alternative…..

    Cameron really doesn’t have the first clue what he is doing.

    • Mike Stallard
      Posted October 28, 2015 at 9:07 am | Permalink

      Look on Breitbart and read Tony Abbott’s Margaret Thatcher speech – riveting!

      • alan jutson
        Posted October 28, 2015 at 4:53 pm | Permalink

        Mike

        “riveting”

        Agreed.

        Listened to it on U tube.

    • matthu
      Posted October 28, 2015 at 9:57 am | Permalink

      What you are saying is that if we have not learnt by experience we will be destined to repeat it …

      Instead those who have learnt by experience need to school those who haven’t.

    • Bob
      Posted October 29, 2015 at 2:13 pm | Permalink

      @JJE

      “Cameron really doesn’t have the first clue what he is doing.”

      Bearing in mind the enormous sums of money involved, the numerous vested interests and the powerful influence over Westminster held by the EU’s pension fund members (no names mentioned), poor Mr Cameron will be under intense pressure to make sure we do not leave, or reduce our contributions in any meaningful way.

  7. Tim L
    Posted October 28, 2015 at 7:34 am | Permalink

    Your Conservative MP colleague Laura Sandys has an interesting and rather misleading article on the Open Democracy website.

    https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/laura-sandys/its-impossible-to-predict-defining-narratives-of-brexit-campaign

    Among several points made the stand out one for me is that the EU seems to have all the trump cards when it comes to a trade relationship and the UK is a weak prospective trading partner for them.

    She says;

    “In any event whatever their agreed end game is they certainly need to be clear about the disruption Brexit would cause. ‘Outers’ are letting it be believed that we will have a great negotiating platform and will get a fabulous deal from Europe when we have just stomped out of the relationship. The reality is that it will be the remainder of Europe who will define our ongoing relationship with the continent. We will have no say in what deal we get offered; they will sit down and work out what “trade with Europe” will look like and it will be on their terms. Instead of this high testosterone negotiation with our neighbours we will be kicking our heels in the corridor awaiting their generosity. ”

    Be interested in your thoughts..

    Reply Laura Sandys is not a Conservative MP and not a colleague of mine. I disagree completely with her comments. The new MP for the seat she used to occupy is a strong Conservative Eurosceptic, who won against Mr Farage.

    • tim L
      Posted October 28, 2015 at 8:42 am | Permalink

      John,

      I’m sorry I got that wrong, I am really glad she isn’t your colleague!

      I assumed the ‘about the author’ item next to the artical stating she is the Conservative MP for Thanet South was correct.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted October 28, 2015 at 3:55 pm | Permalink

      “We will have no say in what deal we get offered”

      I wouldn’t expect us to have any say in what deal we get “offered”; it would be a negotiation between two sides and it would be absurd to have representatives of the UK negotiating on behalf of the UK on one side but also involved in the discussions on the other side, among the other countries, on their common position.

      On the other hand we wouldn’t have automatically accept whatever deal they “offered”, that is what negotiations are about.

      This is made clear in Article 50 TEU, which is sometimes misinterpreted in the way that Laura Sandys would like us to misinterpret it:

      “2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.”

      “4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.”

  8. alan jutson
    Posted October 28, 2015 at 7:42 am | Permalink

    Yep

    Trade and co-operation only.

    If they do not wish to co-operate, so be it.

    Oh and we do not pay for the privilege either.

  9. Sue Jameson
    Posted October 28, 2015 at 7:52 am | Permalink

    The Norway Option was suggested as an interim solution to make the transition from EU to independence easier. It would allay business community fears and also those who live and work around the EU and UK. It’s taken forty years to become entangled in this project, it will probably take another forty for us to become fully independent. Cameron has nothing to offer us but second class “association membership” , no democratic accountability and whole lot of expense.

    http://www.eureporter.co/frontpage/2015/10/27/cameron-warms-to-eu-but-is-it-too-late/?

    • Posted October 28, 2015 at 3:27 pm | Permalink

      Unless we have a very strong political commitment to leave maintained over a very long period, there is no way of ensuring the Norway option will not end up being the end result, instead of the initial step as envisioned in Fecxit.

      Also as it sounds very much like associated membership, it would be difficult to make it seem substantially different when those promoting ” remain” are talking about a very similar outcome.

      There is also the point that the present Norway option might not be available. as the Spinelli Group paper “A Fundamental Law” includes Norway in its associate membership plan.

  10. fedupsoutherner
    Posted October 28, 2015 at 7:56 am | Permalink

    According to the news this morning Cameron is trying to say that the Norwegian model is full of flaws and that we would have to adopt their model if we came out. On the other hand he is stating that we should not stay in without enough reforms. Just what does Cameron want because I am totally confused with the mixed messages coming through. At least UKIP are more positive about the consequences of Brexit.

    • yosarion
      Posted October 28, 2015 at 11:51 am | Permalink

      Cameron like all Europhile’s are soft in the head, I think it is something to do with BSE, which if I remember rightly was caused by Scientists from the EUSSR stating it was safe to reduce the temperature in the production of cow feed from where we had been producing the product.
      Possibly early Green Crap to save the Ozone.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted October 28, 2015 at 4:17 pm | Permalink

      Apparently Cameron assumes that it would be quite impossible for the UK to get any favourable amendments to the EEA agreement, but at the same time he thinks (or says) that he can get significant favourable amendments to the EU treaties. Which is a bit strange, given that the UK’s counterparties to the EEA agreement are the self same 27 countries that he has to deal with in the EU, just with Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein added on.

  11. Narrow Shoulders
    Posted October 28, 2015 at 8:01 am | Permalink

    Quite. Further Scaremongering from the remain side.

    Can they find nothing positive to say about our arrangement with the EU?

    Would the UK wish to join the EU today if we were not already a member?

  12. Ian wragg
    Posted October 28, 2015 at 8:02 am | Permalink

    Clearly Dave doesn’t agree. He’s trying to soften us up for associated membership according to the Spinelli document. He will come back waving his papers saying what a good deal he’s negotiated which in fact means the slow train to political and economic union.
    Euro membership by 2025.
    He really does think we’re stupid.
    By the way. 840,000 National Insurance numbers were issued to foreigners according to government statistics last year. 7 million over 10 years. This is fact so how come nett immigration is so low.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted October 28, 2015 at 1:01 pm | Permalink

      Well Cameron clearly thinks the public are indeed very stupid. He keeps claiming to be a low tax conservative at heart but does little but put up taxes up again and again and again, this while delivering almost nothing of real value to the public.

  13. agricola
    Posted October 28, 2015 at 8:18 am | Permalink

    You say you do not wish to accept the Norwegian model in our future relationship with the EU. Fine , but tell us what you do not like specifically about the Norwegian model and at the same time lay out just what you want in detail.

    I would recommend that all the “Leave the EU” parties get together and work out just what they want the future shape of our relationship with the EU to be. On getting the required referendum result, I for one do not wish to see some unseemly squabble over the detail.

    The argument that the EFTA/EEA option detaches us from formulating all those EU regulations that control trade is a bit shallow. Most of the World trade regulation with which the EU must comply is formulated well up stream of the EU in places such as the WTO.

    After trade we need an absolute assurance of our own sovereignty through Parliament and the reversion to our maritime borders which govern fishing. Part of our 2% of GDP budget can then be spent on fast naval patrol vessels to see that our waters are not violated.

    Tell us where the Norwegian model is weak and we can discuss it.

    Reply I have just done that! We need to control our own borders, and we do not need to pay dues to the EU. The UK can have a better relationship based on trade and friendship, not modelled on the Norwegian lines.

    • agricola
      Posted October 28, 2015 at 9:04 am | Permalink

      Reply to Reply.

      If you wish a totally , specific to the UK alone agreement , then you will have to negotiate it line by line with 27 other nations, get their agreement and implement it. It could take a generation and end up a dog’s dinner.

      By accepting the EEA/EFTA model and tweaking it to suit you could get there in six months.

      In your none acceptance of the “Norwegian Model” you have to be very specific about what you cannot accept. We the populace and even the ones who advise you via this diary, do not have the time to research the detail of the Norwegian agreement with the EU. Just list those aspects of it you no not like and why, we can then decide how important they may be and will let you know.

      • Denis Cooper
        Posted October 28, 2015 at 4:22 pm | Permalink

        I reckon some “tweaking it to suit” would be the thing to do, but it seems that Cameron thinks that would be impossible to do that. Getting the EU treaties changed as we would like, yes, he’s said that he’s prepared to have a go at that, but apparently the present EEA agreement is set in stone forever and there is no chance at all of “tweaking it to suit”.

      • A.Sedgwick
        Posted October 28, 2015 at 5:41 pm | Permalink

        As I understand the EU modus operandi, they initiate rules, regulations, laws etc which if anyone breaks they impose fines/sanctions. If the UK revoked the 1973 Accession Act we would just ignore any fines etc and get on with business. How are they going to sue us as non members? We stop paying and they stop giving some of our money back tied up with controls. Are Mercedes going to stop sending their cars for sale or French wines or Italian cars and food? It is all scaremongering – we have resigned from the club so don’t send us any more fees.

      • matthu
        Posted October 28, 2015 at 10:40 pm | Permalink

        I do not see the logic here.

        Does, say, Japan also have to negotiate with 27 (or 28) different countries?

        Does Japan have to pay a subscription to the EU just for the right to trade with them?

        • agricola
          Posted October 29, 2015 at 8:25 am | Permalink

          The logic is that Japan has to negotiate with 28 countries represented by the EU. I cannot imagine this being done without input from those 28 countries. Consider for a moment Japan wishing to have the freedom to sell the EU a range of foodstuffs. If the arrival of that food had an impact on the market share of the French or anyone else do you imagine they would remain silent. Multiply it up across the full range of trade and you end up with the dog’s dinner of a negotiation.

          Accepting membership of EFTA in terms of trade with specifics in terms of our sovereignty and what we are not prepared to pay in terms of membership of the EU seems to me a good starting point.

    • Chris
      Posted October 28, 2015 at 4:38 pm | Permalink

      I agree with your statement, Agricola,
      (“The argument that the EFTA/EEA option detaches us from formulating all those EU regulations that control trade is a bit shallow. Most of the World trade regulation with which the EU must comply is formulated well up stream of the EU in places such as the WTO”)
      as Norway has a very much more powerful role than the UK in influencing world trade regulation for example precisely because it is out of the EU and has its own negotiating seat at many of the top tables. It is thus in a position to potentially influence legislation in Norway’s favour before it even comes down to EU level. This is in stark contrast to the UK who has given up her seat at many of these global negotiating tables, instead to be “represented” by an EU member, who in turn represents the common position of 28 Member States. This position has often little in common with UK wishes and very often is completely unrepresentative of the UK’s best interests. Thus the UK was unable to get a good deal for its fishing industry in contrast to Norway who made sure its fishing industry was preserved and protected and flourished.

  14. Sean
    Posted October 28, 2015 at 8:21 am | Permalink

    I agree a million percent, but the trouble is Britain is full of self serving stupid weak politicians . Freedom isn’t given, we have to be strong and fight for Freedom.

    I foresee the stupid voting to continue to stay in the Eu hell hole. God help us!

  15. forthurst
    Posted October 28, 2015 at 8:29 am | Permalink

    We dont want any of the EU’s tentacles remaining in our affairs. I wish we could promise the end of FPTP, however, which is barely used abroad, so that there would be no return to duopoly alternating government by two parties that are both past their sell-by dates. That might encourage more people to vote to leave who otherwise, mistakenly regard the EU as a moderating influence.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted October 28, 2015 at 10:49 am | Permalink

      Indeed the stupid led by the BBC propaganda and Cameron.

  16. Lifelogic
    Posted October 28, 2015 at 8:29 am | Permalink

    From the Telegraph:

    “Unlike the UK, Norway has no veto in the European Council, no votes in the EU’s council of ministers, no MEPs or votes in the European Parliament, and no European commissioner to help,” the source said.

    What a pointless and dim thing to say. I assume Norway has no veto, MPs or representatives in the governments of Japan, China, the USA, Canada, India or many other countries. Why on earth would they have (or even want to have) these? They are only needed at all where politicians have (without any proper authority) surrendered control of the country to a foreign power.

    • matthu
      Posted October 28, 2015 at 10:04 am | Permalink

      No option or veto is forever, as we have learnt.

      Unlike the UK, Norway does not have to concern itself with whether their government is continually planning to return hard fought for options and vetoes to the EU without any reference to the electorate.

      • Denis Cooper
        Posted October 29, 2015 at 11:14 am | Permalink

        Oh, but I think the Norwegians do have to keep a close eye on what their politicians are up to, because most of them are pro-EU.

        That is why Norway voluntarily takes on EU laws when it is under no legal obligation to accept them, and why it is in Schengen, etc.

        Norway did not join the EEC in 1973, even though it had been included as a party to the accession treaty along with the UK, Ireland and Denmark:

        http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ:L:1972:073:TOC

        and likewise it did not join the EU, only because in both cases the Norwegian people had a direct say in a referendum and a majority rejected what most of their politicians wanted and urged them to endorse.

    • Alan in Derby
      Posted October 28, 2015 at 1:10 pm | Permalink

      LL

      As you point out , Norway does not have a voice in those EU institutions, but by not being in the EU, it represents itself on international law-making organisations that exist within the United Nations and global institutions such as the World Health Organisation. The UK, by being part of the EU, has no direct input into any of these governing bodies as we are represented by the EU.

      • Chris
        Posted October 28, 2015 at 4:40 pm | Permalink

        Well said, and this is a key argument about which Cameron is either completely ignorant of (difficult to believe) or about which he is apparently being deceitful/misleading.

  17. Brian Tomkinson
    Posted October 28, 2015 at 8:38 am | Permalink

    Cameron’s spin machine in full flow saying alternative is the Norway model. BBC Radio’s Today leading news with it and, as usual, have interview with EU Commission but no one who wants UK to leave EU. Cameron is totally untrustworthy and you are going to need to confront him much more directly.

  18. BigD
    Posted October 28, 2015 at 9:02 am | Permalink

    Another example of how well we are currently using our strong voice in the EU to ensure the best outcomes for the UK (= not), as highlighted by Dan Hannan: http://www.capx.co/eu-officials-all-at-sea-over-ports-legislation/ While we are still in the EU, maybe Team GB in Brussels could actually try to use its vote & fight for the national interest, otherwise what is the benefit of being there.

  19. Posted October 28, 2015 at 9:03 am | Permalink

    John, what would you propose to those EU migrants who have exercised the free movement since 2004?

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted October 28, 2015 at 4:27 pm | Permalink

      JR hasn’t responded, but my view is that for immigrants who have settled here legally what is done is done, and even if we wanted to it could not be undone in any just, reasonable and humane way. Illegal immigrants are a different matter.

  20. MikeP
    Posted October 28, 2015 at 9:05 am | Permalink

    From what I’ve read elsewhere, the UK gets outvoted more than the rest of the EU put together whenever we attempt to steer decisions to a sensible outcome. Some influence of being in the club that is ?! No, we need to leave the EU, we need to restore our border controls. We need a trade agreeement with the EU that allows them to continue to ship their wine, cars, cheese, bacon, fruit and the rest to us. In return for allowing them little or no change to THEIR trading position we want the same free access to their markets added to the huge benefit of being able to negotiate in the WTO on our own behalf and set up trading deals wih India, China, the Commonwealth and other developing nations.

    Importantly, as we approach the referendum, the “Leave” campaigners need to make the positive case for what life outside the EU would be like, much more than the negatives of the EU’s bossiness, regulations, bureaucracy and open door borders. Ironically the less we see of Farage maybe the better, we need to overturn the natural inertia and warm comforts of the status quo by selling the positives of leaving. Sure we’ve benefited from our membership of the EU but it’s holding us back, we could do so much more given our freedom again, not least to restore our fishing rights and be released from the CAP.

    However, to sound a warning note, my greatest suspicion and nightmare is that the campaign will be rigged by BBC bias and the EU insisting on billboards being put up by every EU-supported field, so the result will be to Stay in and the EU will punish us by ever more undemocratic nonsense and a diktat that they’ll never again allow us a similar vote to leave. If ever there were a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to get out, this is it !

  21. Roy Grainger
    Posted October 28, 2015 at 9:28 am | Permalink

    Saying UK would suffer if we adopted the Norway model is a just a straw man argument. But now he’s said it unless Cameron achieves a much much better deal than what Norway has currently got then his renegotiation has failed and obviously we should leave. For example, Norway controls their own borders so we should expect that from his renegotiation.

  22. Tony Harrison
    Posted October 28, 2015 at 9:38 am | Permalink

    Succinct and to the point, well said Mr Redwood. Unfortunately, Mr Cameron does not share your straightforward point of view: his position over several years has been observed to be malleable, uncertain, and unreliable. The only sure thing about his view is that he is on record as saying repeatedly that we should remain in the EU. I do not trust either his ability or his intentions – and neither do a great many other people.

    • Ken Moore
      Posted October 28, 2015 at 4:28 pm | Permalink

      It’s odd that Mr Cameron condemns the ‘unelected’ house of lords for blocking his tax credit reforms…but on the other hand he is quite relaxed about unelected EU officials running our affairs.

  23. oldtimer
    Posted October 28, 2015 at 9:42 am | Permalink

    The Norway model is not the answer. Neither for that matter is the status quo. The EU is evolving towards “ever closer union”, even if with difficulties along the way. The choice for the UK is to remain in that evolving union or to leave. The choice is clear.

    The economic consequences of either choice are not clear, but as the UK is a significant market for the EU (which runs a substantial trade surplus) the warnings that the UK will be disadvantaged if or when out are overblown. But the political consequences are clear – the UK will regain sovereignty over its internal affairs and its borders. That, it seems to me, is fundamental to how the UK will have to adapt and change in the years to come to earn its living in an ever changing world. That ability to change will only be compromised by continued membership of the EU.

  24. Trevor Jones
    Posted October 28, 2015 at 10:06 am | Permalink

    Mr Redwood,

    The UK has been a member of the EU for over 40 years and during that time we have agreed to a huge array of complex laws, rules and trading standards. As someone who is planning to vote to leave the EU I would like to know how are we going to do it. We cannot simply cut all ties the day after the referendum, there will have to be a process to extract ourselves from the EU. The ‘Norway’ option using the EFTA and EEA is one way of buying time for the extraction process to be achieved. But the fundamental problem I have with the referendum is a total lack of any clarity on the process of leaving. If we vote to leave who will decide on the process? There may be a change of government in the interim period! Surely, to provide the reassurance of a planned exit, we need the ‘out’ campaign to clearly state the process of leaving. Currently there seem to be several plans in use by ‘out’ campaigns and nobody knows what the government of the time will actually do!

    Please Mr Redwood tell us what exit process you are recommending.
    reply Restore UK sovereignty then negotiate agreements as needed as we do with the rest of the world!

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted October 29, 2015 at 11:30 am | Permalink

      In the referendum a majority vote to leave the EU, and we assured by Cameron that in that case we would then leave the EU. Obviously we wouldn’t leave the EU without telling the EU and the other national governments that we were leaving, in fact it would be polite to give them advance notice of our intention to leave. Which could be treated as the notice required as the first step in Article 50 TEU on withdrawal of a member state, or could be treated as a diplomatic notice outside that article. Either way there is absolutely no reason why the Act for the referendum should not say on its face that this is what would, must, happen, that in the event of a vote to leave the EU government must immediately give formal, and irrevocable, notice that we are leaving the EU.

  25. Posted October 28, 2015 at 10:08 am | Permalink

    Absolutely right . We must return to governing ourselves , deciding what we want to do and not have others deciding for us . The deal that Iceland and Norway have is not suitable for us ; why should it cost us one penny to incur a trade imbalance with the EU ?. They should be subscribing to support their own manufacturing and commerce .

  26. Antisthenes
    Posted October 28, 2015 at 10:16 am | Permalink

    I do not see what all the fuss is about with Brexit. Surely it is a simple matter if we vote to leave is to use article 50. This gives us 2 years or even longer (there is provision in the article to extend if necessary) to negotiate a bilateral agreement between the UK and the EU. The end result I am sure will be a Brexit that will be uniquely British. So talking of this or that option now is superfluous and all hot air. During that period we remain a member of the EU so the transition can be seamless.

    I fail to see why the EU even if very aggrieved at the UK leaving are going to be able to dictate terms of the Brexit agreement. Both sides will want the same things trade and political cooperation and the EU cannot impose restrictions that would undermine that as that is the same as cutting the nose off to spite their face.

    As for associated membership unless it is almost the same as being a totally sovereign nation that does business and cooperates on its own terms with the option of becoming a full member of the EU if and when that sovereign nation wants to or not at all. Then it should not be touched with a barge pole. All it will mean in reality is that the UK will still be shackled to the EU not be able sit at the top world tables or decide it’s own domestic and international policies as now. Except we will be allowed time to keep out of some of the political integration(much we will still not be allowed to keep out of) that is going to happen soon. At the same time we will be expected to gear up to join the political union so we will still have to conform to every edict law and regulation that Brussels tells us we have to.

  27. Colin Hart
    Posted October 28, 2015 at 10:55 am | Permalink

    Is is not the case that if were outside the EU, businesses would have access to the EU market under the same World Trade Organisation rules as everyone else?

    If so, in what way we would be disadvantaged? If the answer is that we wouldn’t be, there would be no point or purpose in associate membership.

  28. Iain Moore
    Posted October 28, 2015 at 11:25 am | Permalink

    Can’t disagree with anything you say there. Trouble is we seem to be cursed by having a leadership who don’t want to restore our democracy. They would rather be told what to do by Brussels , than represent the British people. Why is that?

    I also struggle to understand why Cameron keeps going abroad to make speeches on UK political matters? Why doesn’t he make a speech about OUR relationship with the EU in the UK? Does he go to foreign countries to make these speeches to deny us the debate here. A sort of preaching to us from afar , where we can’t challenge him , and safe in the knowledge the media hacks won’t hold him to account, less they won’t be invited on the next Prime-minsterial Flight?

  29. CHRISTOPHER HOUSTON
    Posted October 28, 2015 at 11:36 am | Permalink

    Norway has a 5m population. Much oil. Halved in value recently. Scotland has 5m. Little oil. Negative value recently. The EU is less than respectful to people’s and nations lacking geo-wealth and who are numerically weak.
    Yorkshire ( including, of course: Humberside ) has 5m. No oil. No mined coal,now. No steel, soon. No fishing industry, now Beat Australia, Canada, the EU countries in the Olympics. Does not give a tinker’s curse whether respected and valued by the EU or indeed anybody.

    A people’s survival outside the cluttered and gangrenous womb of the EU depends on self-belief.

  30. Richard North
    Posted October 28, 2015 at 12:37 pm | Permalink

    Speak for yourself … you do not represent “eurosceptics”.

  31. Denis Cooper
    Posted October 28, 2015 at 12:51 pm | Permalink

    Slightly off-topic, JR, if Cameron really wants an early referendum on EU membership then is this a good time to start a war with the House of Lords?

    You will recall that Tory MPs blocked Clegg’s proposals for reform of the House of Lords, whereupon he retaliated by blocking the Tory proposals for reform of the parliamentary constituencies. These people can be vindictive.

    Is there a risk that an assault on the Lords would lead them to retaliate by delaying the Bill for the EU referendum, which is just starting its Committee Stage?

    If they decided to be awkward, notwithstanding the Salisbury Convention, then by my calculation it would be July 2016 before the Commons could invoke the Parliament Acts and get the referendum Act on the statute book without the consent of the Lords.

    Then, as I have pointed out several times, as it stands Section 7 of the Act would give the Lords an absolute veto over any regulation to set the date for the referendum, just as Section 66 of the Tax Credits Act 2002 gave the Lords their veto over the changes that Osborne has just tried to slip through by a statutory instrument, secondary legislation, rather than by a Bill, primary legislation.

    The Lords’ perfectly legitimate exercise of which veto power, as freely, and some would say quite unnecessarily*, agreed by MPs when they passed that Act back in 2002, is now becoming a spurious casus belli for the Commons to attack the Lords.

    * I read in a House of Commons Library research briefing that:

    “Many SIs are subject to parliamentary control; the type of parliamentary control will be prescribed in the parent Act (and, in the case of negative procedure, further details are laid down in the Statutory Instruments Act 1946). An instrument is laid before Parliament (or the Commons only, in the case of instruments dealing with financial matters) … ”

    So the question is why Section 66 of the Tax Credits Act 2002 prescribed that instruments made under it must be approved by BOTH Houses of Parliament, not just the Commons, and even if they dealt with financial matters.

    Reply I have no wish to go yo war with the Lords. However since May the Lords have voted in 75% of their divisions against the decision of the Commons. The Lib Dem/Labour in built majority there is picking party political fights which makes governing and sticking to the Manifesto difficult.I will await Strathclyde’s review of options. don’t assume the Lords will allow an unamended referendum bill to proceed anyway.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted October 28, 2015 at 1:42 pm | Permalink

      I’ve just seen the Leader of the House Chris Grayling answering an Urgent Question and saying that the House of Commons should have primacy not just on financial matters but on ALL SECONDARY LEGISLATION. In other words, the Lords will no longer have any effective role at all, much less even than now, in looking at ANY orders or regulations that the government may try to sneak through.

      • Chris
        Posted October 28, 2015 at 4:55 pm | Permalink

        I think this is very serious indeed as it is tampering with our parliamentary process with no mandate to do so. I personally am gravely concerned by the apparent lack of condemnation from Conservative MPs whom I had always trusted would be at the forefront of protecting parliamentary process, not seeking to adjust it to enable them to pass highly controversial and damaging legislation and to retain power. I believe it shows a complete contempt for Parliamentary process, and also for the electorate.

  32. CHRISTOPHER HOUSTON
    Posted October 28, 2015 at 1:18 pm | Permalink

    Mr Cameron has still not made anything called Clear what his negotiating stance actually is.
    He repeated, a few minutes ago in Parliament: “No option is off the table” in regard to an MP naming a Norwegian-type option. No leader in Europe is forthcoming about what Mr Cameron has suggested as a negotiating point. A couple have stated he has not asked for anything. Just as well; for, they have indicted in advance, “He is not going to get anything”
    It appears a fly on the wall in Mr Cameron’s negotiating room will have fallen fast asleep by now out of sheer boredom.

  33. DaveM
    Posted October 28, 2015 at 1:45 pm | Permalink

    You’re right John.

    Norway isn’t like the UK. Neither is Switzerland. Or indeed Germany, France, etc.

    We need a UK model. And that means total sovereignty and an independent position in the world. I’m sure the EU’s main concern is that once the UK gets it, the rest of the European countries will quite rightly want it too.

  34. DaveM
    Posted October 28, 2015 at 2:15 pm | Permalink

    The fact that Cameron is now starting to suggest a Norway-style arrangement is surely good news – it indicates his doubts over successful renegotiations (which could be used to con the public) and his uncertainty over the chance of an IN vote.

    If only he could grasp the potential of his position as a historic, reforming PM who shaped the UK for decades to come rather than desperately trying to make the best of a bad (EU) situation and desperately clinging to the notion of an 1850s style Great Britain which no longer exists.

  35. BeeCee
    Posted October 28, 2015 at 2:27 pm | Permalink

    Given how many times we are outvoted or fail to get our views accepted – who needs a seat at the EU table?

    More smoke and mirrors from our PM!

  36. Atlas
    Posted October 28, 2015 at 2:29 pm | Permalink

    Re, Cameron’s words on the EU, said on his Iceland visit: I’m just glad that Sir Winston Churchill was around when he was. If the present generation of Cabinet Politicians were around back then then I shudder to think what would have happened.

  37. MPC
    Posted October 28, 2015 at 3:06 pm | Permalink

    I take a lot of encouragement from David Cameron’s comments as it reflects some desperation on the part of those who want us to remain in the EU. The notion that we’ll have to have a Norway type model is very easy to refute, possibly with the best person to do that being Daniel Hannan if not Mr Redwood.

    I believe more and more people are starting to see the EU for what it really is and are moving to a eurosceptic position. I see this through my own conversations with work colleagues and others. Those of us who want our democracy back should feel increasingly optimistic – and grateful to Mr Redwood for his continuing efforts on our behalf.

  38. Denis Cooper
    Posted October 28, 2015 at 3:16 pm | Permalink

    Well, I’m two minds about this.

    On the one hand saying that we would leave the EU but stay in the EEA sounds simple and easy to implement.

    On the other hand, there are things about the EEA which we don’t like.

    Not so much the fee for access to the Single Market, because unlike Norway we are a net importer from the rest of the EU and so we could quite reasonably demand that the EU pays us a fee for access to our domestic market, and not so much having to accept all the EU laws supposedly relevant to the EU Single Market because they are only a fraction of all the EU laws that we have to accept now and Norway has in fact rejected some of them, only a few but the precedent is there, but more the continuation of the unfettered free movement of persons which would stop us limiting immigration from and through the EU. However if EEA membership was a transitional state then there may well not be any further EU enlargement while we were still in the EEA but negotiating to move on out from it to our own bespoke treaty arrangements, and so there might not be a lot more immigration from the EU during that phase. That’s if it was just a phase, rather than becoming a permanent arrangement which would be a real danger.

    There is however another way to look at this.

    The EEA was rather thrown together at the behest of Jacques Delors apparently because he was wary of excessive or over-rapid enlargement of the EC, later the EU; but three of the countries which were originally lined up to join only the EEA also joined the EU while another, Switzerland, voted to stay out of the EEA. There is no reason to suppose that the EEA agreement made then is set in stone forever.

    So one question is whether Cameron will be more successful in negotiating changes to the EU treaties so that we can happily stay in the EU, as he wants, or he could be more successful in negotiating changes to the EEA treaty to remedy some of its defects.

    If he thinks that he can successfully negotiate changes to the EU treaties, despite all the signs that he will fail, why is he assuming that he could not negotiate any changes to the EEA treaty and so we would be in exactly the same position as Norway is now?

  39. CHRISTOPHER HOUSTON
    Posted October 28, 2015 at 7:20 pm | Permalink

    Off topic. But for some time on TV today and as I type “Junior Doctors’ Contracts” are under discussion in the House of Commons.
    The Labour MP for Islington South & Finsbury Emily Thornberry, she of White Van fame ,and the Labour MP for Wakefield Mary Creagh of no fame whatsoever both used quotes from a research paper on the NHS but were each humiliated by the Secretary of State of Health Minister Rt Hon Jeremy Hunt who had read the full research and corrected them on their seeming analysis and comprehension of it.

    So often very intelligent and well-educated Labour MPs as above simply make groundless accusations.it is as if they have read a badly prepared leaflet titled: “Get the Tories on this one” providing some half-baked half-truths from this authority and that and hoping The Tory has not read the the full and original text. A bit lazy. Disingenuous.
    As to the Junior Doctors themselves. If in fact Mr Hunt is correct on his figures, then should not the doctors be dismissed? It hardly is morale boosting for patients to learn their first port of call in hospital is to be met with someone in a white coat who doesn’t know his 20 packet of cigarettes stuffed in his inside pocket from a pig’s heart valve. Also chanting junior doctors in a street demo suggests they should be taken literally when they say they are considering leaving the UK to take up employment abroad and given a free boat ticket to Melbourne.

  40. Iain Gill
    Posted October 28, 2015 at 9:30 pm | Permalink

    Tony Abbott has been talking a lot of sense.

  41. Jon
    Posted October 28, 2015 at 9:37 pm | Permalink

    Not so many years after the Treaty of Rome was signed I arrived.

    Since then I have had many a pizza flyer through my door practically anything you could think of have been pushed through my letterbox after my favour and money.

    However, there is one thing that has never come through my letter box, nor knocked on my door, nor courted my interest. Those that take my money but don’t need to court my favour.

    The principal of that is defunct.

  42. Maureen Turner
    Posted October 28, 2015 at 10:10 pm | Permalink

    This from our PM today. ” There is no land of milk and honey outside the EU.” “Leaving the EU will probably still mean open borders and paying millions to Brussels.” “We need to have a national debate on our membership of the EU”.

    Re milk and honey. We don’t want milk and honey just the right denied to us for decades to again become a self governing nation. Re leaving the EU will still involve open borders etc. This point must be clarified as for many it is the most worrying part of our EU membership and conflicting statements are unhelpful.

    Re a national debate. We, the electorate. are certainly having a nealthy national debate in every workplace, pub and home but if the PM doesn’t tell us exactly what he proposes to renegotiate then he is obviously excluding himself from the debate. Three weeks ago he hinted at four topics for discussion but as many pointed out the aims were so vague they could be interpreted in several different ways.

    Re a Norwegian style solution Mr. Cameron said this is not up for consideration.

    It is essential we have absolute clarity on what we will be voting for if and when we ever get a referendum as otherwise it would surely require to be declared invalid.

  43. Stuart Mackey
    Posted October 29, 2015 at 2:45 am | Permalink

    1.) You dont represent all eurosceptics, there are those who do wish to use the Norway example as a means to an end, as you well know.

    ######
    “Euosceptics do not recommend accepting Norwegian type arrangements with the EU. We just want to restore UK democracy which means removing all EU bossiness and controls which stop us making our own democratic decisions.”
    ###################

    2.) Seriously? For a guy who worked at a merchant bank, Dphil, All Souls, Oxford, this is the best you can come up with? Your educators would be dissapointed!

    Over 40years of economic and political intergration cannot be undone like turning off a light switch. The recent TPPA started before 2005
    http://mfat.govt.nz/Trade-and-Economic-Relations/2-Trade-Relationships-and-Agreements/Trans-Pacific/index.php And this was between willing partners!

    The Norway option provides for a gradual means to an end with minimal political and economic disruption on the road to full independence

    http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=85795

    Reply Name who wants to be Norway. I am working with the Leave organisation who put out strong briefing yesterday that we are not seeking the same deal as Norway.

    • matthu
      Posted October 29, 2015 at 9:33 am | Permalink

      We are certainly not seeking the same deal as Norway – however, is it possible that a Norway relationship (as an intermediary step) is preferable to remaining in the EU during the period while we negotiate replacement trade agreements?

      Reply We have no wish to accept freedom of movement or contributions to the budget as Norway does, so why suggest it is a price worth paying?

      • Denis Cooper
        Posted October 29, 2015 at 1:08 pm | Permalink

        JR, maybe it’s because he wants to win the referendum and leave the EU.

    • Stuart Mackey
      Posted October 30, 2015 at 1:15 am | Permalink

      Reply Name who wants to be Norway. I am working with the Leave organisation who put out strong briefing yesterday that we are not seeking the same deal as Norway
      ########################################

      Norwegians want to be Norway and others in the UK wish to use their eea/efta relationship with the EU as an intermidiary step towards independence. You know full well who these people are, I linked to one of their sites.

      The fact that you are not seeking what Norway has is immaterial, the problem is that you dont follow through with a viable published plan for getting to independence. http://www.eureferendum.com has done this, and uses Norway as *one step* to full independence, not an end in itself.

  44. matthu
    Posted October 29, 2015 at 5:25 am | Permalink

    It seems that current government strategy is to make the second chamber look absolutely useless/undemocratic/bloated/overpaid and totally dispensable in order to make the EU parliament look benign (and cheap?) by comparison.

    Of course, this neglects the fact that while no legislation emanates from the House of Lords the totally unelected EU Commission is responsible for about three quarters of our laws.

    • stred
      Posted October 29, 2015 at 9:51 am | Permalink

      When we needed to appoint a commissioner last time, Eural chose a Lord.

      • Denis Cooper
        Posted October 29, 2015 at 1:06 pm | Permalink

        Technically it’s “nominate”, not “appoint”; the decisions on who would be appointed as EU Commissioners to serve the EU rested with the President and the EU Parliament. The latter first becoming involved in the process as a consequence of the Maastricht Treaty agreed by John Major, before which it had had nothing at all to do with the appointment of the Commission. Just another benefit of that “Game, set and match for Britain”, which Cameron has no desire to reverse even while noisily complaining about it and inaccurately blaming the Labour party for it.

  45. matthu
    Posted October 29, 2015 at 5:39 am | Permalink

    Any idea where Cameron gets his figures from when he states that “Norway pays as much per head to the EU as we do”?

    Figures (2014) seem to suggest that we are paying about £19.2b (gross, £14.3b after rebate) and £9.8b (net) equating to about £300 per head (gross, £223 after rebate) and £153 net using a population of 64m.

    https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/388882/EU_finances_2014_final.pdf

    I would love to see equivalent figures for Norway.

    • Chris
      Posted October 29, 2015 at 10:07 am | Permalink

      Richard North has provided the Norway figures and comparable UK figures on his eureferendum blog this morning, and they provide a clear indication that what Cameron said was inaccurate.

  46. Alan Wheatley
    Posted October 29, 2015 at 8:43 am | Permalink

    I was interested to hear, yesterday, how the BBC News covered this topic. They were clearly trying to give weight to the Prime Minister’s position, but if this is his best shot he doesn’t stand a hope of winning the argument.

  47. Vanessa
    Posted October 29, 2015 at 10:01 am | Permalink

    This is nonsense. If you read eureferendum dot com you will see an excellent article (well researched !) which includes the following extract:

    Yet, according to the Norwegian government’s own figures, its total EU mandated payments (gross) are approximately £435m (€600m) per annum. With a population of five million, that is approximately £86 (€120) per head (gross). Net payments, however, are about £340m (€470m) per annum, or about £68 (€94) per head.

    On the other hand, in 2014, the UK gross contributions to the EU were £19.2bn, less £4.9bn rebate. That gives an equivalent gross payment of £14.3bn. After rebates and other receipts, our net contribution was £9.8 bn.

    With a population of 64 million, that puts our gross contribution (without rebate) at £300 per head, our equivalent gross payment at £223 per head, and our net per capita payment £153 per annum – more than twice the Norwegian payments.

    Cameron is obviously talking out of the wrong side of his mouth!!

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted October 29, 2015 at 1:16 pm | Permalink

      I think the clue could be in those words “EU mandated”, at least partly.

      Cameron is assuming that even though we had left the EU the UK government would still be just as keen to get involved in EU projects as a Norwegian government which wants to take Norway into the EU.

  48. Denis Cooper
    Posted October 29, 2015 at 1:22 pm | Permalink

    Mulling over today’s devastating blow for the Brexit campaigners I wonder how Cameron views our “special relationship” with the USA, which apparently will refuse to trade with us if we insist on once again being a self-governing country.

  49. agricola
    Posted October 29, 2015 at 2:24 pm | Permalink

    It is reported that the EU does not know what Cameron wants, nor do the UK population. All we know is that he does not like the Norwegian Option, but no one knows what he does not like about it.

    It appears to me that Iceland, Norway, Lichtenstein, and Switzerland all have a pick and mix relationship with the EU to suit their specific needs. I believe the UK people require free trade and the return of our sovereignty. Within sovereignty we encompass the detail of Immigration, Fisheries, Agriculture, Foreign Policy, Banking and the City, and Tax control. Effectively the EU is reduced to the status of a customer/supplier.. where we no longer pay a membership fee for the privilege. To my knowledge no other sovereign country has to pay a membership fee in order to trade with the EU. There is no point to our membership unless we wish to become a state within the United States of Europe.

    Cameron has not asked anything of the EU because he is for maintaining the Status Quo.
    Equally he has expressed negative thoughts about an EEA?EFTA relationship, the Norway Option, or any UK specific variant, only because it does not suit his end game to ask for them. He wishes to stay in, maintaining the Status Quo.

    Time for the Get Britain Out campaign to state precisely what we do want and to start speaking with the clarity of Nigel Farage, Jacob Rees-Mogg, and Daniel Hannan.

  50. David Price
    Posted October 30, 2015 at 6:42 am | Permalink

    I can see that the Norwegian model is not the preferred final position, the desired end state, but why do you reject such an arrangement outright as a waypoint towards the ultimate goal?

    After all, you are happy to accept EVEL as a step on the way rather than the English Parliament that so many pro-English supporters appear to want. You have presented EVEL is a necessary step in the Westminster to influence support in the direction despite being seen as much too little by many.

    We need to see a coherant and pragmatic plan from the “leave” cummunity sooner rather than later.
    Reply Because I cannot accept free movement of people and continuing contributions to the EU. Norway is a snare from the Stay in campaign! Do try and follow the plot here.

  51. David Price
    Posted November 1, 2015 at 6:40 am | Permalink

    Thank for the reply, this explanation is more that we have gotten from Cameron.

    My point is that we keep being asked to trust the government will do the right thing but are given no information nor is any plan or detail offered. Yet the right thing hasn’t being done on many issues, not least English devolution, and I see no difference between the Cameron pro-EU position and some of the many anti-EU positions.

    Or, if we leave, will all those pro-EU civil servants and politicians who have failed to turn our membership to our tangible advantage be removed from their positions and replaced by those who are proficient at negotiations and representing our interests?

    As to the plot – why should we have any more faith and confidence that our benefit will be served effectively whatever the outcome of a referendum, the actions around EVEL give me no confidence at all.

  • About John Redwood


    John Redwood won a free place at Kent College, Canterbury, He graduated from Magdalen College Oxford, has a DPhil and is a fellow of All Souls College. A businessman by background, he has been a director of NM Rothschild merchant bank and chairman of a quoted industrial PLC.

  • John’s Books

  • Email Alerts

    You can sign up to receive John's blog posts by e-mail by entering your e-mail address in the box below.

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

    The e-mail service is powered by Google's FeedBurner service. Your information is not shared.

  • Map of Visitors

    Locations of visitors to this page