David Cameron says the Norway Option won't work for Britain. The Europhile view is that it would put Britain on the fringes of Europe without any real say. Yet when Mr Cameron presents his "reforms" he will offer us "associate membership" where we have more or less the same relationship with the EU, but as a second tier member, excluded from policy making that affects the eurozone, subject to all the rules of the EU with only a partial voice where we can be outvoted - and frequently are.
On the other hand, we can have the EEA\Efta Norway Option and have full single market access along with a veto over the rules, a full voice and an independent vote at the top table, and a chance to influence the rules before they are handed down to the EU.
If Cameron is saying the Norway Option is bad for Britain, it is for him to demonstrate why permanent subjugation and gradual removal from the international bodies that make the rules is somehow better. Of the two options on the table, I know which one I would choose.
No comments:
Post a Comment