Campaigners for the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union often argue that trade would be unaffected by a historic upheaval. In their reckoning, continued access to the single market is a formality. The UK’s business is too valuable, so it is assumed, to be spurned.
The same people often claim Norway provides a good example of the relationships we could enjoy after “Brexit”. Membership of the European Economic Area combined with a repatriated national sovereignty suits the Norwegians perfectly, it is said, and would suit the UK too. David Cameron disagrees. In this regard at least, the Prime Minister is right.
Before flying off to Iceland for the Northern Future Forum, he made one very simple point: the idea that Norway enjoys a cost-free relationship with the EU is nonsense. The country is spared so-called “membership fees”, but access to the single market costs it in the region of 600 million euros (a little over £430 million) annually. Norway endures no “European red tape”, but suffers something worse: an obligation to abide by EU rules with no say over those rules.
Clearly, advocates of Brexit mean to reassure the public when they tout the “Norwegian option”. But why should reassurance be necessary, exactly, if EU withdrawal means – or so the story goes – that the UK could enjoy all the benefits of membership without any of the burdens? The answer ought to be obvious: in this, as in so many things, there is no such thing as a free ride. Even Switzerland, disdaining the EEA, is bound to the EU by a web of agreements.
According to Espen Barth Eide, Norway’s former Foreign Minister, that country has incorporated roughly three-quarters of EU legislation. Its access to the single market is conditional upon it observing financial regulations, employment rules and product standards. And it pays into the EU budget for the privilege.
As the argument over EU membership heats up, it cannot be said often enough. Europe is as important to the UK as the UK is to Europe. At the heart of the relationship is the irreplaceable right to a say in the decisions affecting this country.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article