17/10/2016
Nick Clegg, on the Marr Show yesterday argued that "There are countries outside the European Union, such as Norway, which do have greater powers of control over who comes in and out of their country, and yet they have full participation in the Single Market".
His view is, that if the United Kingdom played its cards right, it could continue to participate in the Single Market while doing a deal on freedom of movement - the best indication yet that the Liechtenstein/EEA solution in
Monograph 1 is gaining traction.
This is even more the case when we have John Rentoul in the
Independent directly citing the Monograph, stating:
Norway and the other countries in the EEA, the European Economic Area (Iceland and Liechtenstein), are allowed to take "safeguard measures" under articles 112 and 113 of the EEA Agreement, "if serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties of a sectorial or regional nature liable to persist are arising". EEA status, with this measure already triggered to limit immigration from the EU, has been suggested as a transitional arrangement for the UK when it leaves the EU, allowing it to remain in the single market while a permanent relationship is negotiated.
Even if he spoils it somewhere by saying: "I don't think the EU would agree to it", Mr Clegg seems to think otherwise.
And then, we see in the
Telegraph the novel idea of the UK seeking the Efta/EEA option as an interim "quick fix". This is from economist Anton Muscatelli, who is not there yet on the detail, but at least they are beginning to get there.
We also get Lord Livingston, former minister of state for trade and investment,
also arguing for an interim deal. "I know that trade deals aren't hard or complex", he writes. "They are extremely hard and very complex".
He then goes on to say: "They can be good, comprehensive or quick. However, they cannot be all three. The UK would suffer if it sacrificed the first two elements on the altar of a speedy exit from the EU trading system".
His interim deal, however, only last for three years, an interim agreement with the EU and he has not caught up with Clegg on the free movement issue. Nor, having discussed the idea of an interim option has the man come up with a credible end game â which is something the Government is going to have to work on.
But we do have the
Financial Times which is telling us that Mrs May "has not ruled out making future payments to the EU to secure privileged access to the single market".
This is straight out of the
Monograph 3 playbook, cutting through the public chatter on a "hard" Brexit, to give more substance to the idea that the Prime Minister is lining up a deal which will keep us trading with the EU on a sensible basis.
Several senior ministers have told the
Financial Times that the cabinet is considering how Britain could carry on paying billions of pounds into the EU budget. "We would have to be careful how we explained it", said one minister. "But Theresa has been very careful not to rule it out". Another senior Tory said: "With Theresa, you have to listen carefully to the silences".
Keeping up contributions will allow the UK to keep in place vital access to EU markets for the City of London and other sectors, including maintaining "passporting" rights for UK financial services. It will also keep carmakers such as Nissan in the game, shielding them from the impact of leaving the EU.
It appears that these contributions are being considered during any "transitional period" between Brexit, expected in 2019, and the conclusion of any European free-trade deal, which could take many more years to agree. Says the
FT: "The payments could extend even beyond that period".
With that, we get the obligatory "senior EU diplomat" who says that: "There will have to be a budgetary contribution through the transition", although Downing Street is refusing to be drawn on this, calling any debate on future budget contributions "minutiae".
Sooner or later, it is going to dawn on the series masses that the UK has, effectively, already guaranteed payments up to the end of 2020 â the end of the current Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF). This is agreed at Head of State and Government level, and has the force of a contract. The EU would almost certainly demand compensatory payments, which would the run into the next MFF.
The big deal most certainly is going to be how to explain all this, but as the
Observer reports, there are new alliances building, which support the more rational line.
Certainly, the "hard" Brexit rhetoric is getting more than a little tiresome, and the noisemakers intensify their efforts, but we can probably take a little comfort from the saying that "empty vessels make the most noise". They might care to note that happy little suggestion from a senior minister: "With Theresa, you have to listen carefully to the silences".
