Show caption Brexit minister David Davis and chief Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier. Photograph: Emmanuel Dunand/AFP/Getty Images Opinion The answer to Brexit turmoil is staring us in the face Christopher Whelan Before the EEC, Britain was part of Efta. Returning into its arms would solve many of the seemingly intractable problems posed by Brexit Thu 24 Aug 2017 11.00 BST Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share via Email 3 years old

As politicians struggle over Brexit, is the optimal solution staring them in the face? Optimal does not mean perfect, but if perfectionists never compromise, the struggle over Europe will never end either.

After all, the referendum vote was very close, so an optimal outcome is one that satisfies most of the people most of the time. And that is the European Free Trade Association.

The UK was a founding member in 1960, then left Efta to join the EEC common market in 1973. So leaving the single market and returning to Efta has some logic. But Efta offers much more.

First, it is a free trade association but not a customs union. Members are free to trade with anyone – a sovereignty gain, some would argue. The UK could sign up to the existing free trade agreements Efta has covering 38 countries, and could set its own trade policy with others. It could negotiate a new separate customs union with the EU, just as the EU has done with Turkey, Andorra and San Marino.

[Becoming a member of EFTA] would return a significant degree of control over immigration to the UK

Secondly, Efta is not the European Economic Area (EEA), so there is no commitment to the “four freedoms” – including, most controversially for Brexiteers, people. There are currently four members of Efta, but only three of them are members of the EEA: Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein. Switzerland is a member of Efta only.

So while enjoying the free trade benefits of Efta, the UK could then, like Switzerland, seek bilateral agreements with the EU on other matters. Switzerland did, in fact, sign agreements that provide for some free movement, but that is a matter of agreement, not diktat.

That said, it is true that Efta countries have accepted free movement of persons. But what Efta has not accepted is the concept of European citizenship, which according to the European court of justice is “destined to be the fundamental status” of EU citizens. This is an important, if little understood, distinction.

As a member of Efta, the UK could offer to sign up to free movement of labour but not persons. This would return a significant degree of control over immigration to the UK. In fact, this was the common market (economic) freedom that the UK willingly signed up to, and not the (political) free movement of persons it unwillingly signed up to in the Maastricht treaty in the early 1990s.

Assuming the UK will need continued EU labour, why not offer it as well? In fact, a YouGov poll in June suggested a substantial majority – 58% – prefer free trade with the EU even if this means free movement of EU persons. The majority would be even bigger if there were free movement of labour only. It would be good in negotiations too to try labour only but then concede if necessary. Remember too that the Swiss are negotiating preferential rights for Swiss-born workers.

Third, joining Efta not only removes the commitment to “ever-closer union”, it eliminates the jurisdiction of the European court of justice. There is an Efta court, to which domestic courts can refer cases if they wish, but they are never under any obligation to do so, unlike under European law.

What’s more, Efta court decisions are advisory only; there is no direct effect and no primacy/supremacy of “foreign” law over UK laws. EU law would have to be transposed into domestic law to have any legal effect or enforceability. There are no sanctions for not following an Efta court judgment – again, in contrast to the ECJ. In other words, joining Efta makes clear that sovereignty has not been given away.

Remainers may complain that as an Efta member the UK would have no say in the EU lawmaking process. But that is what Brexit means. In any case, laws made by the US, China, India – the list goes on – all potentially affect the UK without the UK having any say.

Might other EU member states want to join Efta as well? Maybe. But if they do, it means that the other states could speed ahead with creating a United States of Europe. Ever-closer union is always limited by those members who refuse to yield any more sovereignty.

Currently, the UK bargaining position is very weak. After all, the EU can force the UK to choose between an EU-friendly agreement or no agreement. The UK exports up to 15% of its GDP exports of goods and services to the EU; 3% of the EU’s GDP exports go to the UK. The red line issues on both sides are many and varied, but the optimal solution is available off the peg: Efta.

To sum up, joining Efta would mean the end of EU powers over UK trade policy; the UK would regain the flexibility in free trade it has always fought for (sometimes literally). It would mean the end of ECJ jurisdiction and the boosting of sovereignty in a useful, rather than a rhetorical (or theoretical) way. It would mean substantially reduced UK contributions to the EU – perhaps by 60%, if the Swiss contributions are anything to go by. And it means Brexit can be completed with the least disruption to the UK’s economic relationship with Europe, avoiding the chaos that seems increasingly inevitable given the timescale remaining before departure.

Brexiteers and Remainers will identify downsides. But creating much-needed certainty will help restore confidence, and may even help restore some trust in our politicians. Joining Efta provides a solid foundation for dealing with other sensitive issues, such as the Irish border and the role of the City of London.

But it’s not only the optimal solution: it’s optimistic as well. The UK would be welcomed by Efta, if the Efta court’s president’s words are to be believed. Efta, he said, could be the “natural home for the UK post-Brexit”. And he’s right.

Eliav Boaron also contributed to this piece