Easter – UK on the cusp of a Brexit agreement

that the result of the first one should be respected as ignoring a democratic vote can and does produce more acrimony, division and economic damage.

The Norway option removes the political baggage of an evercloser union and the aversion against the creation of a wouldbe super state. As far as Brussels is concerned, it works since we all know that a small albeit rich nation like Norway is treated as a friend by the family of 28 member states. Granted that joining EEA the UK will miss the advantages of voting rights; one cannot have the cake and eat it. Simply put, one replaces the European Commission and the ECJ to be part of the EEA which enjoys the EFTA surveillance authority and the EFTA court. Another advantage is the active joint committee of EU and EEA countries, accompanied by regular summits and parliamentary meetings which give London a pivotal position where major matters of political importance can be discussed and settled. It is a pity that the country has also become deeply polarised, as it has created a trend running counter to previously accepted democratic and egalitarian values.

It is important however to respect and not lose sight of the ideological clout of Euroscepticism on the hard right of British politics and society which confirmed how Leave voters were the Single Market by such a small margin. Thus, the Norway option is the most realistic political path for the moderates among the former Leave campaigners. In 1994, Norway went through a similar referendum like the UK and the consensus was for a compromise solution. The country remained in the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) and remained accessible to a single European market in goods, capital and labour, but opted to be out of the EU Customs union in order to secure its own trade deals elsewhere. With regard to migration, EFTA arrangements embrace a register of EU nationals, which controls their citizenship and property ownership and immigrants can face expulsion if they are out of work for six months. The EEA comes with a number of technical advantages. The first is that it exists and so does not need to be invented. There are draft treaties. The compromise solution can be an ideal one for the UK since it protects British investment in foreign factories and banks that would otherwise be tempted to leave or to transfer employees to Dublin or Brussels.

Can this be the perfect Easter gift to the nation? The good news is that a new relationship based on the EEA model, allows Britain to keep most of the benefits of the EU Customs union and single market alongside free movement of people. It would not only be economically less painful than a hard Brexit. The bitter pill is that UK would be required to accept the “four freedoms”: free movement of goods, people, services, and capital across borders. To conclude on a positive note there is no doubt that public opinion wants a compromise solution. Truly, a hard Brexit will not fix the underlying problems that led many people to feel that they simply had to reject EU membership to get some kind of redress from a political system in which they had lost confidence. The negative consequences of Brexit will be felt hardest in places where the leave vote was highest such as in the Midlands and northern part of the country where the cry for economic help was loudest.

The Prime Minister is between a rock and a hard place. She may have to drive her detractors over the wall and make them accept a realistic solution or else she may have to go. If she triumphs in her quest then history could regard her as a brilliant politician who faced fire and came out unscathed. The question is – will Easter bring a ray of hope to both sides? Only time will tell.

A Holy Easter to all readers.