Regret it Brexit?

The Norway option -also known as “Pay with no say”!
uk.businessinsider.com/what-is-the-norway-model-brexit-2018-4

The cost of staying in the EEA was estimated two years ago to give us approx a 12%saving on our full EU payment according to “Full Fact”.
But it’s not clear what grants and subsidies U.K. would receive in return (if any).
It’s the “Norway option” as far as I can see (though please correct me if anyone can find out more).

remaining in the EEA would allow limits on the free movement of people

Nope.
What you mean is it would allow 'conditions' as to the free movement of people, which is exactly what we have now. Go and have a look at the legislation. The conditions are easily met if you reside in an EU member state.

Allygran1 is right. Being in the EEA would in effect keep us in the EU.

Day 6 I completely agree with you.

Since the EEA facilitates free movement of people, goods, services and capital within the European Single market, and that allows freedom to reside anywhere within the EEA. I would have to say that I would not be for remaining in the EEA since that would mean we are not Brexiting at all

Well said Allygran1
I imagine most Remain voters would back staying in the EEA and Leave voters see it for what it is - a vehicle to tie us to the EU and it's rules and regulations.

It's a non-starter.

ILovecheese. Not at all, although I do think that controlling borders is an important thing for Countries to do. Citizens have the right to know their borders are safe and controlled within the law.

Jalima I'm sorry I don't know the cost, it was just from what I've read about it, it seems a compromise that might try and heal the divisions between the leavers and remainers, as both sides would get some of what they want.

Allygran
Is the freedom of movement of people your biggest concern? Because as I understand it, remaining in the EEA would allow limits on the free movement of people.

Smileless apology accepted ☺

He could be described as a rat leaving a sinking ship but our ship hasn't sunk despite the scare mongering and I see no reason why we wont stay afloat

Indeed Smileless

I know Theresa May isn't everyone's cup of tea but she really is a no frills politician. It's not about personality with her, she just wants to get the job done and I admire her for that. As you say, Cameron handed her the poisoned chalice and left her to negotiate our exit from the EU, even though she was a remainer.

Her workload since then has been incredible. No one expected our unravelling ourselves from the labyrinth that is the EU to be easy or straightforward. As mentioned above it's many complicated layers are unfathomable and despite so much criticism she has been steadfast in delivering the mandate of the people.

On top of that she has the fallout from the Russion poisonings to deal with, opposition from the Putin supporting hard left, the use of chemical weapons and the Syrian threat, and Trump as the POTUS needing her attention. He seems intent on stirring up the eastern world into a frenzy and the fall-out will become a European/global problem without doubt.

I hope she holds firm and negotiates the best deal in the best interests of the UK, despite Remainer interference. It is looking likely that a WTO arrangement may be necessary. I don't envy her the workload or the flak she takes in doing her job but I do admire her. She is a strong and sensible PM imo.

<dons Kevlar armour>

ILovecheese

I voted to leave the EU. In response to your question about the EEA:
Since the EEA facilitates free movement of people, goods, services and capital within the European Single market, and that allows freedom to reside anywhere within the EEA. I would have to say that I would not be for remaining in the EEA since that would mean we are not Brexiting at all.

The purpose of leaving the EU and within that the EEA is that we are not bound to a single market, or a customs union.

The EU negotiators have made it clear that we cannot "cherry pick". Although it would resolve all of the issues you mention. It would not be leaving the EU and to be clearer the EEA.

The European Parliament is the EU's law-making body. It is directly elected by EU voters every 5 years. The last elections were in May 2014.

europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/institutions-bodies/european-parliament_en

For the vast majority of EU legislation, Parliament (ie elected MEPs) shapes and adopts laws jointly with the EU Council of Ministers (representing EU member states).

www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/faq/0/parliament-s-powers-and-legislative-procedures

From when we’ve discussed EEA before I think I remember that we are still in the EEA unless we specifically decide to leave? Article 50 won’t take us out of it. Is that still the case?

I think I have heard that too mostlyh; I would investigate further but have to go out.

Mostlyharmless back to the elected non elected discussion. The EC (Commissioners) who make the legislation and manage the treaties etc are not elected, they are commissioned.
This is what I am trying to say. The eurocrats are not elected they are Commissioned.
Sorry if I wasn't clear on this.

UK membership of the European Economic Area is the only policy that respects the referendum and delivers a “jobs-first Brexit” (Boris Johnson attacks Theresa May’s ‘crazy’ customs plan, 8 May). It removes the threat of an Irish border by allowing EU-wide frictionless free trade. It does not require membership of the common agriculture and fishing policies, monetary union (euro), or adherence to the European court of justice.

Significantly for the Labour party, it does not block state aid whose purpose is “to promote the economic development of areas where the standard of living is abnormally low or where there is serious underemployment”. EEA membership respects the wishes of the majority of Labour members and voters who voted remain, and in no way blocks Jeremy Corbyn’s desire to use state aid and nationalisation to promote economic and social policies within the UK.

On the one issue that dares not speak its name, the EEA allows limits to freedom of movement. Tory Brexiters may also be won over because EEA membership opts out of any “common trade policy”, allowing Liam Fox to continue his worldwide junket to secure new trade deals outside of the EU. The House of Lords vote to allow EEA membership must be passed, as it is the one policy that can bridge the leave/remain fissure that is so badly damaging this country.
Prof Eric Goodyer From the Guardian

Apologies for using cut’n’paste.

It seems a good compromise, although I’m sure there are plenty who would say it isn’t really Brexit.
From when we’ve discussed EEA before I think I remember that we are still in the EEA unless we specifically decide to leave? Article 50 won’t take us out of it. Is that still the case?

What would be the cost of that ilovecheese - compared to being a full member?

Agreed!

The EEA 7s not the same as the single market, but I don't blame anyone who is confused. The whole subject of the EU is very complicated and should never have been made the sibject of a referendum

Too late Maizie I reported you and yours!

ILovecheese do you mean remain in a single market?

If it would be just as you've posted Ilovecheese it's certainly worth consideration but as a leave voter I worry that it wouldn't be that clear cut.

Can I ask those of you who voted to leave what you think about remaining in the European Economic Area?

The EEA would resolve the problem of an Irish border by allowing frictionless free trade.

We would not need to be part of the Common Agricultural or Fisheries Policies.

Nor would we have to abide by the European court of justice, or monetary policy.

It would not block state aid to failing U.K. industries.

Would this be enough to satisfy those wishing to leave, and give some comfort to those who wanted to stay?

But under WTO we will still be contributing to an overseas organisation and have to follow their rules.

Are we the biggest contributor to the Eurovision Song Contest? ?