Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris
Damien, you simply cannot evaluate a treaty or an arrangement like the EEA without due regard for the context in which it was created. To do so is to invite misunderstanding. You claim it's a valid study due to lack of other examples but that's like saying you can describe a dodo by studying a chicken.
The EEA was created as a framework for non-EU states that expected to apply to become EU states. That is the context in which you must understand it. If you get that key fact straight first, then all other questions as to the applicability of the EEA model to a State wishing to leave, or loosen its ties with, the EU, become easier to answer.
|
The reason I feel Norway is applicable is because it's relationship with the EU is actually similar to what people are advocating. We want to continue to be part of the trading bloc but not part of the larger EU.
I am not saying we'll get exactly the same deal but we can look to it for an idea of under what terms the EU might consider such an arrangement. Yes, the fact they want Norway to become part of the EU eventually probably does mean the deal wouldn't be the same, they might care less about preparing the groundwork for example.
However it's worth looking at how you would cook a chicken if you found a dodo (and, errr, wanted to eat it
). If you have an example of how the type of relationship you want with Europe there then you might as well consider how it works even if the implementation will be different in practise.
In otherwords I concede Norway is far from a perfect example, and we won't have the same deal. However it's the only real example we can look too at the moment.