The EU Creates A Desert and Calls It Peace

EU/EEA or EFTA/EEA + Opt Outs?

EU/EEA or EFTA/EEA + Opt Outs?

EU/EEA or EFTA/EEA + Opt Outs?


The EU referendum is winnable for the pro-democracy campaign if we engage the

‘undecideds’ with an option they feel easy to vote for. The two campaign teams will likely be

aiming to influence this group of voters.

People vote for all kinds of reasons, so we need to choose an option they could find it easy to

understand and vote for. In addition, winning by 51%, I feel, is not enough. We would be better

by winning with 60% or more. Why? Since there are 650 MPs in Parliament, they could benefit

from having an incentive to expedite the upgrade to democracy, since they would like to be re-

elected, and to delay implementation could harm their re-election prospects. This would avoid

the possibility of taking up to 10 years, like the Swiss, to implement a bi-lateral agreement.

Also Britain’s traditional role in Europe has been helping the restoration of self-government, so

choosing an option other similar counties could win is useful.

What option could win over 60%? There is only one so far, and that is the EFTA/EEA option

(European Free Trade Association and European Economic Area) where a

Survation poll showed that 71% preferred it to EU/EEA with 29%.


EFTA countries include: Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Switzerland. The EEA (Single

Market) allows for free movement of goods, service, people and capital, with opt out and

special provisions for some countries, e.g. Denmark has an opt out on Justice, Home affairs

and buying of property, and Liechtenstein has special provisions on immigration control. Page




An upgrade to a win-win option is possible and winnable.

What would be the benefits of switching to EFTA/EEA + Opt Outs?

Firstly, what are some of the current EU disadvantages:

- A cumulative net financial contribution, since joining of £130bn, for what people were

told was a free trade deal, with no tariffs

- A cumulative trade deficit of over £400bn, resulting in exporting jobs, so leading to less

jobs, less company sales, so also less tax revenues in the areas of income tax,

corporation tax, VAT, council taxes and more, so needing higher taxes and borrowing to

pay for services and cuts in services.

- Higher EU regulatory burden on the whole economy, when only 9% of GDP trades with

the EU, with some estimates putting the cost at 10% of GDP

- Experiments with white elephants, wasting taxpayers money, for example HS2, large

computer projects

- Poor role model, especially for public sectors, demoralising staff with, top down decision

making, little frontline ideas implemented, ineffective meetings, bureaucratic, promotion

based on political reasons, longer decision making time, poor communication

- Financial accounts not signed off for over 15 years, by auditors

- Free movement has a major flaw, as there are few consequences for people voting for

corrupt and incompetent politicians as they can wander into another country and get a

job and/or claim benefits

- Uncontrolled immigration leading to a drop in wages and rise in rents/house prices, so

lowering living standards to what could be achieved

- Taking skilled educated people from mainly Eastern Europe and asset stripping their

skills and reducing their tax base, with a lower population

- Distorting elections in EU countries that receive funds, since money spent makes the

existing government look good

- Large businesses and cartels can more easily lobby the EU to get unnecessary

regulations passed that raise the barriers to entry for new businesses, so leading to

higher prices for the public.

- As power is centralised with fewer people so is wealth

The benefits of EFTA/EEA +Opt Outs

The benefits are many:

- Saving around £5bn a year in direct net contributions

- Using a similar provision as Liechtenstein, the control of immigration could be


o – new eastern Europeans can only get 1 year working visas, with no children,

and a points system for skills based for longer time

o – other EEA countries new immigrants can have free movement as long as their

unemployment is below 7%, otherwise only a 1 year working visa, points system

for longer

o – if UK unemployment is over 7%, then all new EEA countries immigrants can

only have 1 year working visa, points system for longer

o – new people from outside the EEA who acquire EEA passports e.g. a Russian

getting a Malta could have a 1 year working visas, with point system for staying


o – the first year of being in the UK, new immigrants could not claim any benefits,

then for next 2 years, they can claim benefits, comparing the UK and the country

of origin benefits, and receiving whichever is the lowest

o – EEA people with previous serious criminal offences – i.e. not parking or

speeding fines – are barred from entering the UK

o – anyone wishing to buy a new residential property, EEA or from around the

world, would need to live in the UK for at least 5 years continuously, for at least 7

months of the year

o The above would be reciprocal with other EU countries

- Reduction in regulations applying, with only the 4,700 EEA regulations applying and the

15,000 EU regulations open to amending or repealing.

- Control of Home Affairs, i.e. no EAW, European Arrest Warrant, no EU asylum policy

- Control of Justice, no ECJ, European Court of Justice

- Control of Fisheries and Agriculture

- Veto option of any new EEA regulations

- An EFTA office in Brussels, with website with links to EFTA/EEA powerpoint


- A UK seat on world bodies which make regulations which are passed to the EU, which

the UK could regain a vote and voice.

- EFTA accounts signed off every year by auditors

- Other Northern European countries could win EFTA/EEA + Opt Out referendums, e.g.

Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Austria and the Netherlands.

- The upgrades could be done within a week of a referendum, using article 112 of the

EEA, for ‘unilateral measures’, while the renegotiation goes on the changing of the EEA

- Ability to make Free Trade Agreements with any country e.g. Canada

- EFTA Free Trade Map

The possible Opt Outs of the EEA include:

Movement of people, Articles 28, 29, 30 and 31

Property ownership, maybe Article 125


Likely benefits include: lower living costs, higher wage growth, more democracy, easier ability

to save for retirement, less wasted tax money, less government borrowing and/or lower taxes

Q & As

Q. Why the EFTA/EEA + Opt Out option?

A. It is a working off-the-shelf alternative, and easy to explain in a referendum, also which

articles the UK wishes to opt out from, so making it easy to have a meeting within a week of a

possible referendum win, to have a clear list for a meeting. This would help speed up


Q. The opinion polls show around a 50% -50% split with voters, why not hope the

‘Leave’ campaign can win with a complete ‘Out’ option, and not spelling out what ‘Out’

looks like.

A. This was tried in 1975, and the ‘undecideds’ voted for the status quo and democracy lost by

67% to 33%. EFTA/EEA has support of 71% to 29% EU/EEA, without Don’t Knows. In detail:

EFTA/EEA 543%, EU/EEA 22.2%, Don’t Know 23.5%. Giving a larger opportunity for

explaining to the Don’t Knows, than other options.

Q. What about defence?

A. Britain would still be a member of the NATO security alliance, and continue working with

European allies.

Q. What does the opinion poll show for different regions of the UK?

A. Scotland: EFTA/EEA 68%, EU/EEA 32%

Wales: EFTA/EEA 59%, EU/EEA 41%

London: EFTA/EEA 63%, EU/EEA 37%

UK: EFTA/EEA 71%, EU/EEA 29%

All regions would prefer EFTA/EEA.

Q. Why would the UK use the ‘unilateral measures’ option to implement all the changes


A. Britain borrowed 100s of billions during the last government and printed billions of pounds,

the country is in a financial mess.

Q. Is there a precedent for the UK simplifying it’s relationship with the EU, leaving EU

structures with no problems?

A. Yes, in the early ‘90s, Britain left the European Exchange Rate mechanism – which was

holding back the economy – within hours, and followed a policy which worked for the UK

economy, and the economy prospered.

Q. What about if the population doesn’t rise?

A. In the 1980’s the population fell slightly and real wages rose by 2.9% above inflation. For

example, if someone was earning £7.50/hour 10 years ago, they would now be on £10/hour,

for the same job. Unfortunately, pay has hardly risen at all in real terms for a number of people.

Q. How will other EU countries react?

A. Most would respect the democratic choice of the British people. Though, since many UK

politicians have practiced years of appeasement, there may be some EU politicians that feel a

mistaken feeling of entitlement. The original EEA agreement was signed with 12 EEC countries

and 7 EFTA countries, including Sweden, Finland and Austria, in addition to Norway,

Liechtenstein, Iceland and Switzerland, though the Swiss chose not be a part of the EEA in a


Q. How will other countries do, with less UK aid?

A. This is a positive opportunity for them. Aid has distorted the voting patterns and rewarded

irresponsible voting and policies. The British people are not responsible for other countries

voting for corrupt, incompetent and irresponsible politicians. The UK switching to EFTA, will

help voters look for honest and competent politicians to vote for, a positive help.

These countries don’t need aid. There are many reasons why some countries prosper more

than others, including: culture, philosophy, language, work ethic, law abiding, teamplayer,

hiring and promoting on merit, integrity, paying taxes, self-motivation, flexibility, education,

choosing/electing good leaders, free enterprise and choice instead of cartels and monopolies,

government spending where needed and not to buy votes, government spending getting good

quotes and getting value for money. Each country has a unique history, culture and evolution.

Q. Is there a mechanism for countries to join EFTA?

A. Yes, using article 56 of the EFTA Convention


Q. How would the EFTA countries feel about the UK and possibly more countries

joining, e.g. Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Austria and the Netherlands.

A. While many EFTA politicians are pro-EU, their public option are pro-EFTA. It is likely the

EFTA politicians will take into account public opinion, as well as seeing more EFTA members

as a help in shaping policies in Brussels and in global institutions. Especially as these possible

newer countries do not look to take away self-government of other countries, or look for

financial handouts to bail out irresponsible policies.

How could the Leave campaign help voters in choosing to Leave he EU and switch to

EFTA/EEA + Opt Outs? Below could be an idea for adding to leaflets and media:




  Referendum on the UK's membership of the EU

  Vote (X) in one box only  


Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European

Union or leave the European





Remain a member of the European Union    




      EFTA/EEA + Opt Outs

Leave the European Union     +



For more updates and information:




In summary the EFTA/EEA + Opt Outs is using an off-the-shelf upgrade, with Opt Outs already

used by other countries, leading to simpler and faster implementation, that could benefit the

UK economy, productivity and wage growth earlier than other options, helping ‘Undecided’

voters to choose ‘Leave the EU’.

Hugo van Randwyck, has been promoting the EFTA/EEA option as a winnable referendum

option for over 10 years. He has also been organising ‘EFTA or EU’ opinion polls since 2010

and has written for a number of outlets including the Bruges Group. He has experience in

implementation consulting, operations and marketing, in manufacturing, financial services,

utilities, improving productivity, training, quality, sales and energy savings.