Originally Posted by
highcirrus
Denti
Good post.
On the subject of
Three of the four EFTA/EEA states (Norway, Liechtenstein Iceland) have the unilateral right (ie. EU has no say in this) to invoke EEA Agreement Article 112 despite being a party to this Agreement and which Article exempts from the requirement to permit unrestricted free movement of people (labour) within the EEA area, despite this apparently being a non-negotiable requirement of the Agreement. Fourth state, Switzerland, while a member of EFTA, is neither in the EU or in the EEA.
If our politicians ever got round to considering the EFTA/EEA route, post Brexit, UK would similarly enjoy the provisions of Article 112 (ie. could restrict free movement of labour in the national interest) and would, vitally, retain Single Market membership under the EEA umbrella, rather than the EU one. Also, as an EFTA/EEA member, UK would be able to retain the equally vital EASA membership. What's not to like?
Reference
here.
CHAPTER 4 SAFEGUARD MEASURES
Article 112
1. If serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties of a sectorial or regional nature liable to persist are arising, a Contracting Party may unilaterally
take appropriate measures under the conditions and procedures laid down in Article 113.
2. Such safeguard measures shall be restricted with regard to their scope and duration to what is strictly necessary in order to remedy the situation. Priority shall be given to such measures as will least disturb the functioning of this Agreement.
3. The safeguard measures shall apply with regard to all Contracting Parties.
Article 113
1. A Contracting Party which is considering taking safeguard measures under Article 112 shall, without delay, notify the other Contracting Parties through the EEA Joint Committee and shall provide all relevant information.
2.
The Contracting Parties shall immediately enter into consultations in the EEA Joint Committee with a view to finding a commonly acceptable solution.
3. The Contracting Party concerned may not take safeguard measures until one month has elapsed after the date of notification under paragraph 1, unless the consultation procedure under paragraph 2 has been concluded before the expiration of the stated time limit. When exceptional circumstances requiring immediate action exclude prior examination, the Contracting Party concerned may apply forthwith the protective measures strictly necessary to remedy the situation.
For the Community, the safeguard measures shall be taken by the EC Commission.
4. The Contracting Party concerned shall, without delay, notify the measures taken to the EEA Joint Committee and shall provide all relevant information.
5.
The safeguard measures taken shall be the subject of consultations in the EEA Joint Committee every three months from the date of their adoption with a view to their abolition before the date of expiry envisaged, or to the limitation of their scope of application.
Each Contracting Party may at any time request the EEA Joint Committee to review such measures.
Here are articles 112 and 113 of the treaty. Please pay particular attention to the areas I've highlighted in bold. The provision is not a the silver bullet implied by the blog you cited. It is rather a way for members that are experiencing genuine hardship to obtain relief on a temporary basis. It has to be done in consultation with the EEA Joint Committee and the measures implemented need to be removed in the most expeditious timeframe possible.
My personal opinion is that the UK would not be able to make the case for experiencing hardship as a consequence of free movement of people that would be required to invoke article 112.