The WSJ has an article (HERE) about the transitional deal being discussed at the moment in political circles. It describes the debate as "unreal". The two year period for negotiating a withdrawal and a free trade agreement it says was not "remotely plausible" and the EU's negotiating guidelines already assume a transitional period. You can see what the EU say about it core principle 5 in the guidelines HERE. The core principle is:
5. To the extent necessary and legally possible, the negotiations may also seek to determine transitional arrangements which are in the interest of the Union and, as appropriate, to provide for bridges towards the foreseeable framework for the future relationship. Any such transitional arrangements must be clearly defined, limited in time, and subject to effective enforcement mechanisms. Should a time-limited prolongation of Union acquis be considered, this would require existing Union regulatory, budgetary, supervisory and enforcement instruments and structures to apply.
The WSJ say the period must be time limited because the WTO rules do not allow us to trade tariff free with the EU indefinitely anyway. The EEA is not even a possibility because the EU will not allow us to be outside the customs union like Norway, while enjoying tariff free access to the single market. It is not an option.
The writer is baffled by the debate. The choice is between accepting a transitional period where things continue as before (CJEU jurisdiction, budget contributions, free movement, etc as above) and exiting to trade on WTO terms.
And yet politicians continue to insist that freedom of movement will end in March 2019 and we will have a transitional period to avoid a cliff edge. Indeed this is the government's official policy, to have it's cake and eat it. It is neither possible nor conceivable.
