You have provided evidence of expenditure by Norway, but insufficient evidence that those expenditures are totally mandatory.
Show me Iceland's individual contributions. Show me Leichtenstein's individual contributions.
I showed you the sum total for all three EEA/EFTA countries, not just for Norway. You could have seen that if you'd read my link.
And really, do you need proof that they're required?
The
EEA Grants:
WHY THE GRANTS
Through the European Economic Area (EEA) Agreement, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway are partners in the internal market with the 28 EU member states. We also share common values and responsibility with other European countries to promote equality of opportunity, tolerance, security, environmental sustainability and a decent standard of living for all.
Ever since the establishment of the EEA Agreement in 1994, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway have provided funding to reduce social and economic disparities in the EEA.
Do you think they provide this funding out of the kindness of their hearts?
And the
EU Programmes:
The EEA Agreement ensures participation by the three EEA EFTA States (Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway) in a number of EU programmes.
The participation of the EEA EFTA States in EU programmes is a vital part of their integration in the Internal Market and a key instrument for cooperation between the Members States in a wide range of areas.
Article 78 of the Agreement states that the EU and the EEA EFTA States “shall take the necessary steps to develop, strengthen or broaden cooperation on matters falling outside of the four freedoms, where such cooperation is considered likely to contribute to the attainment of the objectives of [the] Agreement, or is otherwise deemed by the Contracting Parties to be of mutual interest”. This mutual obligation is fulfilled by the EEA EFTA States’ participation in EU programmes.
Clear enough, I'd think.
Show me where in the EEA treaty it "requires" financial contributions to the same level as EU membership costs.
I never said so. I estimated what the UK contribution would be if it were an EFTA member, by linearly extrapolating by population size what the current EFTA members contribute, That came in the same ballpark as what the UK pays now.
Show me an alternative to the EEA treaty.
What???
You're the Leaver here. It would have been incumbent on
you - and not now, but two months ago - to show an alternative to the British population, in order to show a viable alternative to EU (or EEA) membership.
EU membership is off the table because of the referendum. Going against the refendum would gravely damage British democracy.
Well, then leave.
You know, I'm 50 and I've been following this since the days of Mrs. T and her handbagging of the other EC leaders and her "I want my money back". Ever since, every British PM has been acting as a petulant child in the EC/EU and complaining that they're still paying too much into it, and that they don't want to participate in Schengen because it brings rabies, and don't want to participate with the Euro because the vaunted Sterling is still world currency, and don't want to participate in the Social Charter because British employers must be able to exploit their workers like in the days of Marx and Engels. And so on and so on. And ever since, there's been this constant droning voice in British politics, in both major parties, that they want out again.
You know, I'm totally sick of it, and to Mrs. T, and Boris and Farage and you I say: good riddance, don't let the door hit you in the face on the way out. And at the same time, I feel sorry for the many rational thinking Brits who understand that their future lies with further cooperation with the continent, and with people like The Don who now must fear going out of business because of this utterly foolish decision.
.
