This is getting nuts, Commons needs to agree and get out of the EU, the people voted for Brexit, now do it...
View attachment 6652
There are a couple of problems with this graphic. For one, it presupposes that a second referendum would give a result for the softest possible Brexit, the same as for revoking the Article 50 notification (not revoking Article 50, which many people stupidly say when they in fact mean this, including the people who put together this chart), which the people creating this have no way of knowing. Further, it says that the Norway Option is a 'softer' Brexit than forming a customs union. It is not clear entirely what 'softer' means, but if they mean that the customs union will impose fewer restrictions on Britian, then they are dead wrong.
A lot of people talking about the Norway Option in the media seem to think that a customs union would be part of it. This was part of Theresa May's rationale for dismissing the Norway Option at her Lancaster House speech two years ago. She said that it would not be pursued by the government because it would mean Britain remaining under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice (not correct, because the highest court in EFTA is the EFTA Court, not the ECJ; also, continued ECJ jurisdiction over the UK in many cases is something conceded by May at negotiations with the EU) and remaining in a customs union with the EU.
In fact, there are only a few minor non-EU statelets within the European Union Customs Union, like Monaco and the Channel Islands, and the EU has bilateral customs unions with only three other states: Turkey, San Marino and Andorra, only one of which is an actual, proper country. The EFTA states are not members of the EU Customs Union, nor of any bilateral customs unions with the EU. It is not possible that Britain could gain entry into EFTA if it formed a customs union with the EU.
Therefore, the customs union option enmeshes us further into the EU machine than Norway, giving them a greater control over us, and is by that measure 'softer' than Norway, which is probably what the creators of the graphic mean, but are too ignorant to realize is false.
Furthermore, in terms of the delay caused to Brexit, I am afraid Norway, although the best of the options available, is no quick fix. Richard North, whom I consider the best authority on the Norway Option among its proponents, believed that it would have taken at least the full two year negotiating period allowed under the Article 50 negotiating period, perhaps even longer.
What the government needed to have done was intend to take the Norway Option from the start, have got preparations underway before invoking Article 50, and appealed for an extension to the negotiating period as soon as it commenced. Britain would also have had to make use of the transition period for further negotiation. It would have required several bilateral agreements being negotiated to make it work. So, unfortunately, unless the whole process is started from the beginning, which is unlikely, the ship for the taking the Norway Option before we leave the EU has already sailed.
This is all thanks to the leading Brexiteers, who have all the maturity of particularly stupid, petulant little children, and who threw their toys out of their prams at the suggestion of any hold up to the process, or of any reality creeping into their fantasies about a free-trading, 'global' Britain, even though most of them had only been invested in the cause of leaving the EU for a very short amount of time. The only glimmer of hope is to take May's shoddy deal, and hope to be able to negotiate EFTA membership afterwards.