Tarian, the Norway Sweden border is hardly a workable example as there is regulatory alignment between Norway and Sweden. Why do persist in ignoring obvious and verifiable facts ?
"Facts" are the Leavers friend. By contrast, Remainers lead with doom-laden crystal-ball gazing.
How much "regulatory alignment" do you think exists ?
Norway has adopted approx 6,200 of the Single Markets 22,000 laws - or about 28%.
In simple terms, Norway has adopted over 95% of the cross-border trade laws - but not the interfering internal laws.
Why can't you accept that over a decade ago, two friendly neighbours agreed border arrangements - which included pre-registration of shipments (now on-line) many unmanned borders and close-co-operation between Customs Officials?
Lastly, if "regulatory alignment" was complete - why is smuggling an issue ?
..... Article 24 has never been intended to allow tariffs to be set aside why you try to sort out a trade deal. It was intended to be a very temporary measure that would enable an already agree trade deal to be implemented before full sign off.
Art.24, does not mention "
setting aside" tariffs - but it clearly says
"duties and other regulations of commerce ...... shall not be higher or more restrictive".
So with tariffs currently Zero - they wouldn't be "higher"?
So with para (b) saying Art 24 is for:
"the adoption of an interim agreement necessary for the formation of ........ a free-trade area;" ....
How is that
not "
while you try to sort out a trade deal"?
Art.24 describes "interim period" (
not "temporary") as follows:
(c) any interim agreement .......shall include a plan and schedule for the formation of ..... such a free-trade area within a reasonable length of time."
3. The “reasonable length of time” referred to in paragraph 5(c) of Article XXIV should exceed 10 years only in exceptional cases."
On immigration, study after study has shown that immigrants come to work.
"
come to work" is a strawman.
The vast majority of Leaver accept that EU migrants are "
hard working".
So the "6 months rule" is rarely relevant.
The problem is that millions have to live somewhere - and use public services and transport.
"Study after study" focuses on migrants' tax paid versus welfare benefits received.
It would be unremarkable if (say) 250,000 million well paid EU bankers, lawyers etc paid more tax than the benefits received by the poorest 1 million.
(We know that the top 1% of UK earners pay over 28% of income tax)
But please name a study that included the higher cost of housing - affecting the lowest paid the most - anything from £1,000 to £5,000 p.a. (depending on area).
Thank you.