This paper discusses potential models for the UK’s relationship with the European Union, if there were to be a vote to leave. The main problems with it is that it assumes that any relationship we had with the EU would essentially follow one or other of the precedents cited: Norway, Switzerland, Canada, Turkey, or a relationship based only on World Trade Organisation membership.
Possible membership of NAFTA is not even mentioned.
It assumes that we would want to negotiate "full access" to the Single Market. Such full access would require the free movement of people, and continued contribution to the EU’s programmes and budget. But there would be no point in leaving the EU only, subsequently, to have essentially the same obligations as when we were members. The idea that we might negotiate a completely new relationship with the EU is not something the document contemplates. In such negotiations we would be in a stronger position than Norway or Switzerland.
The tendentious nature of the Government's arguments is well-illustrated by:
Note: "There would also be a cost". "Would". Yet: "there is no guarantee that we could fully replace our access to the current measures". I.e. we might be able to.
"Could not". This is just an assertion. It is part of the 'strategy of fear'. These are specific non-economic issues, some of them not even governed by EU law. The document does not establish why the countries of the EU would want to abandon, say, established ways of fighting crime.
Richard Kimber, 5th March 2016