True. The situation is very shit. ECJ jurisdiction is - strictly speaking (and I know I am fudging a little here) - over. EFTA-style court is what would rule instead, and that would cover a much smaller set of legislation than we currently enjoy from the EU.
As for kippers, there were 17 million votes for leave and a surprisingly large number don't have immigration as their major concern.
Also, if we take Switzerland as an example, free movement doesn't seem to have precisely the same implications for an EEA member outside the union, but there is a tradeoff as to the access you get if you try to restrict movement. This was something the Swiss experimented with a few years back. Not altogether happily, I seem to recall, but I am hazy.
> This was something the Swiss experimented with a few years back. Not altogether happily, I seem to recall, but I am hazy.
The people voted (constitutional amendment) to limit free movement. The EU said "hmm, no", so they basically fudged it.
There's a summary (in French) at https://www.eda.admin.ch/missions/mission-eu-brussels/fr/hom... which basically says the Swiss parliament passed a law that respected the requirements of that constitutional amendment while still meeting Switzerland's free-movement treaty obligations.
Hmm, that is a huge fudge; it's not been implemented at all as written, but there's some changes to make sure that Swiss jobseekers get first pick of the available jobs.
At least the Swiss are clear on what they're trying to achieve.
As for kippers, there were 17 million votes for leave and a surprisingly large number don't have immigration as their major concern.
Also, if we take Switzerland as an example, free movement doesn't seem to have precisely the same implications for an EEA member outside the union, but there is a tradeoff as to the access you get if you try to restrict movement. This was something the Swiss experimented with a few years back. Not altogether happily, I seem to recall, but I am hazy.