Switzerland is a single market participant through bilateral treaties, like Norway and Iceland are through EEA. While they aren't "members" of the single market, I think we'd usually consider those four EFTA countries plus the 28 EU states to make up the "single market", though I accept there is no clear terminology in some ways!

Still though, such a relationship is equally not the plan of the current UK government, and customs union membership is not a prerequisite for single market 'membership' as such.

The UK is trying to leave the EU and stay in the single market. The EU is trying to deny the UK access to the single market.

Might also be interesting to have the view of an actual Norwegian on the Norway option, and how Britain is managing the process generally. She's not the only person on the continent who regards British politicians as malcontented fools who, at this point, deserve whatever they get:

https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status/1071078003780870146

Nobody is talking about it anymore because the EU refused point blank to even contemplate it and stated very loudly and clearly they'd rather die than ever allow such "cherry picking". Note the terminology - the quality of EU governance is very low and the lack of imposed trading barriers is the primary incentive (an artificial incentive!) that countries see for putting up with it.

So that idea got dropped. In fact at this point it's clear that there's no way to retain any form of cooperation with EU countries at all, on anything, without accepting ALL the EU's terms, which are unacceptable as they amount to not leaving at all.

This is a bad approach for the EU to take. Its supporters like to pretend this position is some sort of natural law or inevitability, but it's not. The EU could easily disconnect trade deals and customs unions from the other aspects of its project, but chooses not to, because they know that most people outside France and Germany would not accept transfers of all powers to Brussels without some serious incentives to do so.

First off, you can disregard any statements made by Leave campaigners during the referendum campaign. The same people who are now advocating a “cut all ties” approach were the ones who were saying things like “nobody is talking about leaving the single market”. Looking for ideological consistency is a dead end.

Second, the UK and campaigners should have been well aware of what would be required if the UK wished to retain single-market membership. Those are foundational principles of the EU. There’s no ambiguity there. Anybody who advocated a position that wasn’t reconcilable with those principles was either ignorant or lying.

Third, you are deliberately misrepresenting the nature and state of the EU and it’s negotiating position. There are a clear number of different forms the UK’s relationship with the EU could take. The UK could end up in an EEA-style relationship, being single market participants but with more freedom in some areas. Or the UK could have a more distant relationship and remain within the European customs union. Or a border could have been instituted in the Irish Sea. Or a generally more distant relationship could have been negotiated in good faith. These scenarios were obvious and known, made clear by the EU, and it’s a monumental failure of governance that the UK failed to understand their negotiating position.

The EU has little incentive to change its underlying principles to reflect the demands of the UK, and expecting them to do so is obviously fantasy mismanagement.

I’ll tell you what the actual problem is - Brexit is a project with no real shape or form, into which people can pour their own fantasies. It is totally legitimate for a country to decide it no longer wishes to be a member, but to disentangle a close relationship like that requires clarity about what you want to achieve and why you want to do it, as well as honesty about what is possible and what it will cost. Honesty and clarity are both in short supply.

Third, you are deliberately misrepresenting the nature and state of the EU and it’s negotiating position. There are a clear number of different forms the UK’s relationship with the EU could take

That's a very odd claim to make because the EU itself is extremely clear that you're wrong. Here are some excerpts from recent news articles about Theresa May's withdrawal agreement, which the EU is now unanimous in claiming is the only option available at all, that there are no "different forms the UK's relationship could take". Who should I believe? Them or you?

- Germany's Europe minister Michael Roth said:"No deal better than the one on the table can be reached."

- Luxembourg's Foreign Minister Jean Asselborn said .... ""This deal that is now on the table is the best there is. There is no better deal for this"

- Brussels said Mrs May’s Withdrawal Agreement was ‘the best and the only deal possible’ and had been ‘approved, established, achieved’.

These statements appear to contradict you.

The EU has little incentive to change its underlying principles to reflect the demands of the UK, and expecting them to do so is obviously fantasy mismanagement.

Indeed your own position appears to contradict itself. On one hand, there are many possible options with varying degrees of commitment available. On the other, the EU will never abandon its principles. Which, lest we forget, they've said repeatedly means "no cherry picking" i.e. no options.

Honesty is in short supply.

Hmmmm ...

(I would reply but of course, Hacker News has now rate limited me because I got downvoted. This debate will have to play out some other time).

I won’t quite the rest, but I think you have misunderstood the EU’s position on this.

Yes, as I said there are different forms the relationship could take. I described some of them. What there isn’t - as various EU bods you quote point out – is any other deal available at this point. It’s done. If the UK had engaged in this process honestly, from the start, then other deals could have been achieved. Remember this graphic published by Barbier? http://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/rngs/BRITAIN-EU/0100603...

I don’t think I’m being at all inconsistent or dishonest here. I’m happy to change my views if I’m wrong. But I haven’t heard a convincing argument that the current situation is the fault of anybody but a comically incompetent UK government.

You very obviously don't read Mr. Johnson's Telegraph columns</snark>

I agree. The EU was always very clear where their read lines were and never deviated from that. The PM on the other hand made very clear what the UKs red lines are. And does are simply incompatible with what's acceptable for the EU.

An ex-member undermining the fundamental principles of the single market is just not on the table.

Again, I don't see how your position matches the reality of what is being said by the people in power. So I think I'm not the one who's misunderstood their position.

The EU folk you are quoting are clear that this is the only deal that is available, and that is correct – but those statements are in the context of the red lines established by the UK, and the point in the negotiations that we are now at.

First, please refer to the graphic I linked to. It outlines how the conditions established for an EU exit deal by the UK limited the options that were available. These choices were almost entirely on the UK, and they are obvious to anybody with even a passing familiarity with the various bodies and constructs involved. The UK decided what conditions it was not willing to accept – free movement, ECJ jurisdiction; shared trade policy etc. – and the deal which has been achieved is the best deal possible given those constraints.

Second, realise that we are now at the end of the negotiation process. There is no appetite for renegotiating a deal under these circumstances. The UK and EU have negotiated for two years; if a different approach had been taken at the beginning of those negotiations, a different deal would have been possible. That is now no longer the case.

Both my statement that "a better was possible", and the EU's statements that "no better deal is now possible" are true.

Citing foreign ministers of member states just proves how ignorant you are on EU itself.

Again - single market isn't just trade. Read what four freedoms are, aka single market. The options for UK are clear: - if you want to leave customs union, you leave barrier free trading - if you want to restrict labour movement, you leave freedom of goods, services and capital movement

UK's real options, with Brexiteers in mind, is CETA++...

The position of UK and leavers was that of a deranged husband in divorce - demanding sex, without so much as an inkling of fidelity.

This quality of debate is exactly the sort of thing that led to the Remain campaign losing so badly. I see the slogans and the insults but where are the arguments?

You know... Cherry pick which of the four core principles of EU UK wanted to participate in.

So... Maybe your Brexit mind wishes to ignore the fact of the matter, but just because you ignorantly assign a different meaning to single market - doesn't make your recollection any less of a falsehood.

UK government has been trying to reframe this into an FTA, which it isn't.

There's also Good Friday Agreement... that is an international treaty.