UKC

What is "soft brexit" and how can it be achieved?

In reply to Postmanpat:

Open borders
Tariff free trade
Pay into the EU

Bit like being a fully paid up member really.?

In reply to Postmanpat:

A load of waffle.

i.e. never likely to be properly defined.(Nobody knows)

No Brexit will occur without the long approach. Negotiators need to have a good amount of largesse, and lots of patience, and lots of respect for the opposite side's negotiators. There needs to be a great deal of consideration of give and take, and assurances that we intend to be only one step removed from the current membership of the EU.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Is it like being punched in the face by someone wearing a boxing glove as opposed to someone with a knuckle duster?

In reply to Postmanpat:


It's pouring 10 pounds of crap into a 5 pound bag. An impossible task that will result in everyone involved covered in shit.

In reply to Postmanpat:

There are various possibilities, but something similar to what Norway and Iceland have could work.

It's even what a lot of the brexit campaigners were suggesting before the referendum.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Staying in the single market.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Something that doesn't involve f*cking up the economy and people's lives. Achieved by informed negotiation aiming for a settlement that benefits everyone, rather than a zero sum approach carried out by zealots shouting provocative slogans.

In reply to Postmanpat:

A bad deal probably.

In reply to Postmanpat:

I think it generally seen as access to the single market in return for free movement. Both of which are good things. So it's a win, win Brexit (though not as good as no Brexit at all obviously).

In reply to Postmanpat:

Leaving the EU, remaining part of the EEA - or something along those lines I guess.

In reply to Postmanpat:

We spent all those years "half in" now we will be "half out"

Al

In reply to Postmanpat:

A myth

In reply to Postmanpat:

It means putting your country ahead of your party and your own personal ambition.

In reply to Trevers:


But what is it?

In reply to Postmanpat:
Short answer: Dunno, probably can't be.

Longer answer:
If you assume that Brexit was the result of a desire to cut our ties with Europe and sail off to trading agreements with less local foreign types* then it is probably impossible. My understanding of the current customs and trade arrangements were that unilateral trade deals were verboten, so if you want to do a UK-DPRK trade deal for instance then you need it agreed by the other 27 or forfeit access to the common market.
So the soft-brexit seems like a non-starter and you either go hard or go full Euro, personally I would have gone for increased integration as I am not sure the current multi speed Euro-zone actually works.

*(As opposed to just being some turbo-charged NIMBY-ism caused by all those blooming foreign types lurking over the channel).

In reply to Postmanpat:

Single market membership, freedom of movement, continued membership of many European institutions such as Euratom. Seems a good start

In reply to Postmanpat:

You know full well what it is. What is your objection to it?

In reply to Postmanpat:


Staying in the single market. It can be achieved by simply staying in the single market.

In reply to MG:


What is the difference to membership?

In reply to Postmanpat:
Being able to influence EU decisions, vote etc. What is your objection?

In reply to MG:

If that is soft brexit then it's simply membership but with no power or influence. Do you think the 52% voted for that?

Actually I heard Clegg arguing that we should stay in the single market but get some dispensation on free movement so I wondered if that was what people meant by "soft brexit"

In reply to Postmanpat:


We don't know, it may be wise to ask them, instead of forcing things through.

In reply to Postmanpat:

I just don't get it, staying in single market with no free movement, is by definition, not staying in the single market. It's a bit like saying I want a swimming pool but without the water. it's not a swimming pool, it's just a hole in the ground.

It's just will never happen, why would anyone in the EU want to allow British workers to enjoy the benefits of the EU market, but without reciprocity ? It just won't work.

In reply to Postmanpat:
Some did yes. In fact many brexit campaigners advocated exactly that (the Norway option, remember?) Given it is clear your dream of UK departing the rest of world is clearly I tatters, don't you think this option makes the most sense?

http://www.cityam.com/240684/the-norway-option-is-far-from-just-paying-into...

In reply to RomTheBear:

I'd imagine there is some wriggle room with the definition of free movement, if needed.

In reply to MG:


Like what ?

In reply to MG:


Actually the dream was to rejoin the rest of the world. The Norway option appears to continue to prevent us from doing this .

Given that my primary reason for voting leave was the democrat deficit it doesn't make much sense to adopt an arrangement that worsens that deficit, unless it is used as a staging post to negotiate a reasonable deal. Given the clear momentum of Germany and France to move (as I predicted) to a much closer union which may not appeal to all the current members it is not entirely impossible that this may be an option.

In reply to RomTheBear:

Whatever you can think of - benefit restrictions were discussed previously. Salary?

In reply to MG:


Well, there is theoretically no real reason why there shouldn't be. There are other free trade deals without free movement of people deals, but the EU refuses to countenance that. Clegg resorted to bluster when this latter point was made to him.

In reply to Postmanpat:


The level of delusion with brexit arguments is just boggling. How much travel, trade etc. do we have with e.g. the USA, or China? The EU is not the USSR!

In reply to Postmanpat:

That was never really true, and I guess now with some goodwill new things are possible. Of course approach matters by shouting "brexit means brexit" and "not paying a penny" may not lead to them

In reply to MG:


With the US? About 15% of the total. With the non EU world, about 56%. Obviously with much room for growth.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Farage is on the telly (BBC2) right now admitting that he thinks we are heading for a Norway style soft Brexit.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Err right, so highly connected! No need to shoot our selves in both feet to reconnect!

In reply to Robert Durran:


Anybody still listening to him ?

In reply to Postmanpat:

Worth noting that many areas that voted out then voted labour who fa our a soft brexit approach. So I think you are wrong to state what the voted out for?

In reply to RomTheBear:


Well it's already a qualified right, not an absolute one (which is something I feel the British public have been massively misinformed over). I imagine if we reached out to the EU-27, we'd be able to find common ground on changes we'd like to make to this, for the common good.

In reply to MG:

>
Well, we may have the chance to find out. All the evidence so far would suggest not.

In reply to Robert Durran:

I think we'll still aim for the right to do trade deals elsewhere and limit free movement. Terrorism is a big threat to the continuation of free movement at the moment and might be the excuse the EU needs to make an exception.

In reply to Roadrunner5:

Many ex UKIPers switched (back?) to Labour but probably on the assumption that brexit was a done deal. They have now discovered it isn't.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Are you sure about room for growth ? International trade, globally, has plateaued for a while now. The "next step" in international trade that can take growth further, especially in the knowledge economy where the "goods" are people and their skills, that's exactly the kind of regulatory convergence, freedom and movement, and integration the EEA seeked to achieve, and that the UK government rejects.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Surely it's associate membership? As far as I know, Norway don't pay into CAP or the development fund. Their payments are much lower per person, but their net payments are similar to the UK (for a much wealthier country) because they don't receive as much back.
Many other countries restrict freedom of movement by having different qualifying rules for benefits. Maybe this is what we need to look at

In reply to Postmanpat:

And maybe we have to stop giving ukip voters what they want all the time. There will always be a proportion of racists and bigots, pandering to them just increases their share and influence.

U.K. Politicians have not understood that they need to go full frontal assault on the far right instead of gradually incorporating their ideas. They end up in a coalition with the DUP, ffs.

In reply to Postmanpat:


To invert that, I'm not sure it can be.

The best outcome we could aim for might be something similar to what we have, but slightly less good: i.e. tariff-free trade (in return for a significant payment and free-movement of people). And we will have a decade fo disturbance to get there. The very, very best we can hope for is the same terms we have now but loss of our veto and rebate (you know about those, right?).

A "hard" exit would mean
- stuffed on trade: a directory of tariffs that hurts businesses (exports), individuals (imports) and the government (the cost of admistration). BUT the ability to strike individual deals with third party nations (and lack of beneifit of collective negotiating)
- some control of immigration, BUT the necessary exemptions (we rely on EU labour very significantly, for example in the health service) will mean almost no change to current.
- ability to build our own regulatory and legislative framework. BUT also the cost of doing so - medicines approal, safety equipment, food quality, environmental standards, agricultural practise etc. etc.
- no requirement to share police information. BUT the loss of a broader field of view and the cost of doing it all ourselves

A soft Brexit essentially means getting as close as possible to where we are before departure with the minimum cost (both immediate and strategic) extracted from us.

In reply to stevieb:


Yes. Agree.

All of which could be accomplished without the downsides and risks of exit.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Jeremy Corbyn on question time special - "it (leaving the EU) means we withdraw from the EU treaties, reverse the 1972 decision and there is no longer legislative authority over UK law."

I'd imagine that might have had an impact.

In reply to thomasadixon:

Yes, that's a statement of the obvious he made there.
The question is what we replace it with, something that looks more or less the same, nothing, of something different ?
Nobody has bothered answering that question, probably because few of the brexiters want to admit that there no other options visibly much better or easier than full membership.

In reply to RomTheBear:

I think the population have given: not a hard brexit, as an answer very.clearly, which at least narrows the options. Even Farage now accepts a Norway-like option, so PMP is increasingly extreme in his position.

In reply to RomTheBear:

The question has been answered repeatedly. A trade deal.

In reply to MG:


I don't think Farage accepts it, it seems to me he's just trying to depict it as a bad outcome that is becoming increasingly possible.

In reply to thomasadixon:


Yup, so they thought it was a done deal

In reply to thomasadixon:

But that means nothing. A trade deal can go from something that just covers goods, which would be a catastrophe for our services based economy, and massively to our disadvantage, or something much wider, which by necessity will imply supra national courts and so on.

In reply to MG:

TM with the Tories just won the election (just about) campaigning for a 'hard brexit'. Labour won its seats with Corbyn saying the above. The parties still against leaving the EU (greens, lib dems, Scots nats and Sinn Fein, plaid), got very few seats.

In reply to Postmanpat:

I was quite impressed when I heard it.

In reply to RomTheBear:
There is no such necessity except in your mind. Many deals exist, and have existed, without such a court.

Edit - otherwise, yes, of course. The idea is agreement in as many areas as possible.

In reply to thomasadixon:

Ok, give me one, just one example of a trade deal that covers goods and services that doesn't have an arbitration system.

In reply to MG:

>
It's not extreme at all. It's a reluctant recognition that our options are limited by EU intransigence.
Has Farage actually accepted the Norway option or just acknowledged it is the likely option?

In reply to thomasadixon:


Yes, and the majority of the population voted for parties that don't want brexit at all or don't want a hard brexit.

In reply to Postmanpat:


On the special Newsnight earlier this evening he just seemed to accept that it was the most likely outcome. Obviously he's not accepting it as inevitable if he has anything to do with it.

In reply to RomTheBear:


True - but I'm unsure what to read into that - the Tories were doing fine until their domestic policy catastrophes - on what grounds did people actually vote?

In reply to Robert Durran:

That's what I guessed.

It is this that is tempting him to re-enter fray.

In reply to Postmanpat:


What you see as EU intrangisence is in fact just plain common sense. Why would they shoot themselves in the foot and compromise their highly valuable single market, just so that they could give an unfair competitive advantage to a third country ? That doesn't make any sense at all.

In reply to RomTheBear:

An arbitration system isn't necessarily a court, and what's possible depends on what the EU will agree.

In reply to thomasadixon:


Call it what you want, at the end of the day it's a supra national body with superior authority. A court at least as the advantage of working on legal principles, better than shady deals behind closed doors.

In reply to RomTheBear:
If it doesn't have jurisdiction over UK law then I'm okay, and that's perfectly possible depending on how the system is defined.

In reply to thomasadixon:

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.independent.co.uk/News/uk/politics/hung-pa...

In reply to MG:

Was that before or after Corbyn made clear that labour's position was as above I wonder? In any case, just cause Davis said it doesn't make it true, they lost their majority to a party promising the above.

I'd not be surprised if that particular promise was forgotten soon though.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Soft Brexit is what was in the Tory Party 2015 manifesto in the event of a Yes vote i.e. staying in the single market. So an EEA like deal.

A fair number of the 52% voted for that. And the votes of the 48% count as well.

It is what anyone with half an ounce of common sense would skip straight to and start talking about the details because the level of economic disruption of not only losing full access to the EU single market but also losing the benefit of every trade agreement the EU holds with 3rd party countries for a period of years should be considered completely unthinkable.

In reply to thomasadixon:

It's what labour promised pretty much- the manifesto:

"We will scrap the Conservatives’ Brexit White Paper and replace it with fresh negotiating priorities that have a strong emphasis on retaining the benefits of the Single Market and the Customs Union – which are essential for maintaining industries, jobs and businesses in Britain. Labour will always put jobs and the economy first."

In reply to MG:
What are you saying? Note the 'benefits of' qualifier and JCs very clear words re legal jurisdiction.

To add - soft brexit's always been a waffle term that has no real meaning, and as far as I've understood it it's never been clear that it entailed leaving EU jurisdiction. Does it?

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

We've just had an election. What does the 2015 manifesto have to do with anything?

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
>
You haven't read it have you? It didn't say that. It articulated a commitment to the single market whilst the UK remained in the EU but promised to respect the wishes of the electorate if it voted to leave.(P.72/3)

In reply to Postmanpat:


FT's analysis would suggest this isn't in fact the case. They got the new votes from elsewhere.

https://www.ft.com/content/dac3a3b2-4ad7-11e7-919a-1e14ce4af89b

In reply to Postmanpat:


Pat that doesn't make much sense. A commitment to the single market while we remained in the EU is surely meaningless, as single market membership is inherent in EU membership. And the electorate gave no indication as to leaving the single market because they weren't asked that in the referendum question.

In reply to Si dH:

Thx , interesting

In reply to Postmanpat:

Are you quite sure you've read it? If not, it's still available here: https://www.bond.org.uk/data/files/Blog/ConservativeManifesto2015.pdf

From p72: We are clear about what we want from
Europe
- We say: yes to the Single Market
- Yes to turbo-charging free trade
- Yes to working together where we are stronger together than alone
- Yes to a family of nation states, all part of a European Union – but whose interests, crucially, are guaranteed whether inside the Euro or out

You appear to have added the "whilst the UK remained in the EU" bit yourself.

And from p73:
We will let you decide whether to stay in or leave the EU
- We will legislate in the first session of the next Parliament for an in-out referendum to be held on Britain’s membership of the EU before the end of 2017
- We will negotiate a new settlement for Britain in the EU
- And then we will ask the British people whether they want to stay in on this basis, or leave

You might want it to have been a referendum on membership of the single market - but it wasn't!

In reply to skog:

Yes was looking at it while you were posting that- given the repeated commitments to protecting and expanding the single market, Im struggling to see where pat draws his assumptions from.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

>

It's what the bloody thing says! Read it ! It craps on about protecting and strengthening the integrity of the single market whilst in the EU and as the eurozone changes.

The government document encouraging people to vote remain, although it doesn’t explicitly say that leaving the EU means leaving the single market., does hint at the likelihood of reduced “access” to the single market if the UK left the EU.

"For example, the document argues that “remaining inside the EU guarantees our full access to its single market. By contrast, leaving creates uncertainty and risk.”

The leaflet also states that “losing our full access to the EU’s single market would make exporting to Europe harder and increase costs.”

And it compares the UK situation post-Brexit vote to other countries outside the single market. “A more limited trade deal with the EU would give the UK less access to the single market than we have now… For example, Canada’s deal with the EU will give limited access for services, it has so far been seven years in the making and is still not in force.”

(I've not read that document recently, source is Full Fact.)

In reply to skog:
Christ, it's not bloody difficult. All the stuff about enhancing the single market was in the context of the government's commitment to stay in and improve the EU. Hence it also goes on about reducing red tape, reducing EU spending, protecting parliamentary powers blah blah.

That whole section is obviously irrelevant in the case of the electorate voting to leave, as the later government document on the subject at the time of the referendum clarifies.

In reply to Postmanpat:

I can't tell whether you're spinning hard, or delusional, but either way you're completely making that up.

The manifesto commitment to the single market couldn't be clearer. Try searching the document for "single market" and reading what it actually says.

Also very clear is the commitment to leaving the EU if that was the result of the referendum - but that's explicitly and very clearly the EU - not the single market.

In reply to skog:

But there is much more to do
? The EU is too bureaucratic
and too undemocratic? It interferes too much in our
daily lives, and the scale of migration triggered by new
members joining in recent years has had a real impact on
local communities
? We are clear about what we want from
Europe
? We say: yes to the Single Market
? Yes to turbo-
charging free trade
? Yes to working together where we are
stronger together than alone
? Yes to a family of nation
states, all part of a European Union – but whose interests,
crucially, are guaranteed whether inside the Euro or out
?
No to ‘ever closer union.’ No to a constant flow of power
to Brussels
? No to unnecessary interference
? And no, of
course, to the Euro, to participation in Eurozone bail-outs
or notions like a European Army
?

Will they be pursuing all that when they are not members??? Most of it is completely redundant in that case. It's blindingly obviously a manifesto for what the government wants to do as a member. Hence it is immediately followed by:

"It will be a fundamental principle of a future Conservative
Government that membership of the European Union
depends on the consent of the British people – and in
recent years that consent has worn wafer-thin? That’s why,
after the election, we will negotiate a new settlement for
Britain in Europe, and then ask the British people whether
they want to stay in the EU on this reformed basis or leave
? "


The whole of page 73, which outlines how the government would like to "improve" the EU as a member (including enhancing the single market) . How the hell could it do these things if not a memebr?

In reply to Postmanpat:

UKIP need a charismatic leader PMP. Have you not thought about standing?

In reply to Postmanpat:


Let's see.

? We are clear about what we want from Europe
? We say: yes to the Single Market

- There's literally nothing in the entire manifesto to suggest otherwise (unless you can find it?), and several statements about how they are committed to it.

? Yes to turbo-charging free trade

- Even the current lot keep saying so, so I'll take that as yes.

? Yes to working together where we are stronger together than alone

- Probably. Why not?

? Yes to a family of nation states, all part of a European Union – but whose interests, crucially, are guaranteed whether inside the Euro or out

- This one appears to be out, granted

? No to ‘ever closer union.’ No to a constant flow of power to Brussels

- Self-fulfilling

? No to unnecessary interference

- Self-fulfilling, in theory at least

? And no, of course, to the Euro, to participation in Eurozone bail-outs or notions like a European Army

- Self-fulfilling


It's very clearly arguing that we should remain within the single market, and not just on page 72. Where do you see it suggesting we should leave the single market if people vote to leave the EU?

In reply to Andy Hardy:


No, but the fact that you confuse my position with that of UKIP suggests your reading comprehension is about as good as skog's!!

In reply to Andy Hardy:


heh!

In reply to Postmanpat:
I have just read it. As has Skog. I agree with him, your interpretation goes beyond what is written there. Committing to remaining in the single market if we stay in the EU is like committing to abide by the laws of thermodynamics ; they are not optional, and neither is single market membership for EU members.

So the repeated references to how important single market access was regarded can be interpreted in one of two ways:

- wasting ink and paper by pointlessly repeating the bloody obvious

- signalling that single market access really was a top priority and should be seen as such in situations where it wasn't an obligatory part of the settlement

Of course, it nowhere says in the manifesto what the view on single market access would be (a pre referendum pamphlet is not relevant here, people voted in the GE on the basis of the manifesto) in the event of leaving the EU- Cameron expected to win the referendum; but I'd say those that read it as telegraphing a commitment to retaining access to this would have had some grounds to do so.

You may disagree; but if some did read it this way, then it's likely that this would have had an impact on the GE result; and if they continued to take that view, which I think is conceivable, as the passages you refer to are far from a clear statement that a Tory brexit= exit from single market, then that could easily have swung the narrow referendum result.

The contention that it is plain that a Tory led brexit manifestly would involve surrendering access to the single market, and that that's what people voted for when they voted to leave, is just not sustained by the evidence.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

https://twitter.com/YesBrexit/status/782611463697563648

A quick google finds this - do you think that they were being clear enough there, or would it need further clarification?

Not that it matters, we just had an election!

In reply to skog:

Sheesh, the whole point of emphasising their commitment to the single market and the benefits of the single market is to encourage people to stay in . The whole of page 73 is a commitment to improve the EU in ways they think will influence people positively in the referendum which they promise to call. It's got bugger all to do with what happens if we leave: the only commitment made is that the result will be honoured.

We know the architects of the manifesto (Cameron and Osborne)wanted to stay in the single market just as they wanted to stay in the EU. As the subsequent leaflet from the same people ,outlining the benefits of staying in emphasised, “remaining inside the EU guarantees our full access to its single market. By contrast, leaving creates uncertainty and risk.”

Your list of things that are "self fulfilling" is just a wilful misreading, a pretence that because these happen if the UK leaves, that the manifesto is articulating them in the context of leaving. The opposite is true: they are commitments to reform to be made to the EU whilst a member.

Or are you of the view that the whole of page 73 is actually a manifesto for leaving the EU, except for the bits about staying in the EU?

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Not so,1) there are plenty of ways that the free market could be improved. 2) From a government that wants to stay in the EU it pretty obviously going to emphasise the benefits of doing so eg.the single market.

The obvious implication of this, clarified in the document, is that the single market may not survive leaving the EU.

Above all, there is absolutely no mention of staying in the single market, or of anything else at all, if the UK leaves. Given that most of page 73 becomes irrelevant on leaving it is perverse to think that one bit, the single market, should be regarded as some sort of post brexit commitment in the absence of any other commitment about anything.

Thomas Dixon's link makes it about as clear as it could ever be that Cameron and Osborne thought leaving the EU meant leaving the single market, hence their highlighting of its benefits. I rest my case.....

In reply to Postmanpat:

He confuses your position with that of UKIP for the good reason that there is not much difference between the Tory and ukip position. In fact, is there any at all ?

In reply to thomasadixon:

No supra national court ever had jurisdiction over uk law. In the uk international law has to be implemented by UK law, that's exactly why we have the EC act. . I don't know what you're on about, it doesn't change anything practically, the fact is, if an arbitration court ruled against the Uk then parliamentarian would have to act accordingly.

Unless you are suggesting that the uk should not respect nternational law, in which case you can kiss goodbye to any trade deals forever.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Of course not. I simply see a firm manifesto commitment to the single market.

So, where do you see it suggesting we should leave the single market if people vote to leave the EU?

(The manifesto, that is, not the other material you're trying to bring in now!)

In reply to Andy Hardy:


Excuse my ignorance, but what does PMP stand for? Google not helpful.....

In reply to Postmanpat:
I agree with you it's ridiculous to suggest the conservatives manifesto suggested staying in the single market as a post brexit plan.


However nobody seeen to agree on a post brexit plan, given that some polls suggest that a majority wants to stay in the singke market, some other polls suggest the opposite (it depends how you ask the question). It's pretty clear that people have no clue of what they want, there is no clear vision or strategy for the country to unite behind, and essentially the whole brexit thing is an absolute joke, which will end very, very badly.
The way it's going it's probably going to end even more badly that the project fear dooomongers imagined.

in the realisation of this, it seems to me the right approach would be to keep things as they are as much was possible, and then progressively cut ties if that's what people want.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Postmanpat, I believe.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Actually, I'm going to suspend my doubts for a moment and take it that you genuinely, honestly, believe this.

Let me assure you that, if I'm misreading that page, there's absolutely nothing wilful about it.

I see page 72 as being deliberately worded to apply regardless of the referendum outcome. The text is strongly Eurosceptic, and they've even said "We are clear about what we want from Europe" rather than "from the EU"; I can't imagine that's an accident. And, as above, most of the points can be worked towards in or out of the EU (but not so easily out of the single market).

If you do really think it only applies to a remain situation, why is that?

In reply to skog:


Thanks. A bit dim rather than ignorant......

In reply to Robert Durran:

No worries, rd.

In reply to Postmanpat:


No, a good % voted for a £350,000,000 a week lie.

In reply to thomasadixon:

Yes, but I thought that one of the main criticisms of Cameron and Osborne by brexit supporters was that they made up a whole lot of apocalyptic nonsense about the effects of a leave vote, from punishment budgets to, well, a literal apocalypse (risk of ww3), to try to scare people into voting remain

Which is true, they did

So to then try to suggest that we should take the pronouncements of 'Team Fear' as a reliable and authoritative statement of the position of the Conservative party in the light of a leave vote looks very much like wanting to have cake, and eat it...

The referendum campaigns by both sides were rightly slated for their relentless mendacity. SO looking to the position the tories took re the SM when seeking election would still be a reasonable course of action

And that's key- not whether you, or Pat, or i, believed it; but whether it would be possible for a reasonable person to reasonably form the view that the Tory manifesto in 2015 signalled that they were likely to see continued SM access as a priority post brexit. I think it would be.

And then, whether enough such people were likely to have existed that they were relevant in determining the outcome of the referendum

Well, the winning majority was 1m out of 33m votes cast. So if 0.5 m people had voted remain instead of leave, the outcome would have reversed

Could 1 out of every 66 voters have voted leave on the basis they thought the repeated references to the vital importance of continued SM access meant that a Tory govt would prioritise this in any negotiations?

I have no evidence they did; but it does not seem at all far fetched that this could have happened. Indeed it is the opposite position, that less than 3% of leave voters thought that SM access would be a prioritised outcome, is the one I find hard to swallow...

In reply to Postmanpat:


How was it a done deal?

If they thought that one referendum sealed the end result then churchill was right about the 5 minute chat with the average voter....

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

It's all speculation. If people thought there was a risk Corbyn would be chief negotiator no one would have voted out at all!

But if people heard the language from some eu leaders about punishing the UK, the Brexit vote might have increased etc.. who knows.

I do think the 2015 manifesto was written with naive confidence that remain would win and Cameron never though his position was at risk... I see a trend there.

In reply to thomasadixon:

It might do. It's been explained above. No, it isn't a precise term, and if your obsessive absolutism can't cope with that, too bad. The country wants something that works and doesnt screw up everyone's lives. You might not give a shit about that but others do

In reply to skog:

Despite Tom in Edinburgh's assertion, there is simply nothing in the 2015 manifesto abuut whether brexit would be soft (or hard), simply that it would be honoured.

In reply to MG:

>
The "absolutism", as I think you effectively recognise, is baked in the pie. There are really only two alternatives 1) Control immigration in some way-which means leaving the single market. 2) Keep the single market and therefore the free movement of people and most of what goes with membership ie.The Norwegian model.

Both "soft" and "hard" brexiteers, or remainers (eg.Mr.Clegg) can argue for something between these two positions. I would very much prefer something between these two positions. The the EU will not (cannot?) countenance that so we are left with absolutes.

PS.At this stage, and given that we have no effective government, the least bad option might be to hurry towards a Norwegian type deal with the intention of watering it down over time.

In reply to Postmanpat:
You've identified at least four options right there while trying to pretend there are only two! There are myriad options in between.

Note there plenty of others pointing this out too, e.g. Ruth Davidson and also the Brexit minister! Perhaps time for you too to move beyond simplistic extremes?

In reply to MG:


Which is what I asked in my OP and got very few illuminating answers. So elaborate on some.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Yes, agree to most of that.

And since the trade off between restricting immigration and accessing tariff free trade was always going to be the key factor in determining the shape of any brexit, I think there should have been a second question in the referendum:

'In the event of there being a majority for 'leave', should the government of the UK prioritise controlling immigration, or accessing the single market in goods and services?

If they had, there would be a clear mandate to negotiate a brexit, soft or hard, and the second-guessing the intentions of the voting public would not be necessary. It would likely have reduced the level of division we see now, as whatever the result was, it would undeniably be 'the will of the people'

In reply to Postmanpat:

So you can come up with spurious objections? Not today.

But, I really don't see the problem with Norway style model. This demonstrably works in several instances so pretending it is impossible doesn't wash.

In reply to MG:

>
I look forward to hearing from you another day!

In reply to Postmanpat:


Right now I would very happily settle for that, perhaps best done under Ruth Davidson as the least divisive realistic possible PM. Except, of course, that I would like us to drift back to full membership in time - in fact I think this is inevitable in the long term unless the EU implodes in the meantime.

In reply to Postmanpat:

That's simply not true, it's pretty clear the EU is open to negotiations.
Essentially the more we open our market to EU workers and businesses, and accept common regulations, the more they'll open their market to British workers and businesses, and the more they'll allow us to influence regulation, that's just fair.

The problem is that Theresa May has adopted from the onset a hard brexit approach and excluded any sort of wiggle room on freedom of movement or the ECJ. The only reasons we are left with "absolutes" is purely the result of this government's extreme approach.


Probably the most sensible approach, sadly I can definitely see May hang on and hurry us towards a clean break with no deal nor any preparations, which will leave the country in chaos. She is even prepared to do a deal with one of the most extreme and regressive party in the UK, which is founded on religious and ethnic exceptionalism.
But the more it goes the more obvious it is that Theresa May is in fact closer to the DUP than she is to her own party.

In reply to Lusk:


Or is it like accepting a 'leg up' from someone who offered to help you over an otherwise insurmountable obstacle, only for them to drop you half way up.

In reply to Robert Durran:
Macron and Merkel have to negotiate their differing views of the direction the EU should take. With this on the cards and our relationship to that discussion to be formed, I can't see any conservative candidate up for that subtle job. Personally, I think it should and probably will be Corbyn as the Conservatives have no real leadership solution. My bet is on a minority government with Corbyn as PM, with issue by issue voting amongst parties with overlapping policies, when { not if] the conservatives collapse because their conservative alliances are too divergent and too disruptive to the Irish Peace process - and that will be pretty soon, I think. My personal view is that Corbyn is the best person for the negoiatiating job so I hope he gets it. The Conservatives may try a few leaders in the meantime like Boris Johnson or Ruth Davidson. Never thought of her before but I can now see she has an appeal to conservatives as she "appears" moderate by past conservative standards. It's the hype they'll try........it's a substitute for real ideas,{ but that gives away my own point of view on the conservatives}. I still think circumstances are against the conservatives leading any government irrespective of my own political leanings.

In reply to MargieB:

'I still think circumstances are against the conservatives leading any government irrespective of my own political leanings'

So you think the fact that they obtained more seats than any other party is irrelevant? It's called democracy - you have an election and the party with the most seats attempts to form a government.

In reply to John2:

That's a different point. Circumstances are still against them. It will not be possible to pass any vaguely contentious legislation because the government.
will always be just a handful of votes from losing. Weak and wobbly, you might say.

In reply to Postmanpat:


What percentage of that is accounted for by the City? And how much of that City business will diminish a the loss of EU passporting rights? To expect it to increase is at best naive and at worst just arrogant and stupid.

In reply to MG:

It's not a different point. She said, 'I still think circumstances are against the conservatives leading any government'. They are leading the government.

In reply to John2:

Well they aren't yet, and I'd say circumstances are definitely against them doing so for any length of time.

In reply to MG:

I'm sorry? You are aware that May has been to see the Queen and is busy appointing people to her cabinet?

In reply to John2:
Yes. She needs to get a Queens speech past before she has a government in anything but name. I don't really see what you are trying g to say. Everyone, including pretty much all tory MPs and ministers recognise circumstances are against May. It's ludicrous to pretend otherwise.

In reply to MG:

She is a bad prime minister, but she is what we've got. There will be a vote on the Queen's speech, and if the vote is lost that will be the end of the government's mandate. But for now she leads the government.

In reply to MG:


I note that McDonnell has reaffirmed Labour's commitment to leaving the single market but securing the best possible access to that market. I'm sure I've heard that phrase somewhere before......

In reply to Postmanpat:

Remarkable really, I should have more faith. I do wonder if all my remainer mates even noticed Corbyns stance on this.

And that's a 'soft brexit' apparently, the BBC seems to have reclassified 'hard brexit' to mean no deal. No one wants that, so we can pretty much all be soft brexiteers, all agree, and move on.

In reply to thomasadixon:

>
Happy days!

In reply to Postmanpat:


"Soft British Exit" is being poked in the posterior with a well lube'd silicon sausage.

The alternative is an Elephant tusk with no lube!

I wonder how much ivory was/is up for sale that they Tories tried to slip that one into their manifesto?

In reply to Postmanpat:

Continuing Mother Theresa's mantra, 'Brexit means Brexit', I imagine 'soft Brexit means soft Brexit'.

In reply to Postmanpat:

And I see BaE are planning to move production. Still, none of those pesky foreigners around anymore so all worth it.

In reply to MG:
>
What did you see?

Ch4 news saying "one thing is clear, no one here (Strasbourg) is about to make special dispensations for the UK" i.e. no free movement =no single market

In reply to RomTheBear:


A Hard Brexit is a swimming pool without water, as in it's best not to dive in . A soft Brexit is something in which you can swim only not a swimming pool.

In reply to Postmanpat:

I guess fewer jobs just means we must have even fewer foreigners.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-08/airbus-says-u-k-governme...

In reply to MG:



So your previous post was fake news!

In reply to Postmanpat:


Only in the sense of all your "complete-severing-of all-links-with-Europe-is-the-only-Brexit-possible" posts.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Soft Brexit means a cheery wave to the folk who voted to leave the European Union while basically we remain.

In reply to birdie num num:


It means having our cake and eating it - just like no Brexit at all, except that we no longer have any say in which type of cake gets baked next.

In reply to MG:


No. There is another one, which is keep links and give up influence ie. the Norway or Swiss model. I'm only articulating what both major parties are saying and the EU hierarchy is saying.

What do you know that they don't?

In reply to Postmanpat:


Err no. We can and could've controlled non-EU immigration easily without involving the EU at all.

In reply to SenzuBean:


I've no idea what point you are trying to make. We are discussing EU immigration and the broader relationship with the EU.

Why are you bringing up a different subject?

In reply to Postmanpat:



I'm saying that it's not a different subject. Many (most?) people are not actually as concerned about EU immigration as they are about immigration in general. We (right now) can remain in the single market and control immigration. This option still exists.

In reply to SenzuBean:

We can only control non EU immigration.
Both main parties acknowledge that brexit was a vote to enable control of all immigration. You may beg to differ I guess.

In reply to Postmanpat:


The more we wait to come up with a pragmatic position that accepts some influence of EU jurisdiction and some freedom of movement, the less time there is left to negotiate, and the more binary the options become. With only less than two years left it seems difficult now to see how anything else but a clean break or a near full membership of the single market can be achieved.

Only option left would be to have an extension, but it is not in the best interest of the EU that talks drag on, you need an agreement from all the countries, and if we get one, there will surely be a price to pay.

Triggering art 50 before the UK had any strategy or plan in place, that was already a grave mistake, but on top of that losing your majority just after, we are reaching new heights of incompetence for an UK government. Theresa May has effectively thrown away the best cards we had. She really f*cked us and there is nothing we can do.

The fact that she can still be in power after committing such grave errors is quite worrying to me, it means this country is still in denial of the challenges ahead, and they've barely started.

I've always thought brexit could end up being OKish, with some political talent and deep thinking, but I never expected, even in my most pessimistic scenarios, that we'd end up with such an incompetent leadership.

In reply to Postmanpat:



Whether or not you and I agree or disagree doesn't matter - all the brexit vote was answering a simple question (for an extremely complex scenario - i.e. an ill-posed question), taking it to mean that everyone who ticked a box wanted immigration to be curtailed at any cost is not what it meant.

In reply to john arran:

Slightly worse, we have to pay for the cake and get no say in the recipe, it's certainly not a free lunch

In reply to kipper12:

The irony in all of this is that there is still, after all, a slim chance that we get a "soft" brexit, and it won't be down to the "remoaners", but simply down to the incompetence of the brexiteers.

In reply to RomTheBear:


I don't know that the Brexiters,alone in the Government, were responsible for the terrible manifesto or the decision to go for the election. Unless you have evidence otherwise?

In reply to Postmanpat:


Well, we don't really know as during the EU referendum campaign the cases for and against and the "leave" options available were never really defined. We never really knew what the 48% wanted either? Happy with the EU, thouh tt the EU was good but needed reform etc.....


No one really knows what any of these terms mean as it is never properly debated. We've just had the "Brexit" election in which the Tories asked for a stronger mandate to push through their vision of Brexit, but neglected to tell us what it was (or any other policies really). Labour also have been pretty opaque with what they perceive as the ideal Brexit but no one cares because they had a manifesto chock full of socially progressive goodies to chat about and an inability to explain how they were funded as well as leader who seemed out of step with the nation's desire to start nuclear armageddon so no-one ever bothered to ask them about Brexit because they had a lot of other things to report on and discuss. The Libdems tried to talk about Brexit but no-one listened as there were more important things to discuss, i.e. what exactly does Tim class as a sin.

I'm getting pretty fed up with hearing Tory MPs come out with the phrase, "I don't recognise the this term, 'Hard Brexit'". Really, you've been using it for the past nine months and now the political climate has changed you've decided to forget it?

In reply to Jim C:

I was referring to Theresa May and her team.

In reply to galpinos:

Who is "you"?

I think the Tories disavowed the term "hard brexit" , preferring the opaque "brexit is brexit".

In reply to Postmanpat:

Red, white and blue Brexit shurely.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Such an extension could only be for the trade part, with the UK remaining part of the single market for the period of the negotiations under the existing single market rules (contributions, freedoms, and jurisdiction). Politically it is simply not conceivable that, having triggered art. 50, the UK would participate in the next EU elections scheduled for May or June 2019. This is one of the main reasons why the rEU27 insist on divorce first, trade second.

Agreeing to this timetable is probably the main price of the envisioned extension, which is seen as inevitable on the EU side, given that so much time has already been wasted, and a no deal, WTO rules Brexit would be disastrous for the UK economy.

In fact, while the UK has individual WTO membership, the current "schedules" have all been negotiated for the EU as a whole. Simply applying them to the UK can be blocked by any external WTO member state, in which case the baseline tariffs would apply whatever the UK and EU may want.

CB

In reply to Postmanpat:

We heard quite a lot of, 'No deal is better than a bad deal' during the campaign. I don't, however, expect to hear it again.

In reply to Postmanpat:

No ones said it...

Soft Brexit means soft brexit.

Sorry, I'll get my coat.

Toby

In reply to Postmanpat:


The Tory MPs who have since decided "soft" and "hard" brexit are terms they "don't recognise" or "reject", see Gove this morning. They were happy using them for the last nine months in various discussions but never queried what they meant.


They may change that tactic now though having seen what trying to run on a campaign devoid of policies or content does.....

In reply to galpinos:


Maybe, but that is the problem. They have become a shorthand, employed largely by the media for convenience, so everybody (not just Tory MPs) ends up using them without saying what they are.

It seems to me that both major parties (and maybe the others?) want something between the Norwegian model and the free movement/single market membership model, but they cannot define what it is and it is probably unachievable anyway.

The difference if there is one is that "soft brexit' has come to mean "we'll be nice to them and hope they'll be nice to us" and hard brexit as "we'll play hard and hope they'll bend".
Quite probably both of those are fantasy hopes.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Thought it would be best to ask the oracle:

youtube.com/watch?v=QsgX9J51ruw&
youtube.com/watch?v=5H-Sqz2f9DQ&

By the way, if 48.1% voted Remain and many of the 51.9% voted for Brexit on constitutional issues eg the Weatherspoons guy but wanted no change on immigration, how is it we all seem to believe there is a strong anti immigration consensus?