[Politics] Brexit

[Lincoln Imp]

Can you please define what you mean by a soft Brexit?

I would go with your definition in post 318, although I wouldn't describe it as half leaving. If we're not members we've left, surely?

 

[Danny-Boy]

Is it possible to determine what the vast majority of voters are in favour of without having clearer definitions of what soft/hard Brexit actually mean?

Can you please define what you mean by a soft Brexit?

Sort of the difference between Pampers and Izal I fear,

 

[Seagull58]

But thats the rub isnt it.
People like Hilary Benn can cross divides and appeal to people not normally Labour Voters. Thats how you win elections.

Corbyns lot appeals to no one outside the cult minority already standing in the circle, patting each other on the back and whacking each other off

A militant socialist workers circle jerk

 

[Seagull58]

The worst appears yet to come. HSBC expect the Pound to reach parity with the Euro next year and $1.10 with the Dollar by the end of 2017. Not good given our level of imports.

The "analysts" were forecasting Oil to reach $200 a barrel not many years ago. Now it's at less than $50.

 

[alfredmizen]

Nonsense, there are myriad factors determining where a person decides to live. You haven't the slightest inkling of his personal circumstances and motivations but irrespective of this you blindly assume that he's a hypocrite and therefore make the startling leap that his opinion is invalid. Wow! Is that really what you think? Are all socialists hypocrites and their opinions invalid because they chose to remain in Britain under a tory administration? Are all supporter of CND hypocrites and their opinions invalid because they chose to remain in Britain when the government has committed to spend over £40 billion renewing trident? What a simple world you live in.

How about this one; are all racist xenophobes hypocrites and their opinions invalid unless they move away from countries that accept immigrants to ones that don't?

He chose to move to and gain citizenship of a country that wouldn't accept the terms he's telling us that we should accept , your above arguments are meaningless and bear no similarity to what he has done i.e. Leave his original residence for somewhere new , then start lecturing those left behind how they should live their lives, , his stance is a typical labour on of "do as I say , not as I do " .

 

[alfredmizen]

As far as I can tell soft Brexit means trying to retain our current membership of/access to the single market, which almost certainly means free movement continuing and having to abide by ECJ law (only half/ not really leaving?). Whereas Hard or real Brexit means negotiating for a maximum amount of tariff free access to the single market possible while ending free movement and primacy of EU law amongst other issues, broadly defined as 'taking back control'.

Others will probably define it differently which supports pastafarian's point .. all rather subjective.

You have to ask what was the point of voting to leave in the first place if we accept what you think would be soft brexit ?

 

[Lincoln Imp]

You have to ask what was the point of voting to leave in the first place if we accept what you think would be soft brexit ?

Because if we left under soft Brexit terms we would still have left. We would no longer be members. Brexit would have meant Brexit. Now it might not be the sort of Brexit you had in mind but you can't start adjusting the definition after the vote.

 

[vegster]

The "analysts" were forecasting Oil to reach $200 a barrel not many years ago. Now it's at less than $50.

The problem is that the working poor, those who even Mrs May says " have been left behind ", will suffer proportionally more in the long run from the current slide in the value of the Pound... But hey ho,

 

[studio150]

No, you're (maybe deliberately) missing our point. We either stay in the EU based on the minority of voters, or we leave based on the majority of voters. You seem to be suggesting that we should be staying in, because a large minority wanted us too, despite the fact that even more wanted us to leave. What are you on about?

So who do you think should determine our future, the 34% who voted remain, or perhaps the 29% who couldn't be bothered to vote?

Firstly, I'm not sure many believed that figure, and secondly, a lot of people who voted remain did so on the basis of lies from the remain camp.

Maybe the following article better articulates what [MENTION=11720]kevo[/MENTION] was looking to get across, no doubt he will shout if not.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/oct/07/marching-mad-brexit-someone-speak-48-per-cent

 

[drew]

No, you're (maybe deliberately) missing our point. We either stay in the EU based on the minority of voters, or we leave based on the majority of voters. You seem to be suggesting that we should be staying in, because a large minority wanted us too, despite the fact that even more wanted us to leave. What are you on about?

So who do you think should determine our future, the 34% who voted remain, or perhaps the 29% who couldn't be bothered to vote?

Firstly, I'm not sure many believed that figure, and secondly, a lot of people who voted remain did so on the basis of lies from the remain camp.

So, of the 37% of those that voted leave, what percentage voted for a hard brexit and what percentage for a soft brexit? Fact is nobody knows because the brexit campaign didn't campaign on either basis.

 

[Hastings gull]

The problem is that the working poor, those who even Mrs May says " have been left behind ", will suffer proportionally more in the long run from the current slide in the value of the Pound... But hey ho,

I am not an economist so this is not a loaded question; why will they suffer disproportionately?

 

[JC Footy Genius]

I would go with your definition in post 318, although I wouldn't describe it as half leaving. If we're not members we've left, surely?

Ah you mean a theoretical Brexit, in name only. I think we know that was never going to happen. If May went for that option the Tory party would implode and the vast majority of Leave voters would be a a tad miffed. The PM has correctly identified the main areas/bare minimum she has to deliver on. She's talking the talk we will wait to see if those kitten heels can walk the walk.

You have to ask what was the point of voting to leave in the first place if we accept what you think would be soft brexit ?

Quite, which is why it (my definition of soft Brexit) is just wishful thinking for some remainers and won't happen as it would be rightly viewed as a grubby attempt to water down or circumvent the referendum vote.

 

[beorhthelm]

I am not an economist so this is not a loaded question; why will they suffer disproportionately?

they dont unless inflation starts to increase. they have the least exposure to currency as their main expenditure is rent, energy and food, which fluctuate little with currency. those frequently buying consumer goods from abroad will be affected the most.

 

[Triggaaar]

Is it possible to determine what the vast majority of voters are in favour of without having clearer definitions of what soft/hard Brexit actually mean?

Yes it is. It's not possible to be give fine detail on what everyone wants, but we can safely say that the majority of people who voted would like us to still have access to the single market.

Can you please define what you mean by a soft Brexit?

Access to single market, free movement of people.

 

[Triggaaar]

So, of the 37% of those that voted leave, what percentage voted for a hard brexit and what percentage for a soft brexit? Fact is nobody knows because the brexit campaign didn't campaign on either basis.

Nobody knows the exact percentage, but it only needs to be 10% soft, 90% hard for the majority of voters to be in favour of soft brexit.

 

[Triggaaar]

Maybe the following article better articulates what @kevo was looking to get across, no doubt he will shout if not.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/oct/07/marching-mad-brexit-someone-speak-48-per-cent

Yes, he might have meant to say that, but his point about 'hard brexit' got lost in the idea that 37% shouldn't determine our future. Of course they should, if that's the majority of voters. But I do agree with the point that although we have to leave (as per the result) it doesn't have to be a hard exit.

 

[Gwylan]

Yes it is. It's not possible to be give fine detail on what everyone wants, but we can safely say that the majority of people who voted would like us to still have access to the single market.

Yes. That's absolutely clear. All talk of exiting the single market is going against the wishes of the majority.

I voted leave but I did so on the understanding that we would still have access to the EU single market (as written in the Tory manifesto), many thousands would have done the same.

 

[beorhthelm]

Yes. That's absolutely clear. All talk of exiting the single market is going against the wishes of the majority.

that isnt a given, it depends on the cost of "access". if it means paying in, accepting EU law and regulations, free movement, in other words EU-lite, then i dont the majority of leavers would support that. people are expecting powers returned, less money paid, less immigration, they need to deliver on at least two of the three i'd say.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

Yes it is. It's not possible to be give fine detail on what everyone wants, but we can safely say that the majority of people who voted would like us to still have access to the single market.

Access to single market, free movement of people.

Yes. That's absolutely clear. All talk of exiting the single market is going against the wishes of the majority.

I voted leave but I did so on the understanding that we would still have access to the EU single market (as written in the Tory manifesto), many thousands would have done the same.

All the EU's trading partners across the world have 'access' to the single market as would we even in a Hard Brexit scenario. It's all about what type of access. Do you mean exactly the same as we have now?

 

[Triggaaar]

that isnt a given, it depends on the cost of "access". if it means paying in, accepting EU law and regulations, free movement, in other words EU-lite, then i dont the majority of leavers would support that.

The majority of leavers might not like that, but the majority of voters would, and that's the point.