Brexit

[Gary Baldi]

Rubbish.

The question on the ballot paper was "Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?" There was nothing about the terms of the departure - nothing about the single market, customs union, EEA membership, and hundreds of other things that most voters didn't even stop to consider. Indeed, that was one of my main reasons for voting Remain - I knew what I was getting, warts and all, whereas "Leave" was an amorphous vote for "something else" that could mean anything and has, predictably, been hijacked by a minority of hardline Eurosceptic rightwingers whom Theresa May is too weak to resist.

Please look up what the EU as a federalistic state is and what it meant by being a member and leaving. Ergo, there is no such thing as a hard brexit, soft brexit, Tory brexit - it's all a figment of imagination. It may not suit the Europhiles who have tried to obfuscate that simple sentence, but the vote was very clear we would fully leave or fully stay. It was a mutually exclusive concept (stay/go), not polygon based venn diagram of choice to be manipulated afterwards.

Here is the voting card, and the choices. Cannot see anything about remaining in the single market, EEA, etc, or an * for ts and cs. Can you?

Further, it is now our choice to renegotiate a new relationship with the EU, but it means we have to leave first and cease being a member of the EU (and the terms of being an EU member such as access to the single market) before any new relationship can be cemented in. If you don't like that reality, blame the EU for putting the UK in a corner by not negotiating in any good faith with Cameron. He asked for little and they gave nothing. More fool them I say.

 

[Gary Baldi]

So delusion then that there isn't a wide range of possibilities for Brexit.

Because we have to leave first before creating a new relationship with the EU. We cannot go half and half, and rightly the EU said that method would not be appropriate because it would allow other members to do the same thing.

Let me put it thus way? Can you turn a light bulb half off with just an on off switch? Or do you need to remove the old switch and buy a new dimmer switch before doing it?

 

[Marked Ox]

Because we have to leave first before creating a new relationship with the EU. We cannot go half and half, and rightly the EU said that method would not be appropriate because it would allow other members to do the same thing.

Let me put it thus way? Can you turn a light bulb half off with just an on off switch? Or do you need to remove the old switch and buy a new dimmer switch before doing it?

So semantics and methodology. It will still end in either a soft Brexit or hard Brexit or somewhere in between.

 

[Peterdev]

There will be a particular type of exit we take whether it be Canadian or otherwise ultimately.
Most people in this country probably understand hard brexit to mean no deal at all, soft exit being one of the many options open. No doubt In the fullness of time we may understand what will happen....then a vote by parliament to ratify

 

[HayfieldYellow]

and the terms of being an EU member such as access to the single market

Norway and Switzerland prove that it's possible to be outside the EU and inside the Single Market. The two are not synonymous.

Ergo, there are multiple possible Brexit destinations. Soft and Hard Brexit, in other words.

 

[Gary Baldi]

So semantics and methodology. It will still end in either a soft Brexit or hard Brexit or somewhere in between.

Not at all. We are leaving the EU as per the vote, thus we are exiting the EU and it is a "hard" brexit or just brexit. A soft brexit would only have been possible if the EU had renegotiated and they chose to not do that - no article 50 would have been triggered. Hate to be a dick about it, but there are a lot of assumptions out there that we can remain in the EU by just changing to a different deal and not have to ever trigger Article 50, or stay and remain part of the common market but stop freedom of movement.

There has to be acceptance that we are off, and any new deal will not be hard or soft brexit. And certainly a "soft" brexit won't be possible due to the rules of the EUs internal market prohibiting it. It will be a new deal, and to use common terminology, I'd think be a middling brexit.

 

[Gary Baldi]

Norway and Switzerland prove that it's possible to be outside the EU and inside the Single Market. The two are not synonymous.

Ergo, there are multiple possible Brexit destinations. Soft and Hard Brexit, in other words.

But not in the way you want it to be! We are leaving, thus we are brexiting - article 50 took care of that one. Anything new won't be brexit of any strain, not in the way a lot of remainers assume it will be or want it to. It will be a trade deal of some unknown scope and mandate.

We can have access to the single market, not as part of the EU or as part of any associated club like the EEA which is what a lot of remainers seem to want us to do - the Norway and Swiss deals. Those items are off the cards from the EUs perspective - they have been very clear on that (and rightly so I might add).

It would be a bespoke trade deal where some elements of the single market could likely be off the cards or simply a tariff free deal with the EU on agreed items such as trade or financial services that avoids some of the single market bureaucracy. On the last part, would we have access to the single market or just a trade deal with each EU member state? Time will very much tell on that.

 

[Marked Ox]

Not at all. We are leaving the EU as per the vote, thus we are exiting the EU and it is a "hard" brexit or just brexit. A soft brexit would only have been possible if the EU had renegotiated and they chose to not do that - no article 50 would have been triggered. Hate to be a dick about it, but there are a lot of assumptions out there that we can remain in the EU by just changing to a different deal and not have to ever trigger Article 50, or stay and remain part of the common market but stop freedom of movement.

There has to be acceptance that we are off, and any new deal will not be hard or soft brexit. And certainly a "soft" brexit won't be possible due to the rules of the EUs internal market prohibiting it. It will be a new deal, and to use common terminology, I'd think be a middling brexit.

Again, semantics. The end game will either be a soft Brexit or hard Brexit (or in between) as the terms describe the end state, not the process.

 

[HayfieldYellow]

As Marked Ox said, that's just a quibble. So we leave first and then do a subsequent deal to access some aspects (though inevitably on worse terms than we already had). End result = soft Brexit.

The idea that Brexiters all shared the same end-point is simply not sustained by the facts. Even the Leave politicians didn't agree (as pointed out by Nick Clegg before the vote, though he didn't get everything right).

 

[Gary Baldi]

Again, semantics. The end game will either be a soft Brexit or hard Brexit (or in between) as the terms describe the end state, not the process.

It's not, because Remainers will still keep blithering on about how we can stay in and how we can cancel article 50, even though neither Govt or EU seem to want that. Thus it's important to differentiate between leaving (brexit) and the new deal, thus neutering the hard/soft brexit nonsense than really few people can articulate what the hell they mean. And allows persistent distraction to the end process.

 

[Gary Baldi]

As Marked Ox said, that's just a quibble. So we leave first and then do a subsequent deal to access some aspects (though inevitably on worse terms than we already had). End result = soft Brexit.

The idea that Brexiters all shared the same end-point is simply not sustained by the facts. Even the Leave politicians didn't agree (as pointed out by Nick Clegg before the vote, though he didn't get everything right).

Never said everyone had the same goal . Most leavers understood that very thing when we voted how we voted, it's the remain side that get all knicker knotted about it and cannot understand it. My reasons (EU federal state) were different to my neighbours (migrants, hate the lot of 'em) to my boss (trade).

The hard/soft brexit terms are obfuscating the brexit process by creating a perception of it can be softened and creating a fall for the Govt if it's not. It's the remain side that require the shades of grey on a yes/no vote to keep the candle burning in hope we remain suckling on the teet of the EU. Thankfully, we're

 

[Marked Ox]

It's not, because Remainers will still keep blithering on about how we can stay in and how we can cancel article 50, even though neither Govt or EU seem to want that. Thus it's important to differentiate between leaving (brexit) and the new deal, thus neutering the hard/soft brexit nonsense than really few people can articulate what the hell they mean. And allows persistent distraction to the end process.

That'll be just you wanting that differentiation then while the rest including other leavers and the media discuss/debate soft/hard Brexit as I've mentioned.

 

[Gary Baldi]

That'll be just you wanting that differentiation then while the rest including other leavers and the media discuss/debate soft/hard Brexit as I've mentioned.

Nope. It's the Remain side obsessing again about verbiage and categories, again. It's just hard, soft, tory, etc, etc

 

[dabigfella]

The one thing that really amuses me about the whole argument is the way the "experts" keep on predicting dire economic results immediately, and then they don't happen.

 

[Deleted member 462]

Battle boats now

 

[Flean]

View attachment 99

Battle boats now

I wish there was a Face palm emoticon.

 

[Deleted member 462]

I wish there was a Face palm emoticon.

I did not draw it ?. I just like the shark

 

[Flean]

The one thing that really amuses me about the whole argument is the way the "experts" keep on predicting dire economic results immediately, and then they don't happen.

Now you've got the Brexit Secretary (is he 'expert' enough for you?) projecting "project fear".

"... beyond rational analysis... " sums it up perfectly.

http://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/james-obrien/james-obrien-analysis-david-davis-no-deal-letter/

 

[mcf86]

Like it, much.

 

[Flean]

Davis and Hammond on a "charm offensive".. Maybe Wilder and Shotton would do a better job

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...ny-in-pursuit-of-brexit-deal?CMP=share_btn_fb