What exactly is a "Soft Brexit"?

[optionalrationale]

Isn't the notion of a "Soft Brexit" just a forlorn hope that "Brexit Somehow Means Remain"?

'Soft Brexit' would be being a member of the EEA. People like Daniel Hannan MEP were all in favour of this. We have absolutely no idea how many people would like this option because the question wasn't put. Theresa May has decided, entirely off her own bat, but with the right wing head bangers in her party firmly in her sights, that the Referendum question was 'Do you want to see Immigration from the EU restricted?'

Sensible, informed Leave commentators like Richard North, are also in favour of an EEA option.

I'm intrigued OP. Would you still favour your 'hard brexit' at the cost of a significant decline in per capita earnings in the uk? How big of a fall in individual living standards is worth it to you? How widely do you believe your view is shared?

This is absolutely the question that hard Brexiters need to answer.

This is absolutely the question that hard Brexiters need to answer.

Meanwhile - the rosebay willowherb pushes up through the concrete, and seeds dropped by birds begin to grow into saplings........

...and companies pick up their feet and relocate one by one.

Soft Brexit" is the Remainers' final hope of clinging into the EU.

Why are you so obsessed with this OP?

Why are you so desperate to tell everyone that Brexit will be as hard as possible and dismiss anyone who wants soft Brexit?

There seems to be an odd paranoia amongst Leavers lately.

Why, particularly after mondays events, do you think it's so important to isolate ourselves from the EU to the fullest extent possible?

I've resigned myself to the fact it's where we are heading but what are we actually going to gain from a Hard Brexit?

How has this conversation gone on all night? What is the point? If you don't actually want to hear what people think soft Brexit is, unless they agree with you, and you think it isn't going to happen, why ask?

There seems to be an odd paranoia amongst Leavers lately.
Well, they were let down by the Austrian, Dutch and French elections, whose electorate didn't vote the right way for them. Can't trust those damned continentals.

Maybe there is a realisation that it isn't going to be all unicorns......
Actually it's going to be quite rubbish....
Maybe it's because the next generation of voters didn't want this
And maybe it's because they've realised that people aren't going to just shut up and start saying hurray isn't this marvellous.

Just keeping on keeping on isn't going to beat people into submission, they will just stop talking to you.

in response to bearbehinds last post, in light of recent horrible events, being free of the current human rights legislation and european courts jurisdiction would be a huge advantage.

Please elucidate carnival. How would there be any advantage? I presume you're referring to the Manchester attack, but, given the vagueness of your post, can;t be sure.

Actually, you could argue it's a good reason to keep them (just as vague but happy to elucidate)

It seems to me that there is a difference between people who are happy to share control and power and those that want total control. Do it my way or you must be wrong. My rules for me and my rules for you too....The number of threads trying to get those that voted remain to agree illustrate this.
I currently work with an organisation with this pattern and it is strangling the life out of it.

How about this?

A soft Brexit with soft borders

1. Britain exits EU, no freedom of movement, no access to single market.
2. Scotland becomes independent/further devolved and joins the EU. It has access to single market and FOM. It also has a soft border with the rest of the UK for both goods and people from Scotland and rest of UK.
3. Northern Ireland has a similar arrangement, perhaps more likely to be further devolution rather than independence.

So then firms with an office in Scotland/NI can export/import freely into EU. EU can export/import freely into Scotland/NI. Scotland/NI can export/import freely into rest of UK. Physical things just need to go via Scotland/NI (so customs etc goes there, plus maybe to the soft borders). So, for example a lot of financial services sector would move to Scotland/NI as passporting would still be valid from there, and the firms could still have linked London offices. It would take some of the heat/pressure out of the South/London, but wouldn't involve the same losses as people decamping wholesale to Frankfurt/Paris etc. Attractive as same time zone, same language etc as London (so good for e.g. US firms) and many financial firms already have small regional offices in e.g. Edinburgh/Belfast, so they wouldn't be starting from zero.

Scotland and NI have freedom of movement. But England/wales/Channels Islands don't. All still have relatively straightforward access to the single market.

The British Isles becomes less London-centric, more balanced as some firms relocate. Relocation also happens to areas other than NI/Scotland to e.g. north of England as it's closer to Scotland and easier to physically get goods there, also ports like Liverpool that face Ireland see a resurgence.

Existing EU migrants can decamp to Scotland/NI and settle there (Scotland actively needs immigration). After a set period/process/exam they can become citizens there and from there can move to the rest of the UK if they so wish, but this is a lengthy process that involves time and commitment. Similarly people from the rest of the UK moving to Scotland/NI- after a set period of time/process you can become an EU citizen and from there move to Europe, but again, it's a lengthy process involving time and commitment.

There would need to be regulation of what actually having a base in Scotland/NI constitutes- I.e it can't just be a PO and someone to divert calls.

So England/Wales would be in a sort of Greenland situation. So it might need to be structured so that England/Wales leave the EU at the same time Scotland/NI achieve a new status, rather than the whole of the UK leaves the EU and Scotland/NI rejoin.

Think the Spanish and French would be ok with this re Basque/Catalan/Corsican question, as France and Spain themselves are unlikely to want to leave the EU.

Please elucidate carnival. How would there be any advantage?

There are major disadvantages to prosecuting all sorts of crime outside the EU so thought I'd elucidate instead...

•	 <strong>European Arrest Warrant</strong> -most important way to identify, collect and share intelligence to prosecute terrorists. ( One of the  21/7 bombers, was brought to face justice swiftly using the European arrest warrant.) Without this we default to slower extradition procedures.

• Europol- May has praised Europol for bringing terrorists to justice and helping to track down cross-border criminal networks, including paedophiles and people traffickers.
• EU’s Prum-The government opted into this system to swiftly share DNA, fingerprint and vehicle registration data between member state police forces in 15 minutes. Outside the EU we default to the Interpol more cumbersome procedures which take an average of 143 days to match DNA samples of criminals or terrorists.
• Passenger name recognition (PNR) system- We as part of the European Parliament set up this system, allowing us all to quickly share information about airline passengers.





Why would England/Wales need to collect the duty Maria? The point of that kind of soft border is that there would be no duty.

The quid pro quo is that duty doesn't need to be paid to Scotland/the EU when goods go in the opposite direction.

Because that would rely on a free trade agreement with no duties levied. Which requires negotiation with the other 27 EU countries to achieve if Scotland and NI manage to remain in the EU through some magic arrangement.

Today 09:55 Kaija
Turns out most people want soft Brexit

Sorry Kaija, but could you please explain what exactly that phrase Soft Brexit means?

Today 11:19 Bearbehind

Soft Brexit" is the Remainers' final hope of clinging into the EU.

Why are you so obsessed with this OP?
Because I think it's the final tactic of diehard Remainers who want to sound as if they reached some kind of compromise / middle ground but in reality is nothing of the sort. I wish more people were as honest about "Soft Brexit" as fakenamefornow has been...Soft Brexit= No change, no control over unlimited EU migration, billions of pounds of UK taxpayers money funding the corrupt and undemocratic institution that is the EU, still having to comply with every stupid regulation produced by underemployed Eurocrats who will then enjoy their €850,000 average pension, still having trade deals beholden to final ratification by Wallonia and all the other bollocks we voted to say goodbye to on June 23rd, 2016.

Why are you so desperate to tell everyone that Brexit will be as hard as possible and dismiss anyone who wants soft Brexit

Today 11:29 CeciledeVolanges

How has this conversation gone on all night? What is the point? If you don't actually want to hear what people think soft Brexit is

To be fair, Cecile, you are actually only one of two people that had actually given an answer. I have become more interested in finding out why Remainers like kaija and most others can't or won't.

Today 09:24 MariafromMalmo

And the seat at the table thing... You walked away. You are complaining about having no seat at the table, after you got up from it.
To be crystal clear for you, Maria... I do not want to have a seat at this table.
I want to walk away. If I do, I don't expect to have to keep paying for a seat I no longer have (in the form of contributions to the EU budgets and to have to accept unlimited numbers of EU migrants).

If the U.K. wants a seat and a say, then it has to play by the same rules as everyone else.

I do not want a seat at the EU table.

I know they will stay strong and classy without us

Today 16:38 Theworldisfullofidiots
Do it my way or you must be wrong. My rules for me and my rules for you too

And you're the only person in the world who's not an idiot.