What exactly is a "Soft Brexit"?

[optionalrationale]

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

Today 01:58 annandale
Any thoughts about Daniel Hannan and all the other experts who said we would definitely stay in the single market and all would be roses? They said soft Brexit was the obvious answer

"Soft Brexit" is neither achievable nor desirable. It is a shoddy compromise that would be the worst of both worlds. No longer a member of the EU (like Norway), but still having to having unlimited numbers of EU migrants, still having to pay billions into EU coffers (including for the €850,000 average pension for a Eurocrat), still having to comply with every EU regulation).

Thanks for the opportunity of allowing me to point out the problems with "Soft Brexit".

Yesterday 22:50 sodablackcurrant
Access to the Single Market is contingent on agreeing to freedom of movement
Agreed.
By any stretch of the imagination, does anyone think the Norway solution will be granted to Britain without free movement being a prerequisite?
Not me.

PROBLEM 1 We would still have unlimited EU migration
PROBLEM 2 We still have to pay billions into EU coffers
PROBLEM 3 We would still be subject to every EU regulation

But these are your problems. When you voted to leave the EU you voted for this to be an option. It was highlighted as an option by Leave politicians before the vote. There are plenty of videos on YouTube of Farage exclaiming 'of course we are going to stay in the single market!' during the campaign. Of course that would mean FoM but he didn't care, he was never going to be the one implementing it, and he didn't think he'd win anyway.

You are the one who is being dim if you think we don't realise exactly what Norway-style membership means. It's an option for those leavers (and there are many) that think that immigration is not the cause of this country's problems and that value economic stability. You have no way of knowing if these people + 48% doesn't equal more than 50%.

We do know that it's an option 1/ you don't personally want 2/ that is not as good as remaining since we would no longer have a say.

But leaving the EU is what you voted for, and if you think you voted for something else you have been misled. You should have realised when you voted that EEA was an option. Now you fight for your vision and we fight for ours. There's nothing outrageous in that.

The point of politics after the referendum is to leave the EU while not messing up the economy too much. It might not suit you, it might not suit us. It should be a compromise.

Did you think the point of post/ref politics was to force getting rid of FoM at any cost? Why do we have to remind you that it's not?

As for Eurocrats' pensions I'm sure there's a way to lobby for change (if €850,000 is a true figure, what does it refer to, 20 years worth of pensions?).

Perché rifiuta di ammettere che il contributo al bilancio dell'UE è piccolo 1.2% ?
E otteniamo enormi vantaggi commerciali da quel piccolo contributo?

yougov.co.uk/news/2014/11/09/public-attitudes-tax-distribution/

Merkel and Macron seems to have decided to review the treaties too. I wouldn't be surprised if after witnessing the rise in populism everywhere the EU realises urgent change is needed.
I don't think it's the behemoth that ~UKIP~ everyone has painted.
The pace of change is accelerating, Macron founded his political party a year ago and he is now president. There's a young generation coming to the EU who has grasped the need for change (I hope).

Again to put your figures in context Optionalé the UK was facing a £1.2 trillion pound liability for the pensions of UK civil servants in the UK. (Intergenerational Foundation report).
Repeat after me...

We must learn to put figures in context.
We must learn to put figures in context.
We must learn to put figures in context..

Delegating some matters mostly environmental,agriculture and food standards to be shared jointly with the EU actually alleviates our burden for dealing with those.

Thought OP would use light bulbs as an example of "ridiculous EU regulations".

A number of countries around the world have banned or are phasing out traditional incandescent bulbs - the USA, Canada, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Venezuela, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa - are they all "ridiculous" too?

Numerous life cycle analyses show that energy saving bulbs are cheaper to buy and run than traditional tungsten filament bulbs. A quick Google easily demonstrates this.

Less mercury is now released into the environment as a result of phasing out the old tungsten filament bulbs as less mercury is now emitted from fossil fuel power stations due to the much lower energy requirements to run them compared to the old incandescent bulbs.

CFLs are covered by the WEEE Regulations - householders can easily drop them into recycling points, so if they are going to landfill it's because of lazy arses that don't dispose of them properly.

You don't even need to buy CFLs either: LED bulbs have significantly dropped in price lately, are incredibly cheap to run, have significantly longer life and don't contain mercury.

Goodness, I've never been credited with the entirety of the hypothetical second referendum before, thank you optional! And yes, I was aware of that and I assume you in your turn are aware that the Civil service form part of the executive? It is arguable that so do the police and other executive agencies (hence the name).

Minor but necessary light bulb regulations are popping up,at which point threads can focus on minutiae and go weird.

To keep things in context environmental regulation of light bulbs etc gives us access to a $16.6 trillion annual market on our doorstep.

...here's my previous reminders...

🇬🇧 -We have 100% MP control on the following many rules and regulations :Health policy. Education. Fiscal policy. Public expenditure. Monetary policy. Income tax. Corporation tax. Capital gains tax. Inheritance tax. Border control and security. Non-EU immigration. Pensions. Welfare. Foreign policy decisions. Defence. Military Intelligence. Development cooperation and humanitarian aid. All local government. National policing. Crime. Media and press regulation. Family law. Property law and succession of estates.

✨-We agreed to have a joint say (currently 73/748 so 9.7 %) over the following matters.Energy.Climate.Environment.Agriculture. Some Employment. Consumer.Transport. Some crime. Asylum.VAT. Foreign policy (EU). Single Market.Competition.Fisheries.EU migration.

So we jointly decided what happens here and in the other 27 member states too.On a soft and hard Brexit scenario we lose this control.

lonelyplanetmum OP keeps reiterating the "ridiculous" EU legislation line as a major objection to a Norway style deal, but light bulbs (and possibly bananas) are the only example OP has managed to come up, hence the debunking.

Hence the debunking
*
I wholeheartedly endorse *your debunking Randomly. Previous experience made me think the overall context of the less significant regs might help anticipate what could otherwise follow.

Anyway, J. P.Morgan agree with us even if we cannot persuade the op.Have you seen their experienced reliable advice that a coalition/hung parliament which delivered a softer Brexit would be preferable?

Today 08:01 lonelyplanetmum

Perché rifiuta di ammettere che il contributo al bilancio dell'UE è piccolo 1.2% ? E otteniamo enormi vantaggi commerciali da quel piccolo contributo

Mama mia!!!!

Randomlygenerated
You helped me see the light.

While we're at it:

mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2017/06/the-stages-of-leaver-grief.html?m=1

'he EU knows that No Deal would be a disaster for the UK. It would be painful for the EU too, but not so painful as to make them offer the UK any significant favours. Their overriding objective is to ensure the UK will be worse off under Brexit, not as some punishment but to ensure EU survival. Given that No Deal will be so much worse for the UK than the EU, and as the clock is already ticking, the EU are in a position where they can pretty well dictate terms. To the extent that this is a game, we lost it the moment Article 50 was triggered.'

We should bow in abject humiliation and supplication in front of Lord Junkers and plead for him to bestow his infinite mercy upon us

Well as abject and base as that might be it would be an improvement on destroying the economy because we don't like all these forrins coming over here and handing over the reins of power to those who would see our public services burn so they could turn a penny from the ashes.

Or maybe instead of either of the above we could be grown up enough to admit this was a marginal protest vote, deal with the factors that underpin that protest and engage in constructive diplomacy with Macron, Merkel et al to reform the EU and cooperate on matters of genuine national import - like addressing climate change for example. Wouldn't that be better than kowtowing to Dacre and Murdoch's lunatic Empire 2.0 fantasies?

I am ready now to genuflect in front of the true giant of European diplomacy... Hail Junkers. I vow to thee my Supreme Leader.

Er what?

Er he is an unelected drunken buffoon

Juncker is quite a lot of things, many of them negative, but being unelected ain't one.

Annandale, which ordinary citizen voters (I.e not other politicians) directly voted for Junkers where they were given a free and open choice of other candidates?

What mechanism is there for me (as an ordinary citizen voter) to get rid of Junkers at the ballot box?