Optionalrational
Considering both how often UK politicians tell us ‘a ‘soft’ Brexit is an option, and your very reasonable OP question asking for a definition, I have come to a conclusion that many UK politicians cannot grasp what ‘negotiations’ actually mean.
As they appear to make up a settlement down the line scenario that totally suits them, completely oblivious to the objectives, and so red lines, drawn on the other side of the (negotiating) table by 27 other member states and the self interest of unelected by EU citizens and businesses, EU bureaucrats.
The EU and individual members leaders and their senior politicians told us NUMEROUS times about TWO red lines of theirs;
- That due to their conditions of membership to the Single Market i.e. total freedom of movement of citizens within the UK and the European Court of Justice , it had to be a “Hard Brexit or NO Brexit”,
- That the UK cannot be better off outside the membership of the EU, than those members staying within.
So forgetting for a moment that EU politicians acknowledge the fact its entirely possible to do better outside of EU membership as trade between companies across EU states continues but free to strike out own global deals.
Where is the EU’s ‘soft’ option, or Labour’s apparently pro Brexit position, acknowledging the UK has to come out of the Single Market, but only on the basis the UK keeps ALL the same benefits, without ‘freedom of EU citizen movement’????
So based on the above, either many UK politicians are incapable of acknowledging the other sides self-preservation red lines positions, or look to make it as difficult as they can for the government to get a deal with the EU.
Which plays right into the hands of EU negotiators encouraged to offer the UK a less than fair deal to vote on in Westminster, and looking to stall as much as they can, hoping UK businesses get fed up and move to Europe with their tax payments and jobs.