The Politics Thread

[Webbo]

1 hour ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Yep, populism affects every part of the political spectrum, as Wiki says. There's a populist element to Corbynism (with Blairites, as much as Tories, portrayed as the "dangerous other"), just as there is with Trump, UKIP, Le Pen etc.

 

In the mainstream, Labour & Tories both deploy populism - not least in constantly suggesting that they'll provide low taxes and better public services. As always, it can be convenient to tell people what they want to hear, even if it's bullshit. 

 

One difference is that Labour depicts itself as standing up for "the people" (or "hard-working families", awful phrase) against "dangerous others" who are genuinely powerful - fat cat businessmen, wealthy tax avoiders etc. Whereas the Right depict themselves as standing up for "the people" against "dangerous others" who are often pretty powerless - "benefits scroungers", "bogus asylum seekers/migrants" etc. Not universally, as there are also attacks on "London" or "the metropolitan liberal elite", groups with more power to defend themselves.

 

One thing that I do find a bit scary is the growing prevalence of groups (UKIP / mass media, more than Tories) telling those who support Soft Brexit to shut the fvck up. While it's fair enough for Brexit supporters to get annoyed at anybody seeking to overturn the referendum result, when did dissent become unacceptable? More to the point, while the Govt absolutely does have a mandate for Brexit (and I'm opposed to it being obstructed), it has no mandate whatsoever for any particular form of Brexit - still less do Hard Brexiteers have any mandate to silence those who support Soft Brexit (e.g. prioritising the single market over free movement). Can you imagine if you'd been told to shut up for disagreeing with policies introduced by Blair or Brown? You wouldn't have been entitled to overthrow the democratically-elected New Labour Govt, but you were perfectly entitled to publicly disagree with its policies, even those for which it had a mandate, never mind those for which it didn't: e.g. can you imagine being told to "shut the fvck up", "stop moaning" and "stop being unpatriotic" if you had disagreed with the invasion of Iraq?

Without wanting to refight the referendum, us leavers have had a fair amount of abuse too. Thick, ignorant, racist, murderers. Didn't know what we were voting for, fell for a bunch of lies etc( not accusing you of such things Alf). If we're a little defensive that's probably understandable.

 

As for @Finnaldo 's point. UKIP are about a referendum and immigration definitely, a reaction against political correctness and the massive over reactions over the slightest thing and a refuge for more social conservatives whose views aren't represented by either tory or labour parties anymore. There's certainly a place for them in politics, everyone's views deserve to be heard.

[Carl the Llama]

7 hours ago, Webbo said:

Without wanting to refight the referendum, us leavers have had a fair amount of abuse too. Thick, ignorant, racist, murderers. Didn't know what we were voting for, fell for a bunch of lies etc( not accusing you of such things Alf). If we're a little defensive that's probably understandable.

 

As for @Finnaldo 's point. UKIP are about a referendum and immigration definitely, a reaction against political correctness and the massive over reactions over the slightest thing and a refuge for more social conservatives whose views aren't represented by either tory or labour parties anymore. There's certainly a place for them in politics, everyone's views deserve to be heard.

Tbf though Webbs it is a fair point that you didn't know what you were voting for because you fell for a bunch of lies you thick, ignorant, racist murderer.

[Nick]

1 hour ago, Carl the Llama said:

Tbf though Webbs it is a fair point that you didn't know what you were voting for because you fell for a bunch of lies you thick, ignorant, racist murderer.

 

I think 'murderer' is a bit strong, Carl.

[Guest MattP]

17 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Yep, populism affects every part of the political spectrum, as Wiki says. There's a populist element to Corbynism (with Blairites, as much as Tories, portrayed as the "dangerous other"), just as there is with Trump, UKIP, Le Pen etc.

 

In the mainstream, Labour & Tories both deploy populism - not least in constantly suggesting that they'll provide low taxes and better public services. As always, it can be convenient to tell people what they want to hear, even if it's bullshit. 

 

One difference is that Labour depicts itself as standing up for "the people" (or "hard-working families", awful phrase) against "dangerous others" who are genuinely powerful - fat cat businessmen, wealthy tax avoiders etc. Whereas the Right depict themselves as standing up for "the people" against "dangerous others" who are often pretty powerless - "benefits scroungers", "bogus asylum seekers/migrants" etc. Not universally, as there are also attacks on "London" or "the metropolitan liberal elite", groups with more power to defend themselves.

 

One thing that I do find a bit scary is the growing prevalence of groups (UKIP / mass media, more than Tories) telling those who support Soft Brexit to shut the fvck up. While it's fair enough for Brexit supporters to get annoyed at anybody seeking to overturn the referendum result, when did dissent become unacceptable? More to the point, while the Govt absolutely does have a mandate for Brexit (and I'm opposed to it being obstructed), it has no mandate whatsoever for any particular form of Brexit - still less do Hard Brexiteers have any mandate to silence those who support Soft Brexit (e.g. prioritising the single market over free movement). Can you imagine if you'd been told to shut up for disagreeing with policies introduced by Blair or Brown? You wouldn't have been entitled to overthrow the democratically-elected New Labour Govt, but you were perfectly entitled to publicly disagree with its policies, even those for which it had a mandate, never mind those for which it didn't: e.g. can you imagine being told to "shut the fvck up", "stop moaning" and "stop being unpatriotic" if you had disagreed with the invasion of Iraq?

Populism/populist appears to be the new political buzzword now for people to throw at opponents or describe voters who disagree with them, it's quite bizarre.

 

I totally agree with second point here, the Brexit decision has to be debated as widely and as fully as possible, I'm quite clear in my opinion that the vote to leave was for a so called "Hard Brexit" (For what it's worth I don't believe anything else is actually a Brexit) on the basis that leading figures on both sides made it extremely clear that a vote to leave meant controlling immigration, returning power to our courts and deciding to do our own trade deals rather than having the EU do it for us, none of which we can do if we we remain a member of the single market, but those arguing for the soft option should be listened to, then taken on and debated.

 

Unfortunately that doesn't appear to be where a lot of people are now, this week we've actually got self proclaimed anti fascists "Hope Not Hate" trying to crowdfund to take Nigel Farage to court for having an opinion on them, we are no strangers in this country to having views tried to be shut down with various isms or diagnosis of mental illnesses ie phobias, but it seems to be getting worse and worse.

 

It's for decent people from all sides to try and make sure those sorts don't win the day and we remain a vibrant democracy that debates and discusses everything.

 

8 hours ago, Carl the Llama said:

Tbf though Webbs it is a fair point that you didn't know what you were voting for because you fell for a bunch of lies you thick, ignorant, racist murderer.

I'm just glad the immediate 500,000 job losses, the late 2016 recession and the emergency budget all quickly passed by, I may have regretted my vote had it not. Mayday Mayday!

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/brexit-impact-recession-eu-referendum-credit-suisse-employment-job-hiring-a7136541.html

[Barky]

Not sure if my interpretation is strictly correct but populism for me means saying or promising things that are designed to appeal to a certain popularly held concern but which don't actually stand up to scrunity. Things like promising NHS waiting times will improve if only we didn't have free movement of people from the EU, or promising to build a new hospital every week with money saved from EU contributions. It's the kind of thing that works if people only read the headlines and not the article. It's appealing to people who aren't really interested in the real issue but just want someone or something to blame, and the words are spoken and promises made without any intention of following through. It's symptomatic of a very dumbed down approach to politics and doesn't do anyone any good in the long run, except the politicians who get in power on the back of it. If it has become a buzzword then that's because it's a legitimate criticism of the likes of Trump, and possibly the brexit campaign, imo.

[davieG]

18 minutes ago, Barky said:

Not sure if my interpretation is strictly correct but populism for me means saying or promising things that are designed to appeal to a certain popularly held concern but which don't actually stand up to scrunity. Things like promising NHS waiting times will improve if only we didn't have free movement of people from the EU, or promising to build a new hospital every week with money saved from EU contributions. It's the kind of thing that works if people only read the headlines and not the article. It's appealing to people who aren't really interested in the real issue but just want someone or something to blame, and the words are spoken and promises made without any intention of following through. It's symptomatic of a very dumbed down approach to politics and doesn't do anyone any good in the long run, except the politicians who get in power on the back of it. If it has become a buzzword then that's because it's a legitimate criticism of the likes of Trump, and possibly the brexit campaign, imo.

Based on that negative interpretation then I'd say no political party or grouping is innocent and I'm also sure there have been many populist promises made over time by the same parties / groups that have been delivered.

 

Politics is one big yin yang.

[Barky]

2 minutes ago, davieG said:

Based on that negative interpretation then I'd say no political party or grouping is innocent and I'm also sure there have been many populist promises made over time by the same parties / groups that have been delivered.

 

Politics is one big yin yang.

I agree few politicians completely avoid it but I'd say Trump in particular hasn't taken it to new heights

[Guest MattP]

11 minutes ago, davieG said:

Based on that negative interpretation then I'd say no political party or grouping is innocent and I'm also sure there have been many populist promises made over time by the same parties / groups that have been delivered.

My all time favourite is Tony Blair promising a laptop to every child in 1997.

[davieG]

18 minutes ago, Barky said:

I agree few politicians completely avoid it but I'd say Trump in particular hasn't taken it to new heights

Oh I agree I'm no defender of politicians my faith in them has diminished drastically over the years as it has in virtually every type administration be it political business, even in community/social/health ones. 

 

I just see those at the top of these organisations having little or no love for what they are doing other than it advancing their careers.

 

I guess I'm just full of cynicism.

[Alf Bentley]

3 hours ago, MattP said:

 

I totally agree with second point here, the Brexit decision has to be debated as widely and as fully as possible, I'm quite clear in my opinion that the vote to leave was for a so called "Hard Brexit" (For what it's worth I don't believe anything else is actually a Brexit) on the basis that leading figures on both sides made it extremely clear that a vote to leave meant controlling immigration, returning power to our courts and deciding to do our own trade deals rather than having the EU do it for us, none of which we can do if we we remain a member of the single market, but those arguing for the soft option should be listened to, then taken on and debated.

 

I'm glad that you support open debate about Brexit - and I agree with your wider point about too many people (often leftists) wanting to silence others, rather than argue with them.

 

This is not the right thread for an extensive debate about Brexit, but I dispute your claim that there was a vote for a Hard Brexit. I responded to this claim in detail before, but both your and my posts were lost in the FT technical meltdown a few months back. Gove expressed his personal view that we should leave the single market, but Vote Leave generally were completely unclear about this (probably deliberately so, as they knew it was a potential vote loser). That is why there was so much debate about "the Norwegian/Swiss/Albanian options" etc. Leading Leave campaigners were repeatedly pressed about the issue and repeatedly avoided committing themselves - until, in an interview with Marr about a fortnight before the vote, under pressure Boris said "Yes", he agreed with Gove.....why would he have even been asked the question if the answer had already been made clear?! Hard Brexit was doubtless what you and many other committed Brexiteers wanted, but it absolutely was NOT on the ballot paper (only Leave/Remain was) and was NOT clearly campaigned for by Vote Leave. I paid much more attention to the campaign than most people and it certainly was NOT clear to me (though I did miss that particular Boris interview). It's also extraordinary that you're partly basing your case on the claims of Remain campaigners, when you dismiss their other claims as "Project Fear". Maybe some of them believed that Remain or Hard Brexit are the only options (and maybe they'll be proved right) but others were doubtless seeking to scare soft Leave voters into the Remain camp with claims that departure from the single market was inevitable. 

 

The Vote Leave page is still up: http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/why_vote_leave.html

Please point me to a commitment to leave the single market.

I see commitments to save £350m per week to be spent on the NHS, schools & housing (though talk is now of a bill of up to £60bn for leaving); to be in charge of our borders; to control immigration; to trade freely with the whole world (indeed there were false claims that this would start immediately after the vote); to make our own laws - & the spectre of Turkey joining the EU (which Boris has since offered to help with!). The only reference to the single market that I can find is the odd small-print reference to "free trade" with the single market & comparisons to Norway, Switzerland & Iceland. Like the claim that the Labour Govt caused the deficit/debt/2008 recession, the claim that a vote to Leave equals a vote for Hard Brexit is a deceit - and one that must be challenged every time it is raised.

[Guest MattP]

38 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

The Vote Leave page is still up: http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/why_vote_leave.html

Please point me to a commitment to leave the single market.

I see commitments to save £350m per week to be spent on the NHS, schools & housing (though talk is now of a bill of up to £60bn for leaving); to be in charge of our borders; to control immigration; to trade freely with the whole world (indeed there were false claims that this would start immediately after the vote); to make our own laws - & the spectre of Turkey joining the EU (which Boris has since offered to help with!). The only reference to the single market that I can find is the odd small-print reference to "free trade" with the single market & comparisons to Norway, Switzerland & Iceland. Like the claim that the Labour Govt caused the deficit/debt/2008 recession, the claim that a vote to Leave equals a vote for Hard Brexit is a deceit - and one that must be challenged every time it is raised.

Vote Leave was a campaign, it wasn't the government, it was in no position to make promises about leaving the single market, at the time we had David Cameron as the Prime Minister and he said he would be staying on whatever the result, so how could Vote Leave promise to do something they had no control over? (I think this was why they said "Let's give our NHS...." rather than "We will" as well)

 

David Cameron was the only person in the whole campaign from either side who at the time could make a decision on whether we leave the single market after a leave vote and he said it was the case that we would do. The whole idea of leaving the EU is to do our trade deals, control immigration and return power to our courts, you can't do a single thing of those if you stay in it.

 

I'd rather they just showed some balls and reversed the decision than go for the soft Brexit option, because I don't really see the point of doing it, then just let the public sort it out in the 2020 election.

[Alf Bentley]

53 minutes ago, MattP said:

Vote Leave was a campaign, it wasn't the government, it was in no position to make promises about leaving the single market, at the time we had David Cameron as the Prime Minister and he said he would be staying on whatever the result, so how could Vote Leave promise to do something they had no control over? (I think this was why they said "Let's give our NHS...." rather than "We will" as well)

 

David Cameron was the only person in the whole campaign from either side who at the time could make a decision on whether we leave the single market after a leave vote and he said it was the case that we would do. The whole idea of leaving the EU is to do our trade deals, control immigration and return power to our courts, you can't do a single thing of those if you stay in it.

 

I'd rather they just showed some balls and reversed the decision than go for the soft Brexit option, because I don't really see the point of doing it, then just let the public sort it out in the 2020 election.

 

Have a look at the Vote Leave page: http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/why_vote_leave.html

 

It promises: "If we vote to leave the EU...

we will be able to save £350m a week. We can spend our money on our priorities like the NHS, schools and housing;

we [will] be in charge of our own borders;

we can control immigration;

we will be free to trade with the whole world;

we can make our own laws;

Turkey is one of five countries joining [not future tense, not conditional - present tense] the EU"

 

That's a lot categorical statements - and promises (conditional only on winning the referendum). 

How difficult would it have been to add, after "If we vote to leave the EU...we will leave the single market"?

 

Vote Leave deliberately chose NOT to make a clear commitment over the single market. The claim that the vote to leave the EU was a vote to leave the single market is a lie. The claim that Vote Leave made it clear that we would leave the single market is also a lie. It would be good if people stopped spreading such lies. Of course, people are perfectly free to campaign for a Hard Brexit and for us to leave the single market - or for a Soft Brexit and for us to stay in - because there is no specific mandate for either. Some combination of parliament and government will decide our initial negotiating position (depending on the court appeal) and no option is closed off except Remain (unless this is somehow reversed through another referendum or general election, which I don't support).

 

As for the point of opting for Soft Brexit, some people (myself included) see a massive difference in the sort of economy, society and nation that might result from Soft and Hard Brexit. On balance, I'd have preferred to remain in the EU, but that option is gone. Soft Brexit is the second best option. I can see Soft Brexit saving us from a future of economic collapse, falling living standards, rising public and private debt, declining public services, rising unemployment, social strife, bitter hatred of politicians, extreme racist violence and/or potential upsurge in fascism. That's a worst case scenario, obviously, but I'd certainly expect a fair bit of it to happen - and to be worth avoiding by opting to maintain a closer bond with our neighbours. You presumably have a much more optimistic outlook for Hard Brexit. Both viewpoints are perfectly valid - and there is no mandate for either, so let debate and democratic politics ensue...

 

As for the 2020 election, that's a long, long way off, with a 3-year roller-coaster inbetween. What UK politics or society will look like in 2020 is almost impossible to predict, given the variables over the international economy, the state of the EU, Brexit negotiations, the effects of uncertainty on the UK economy etc. 

 

[Webbo]

Europe has already told us there's hard Brexit or no Brexit. If we stay in the single market we have to have free movement and be under the jurisdiction of the ECJ which is definitely not what we voted for.

[Alf Bentley]

1 minute ago, Webbo said:

Europe has already told us there's hard Brexit or no Brexit. If we stay in the single market we have to have free movement and be under the jurisdiction of the ECJ which is definitely not what we voted for.

 

Europe (and any other political body) tells us many things. Some of them might be true, many might not.

 

You're only choosing to believe what the EU says because it suits what you want to happen anyway. If they had said "there's only soft Brexit or no Brexit", I bet you wouldn't be quite as accepting of their word! 

[Webbo]

Well, everything is subject to negotiation. If we could stay in the free market but control immigration, make our own laws and international trade deals then I'm sure we'd all take that but I don't thinks that's on offer.

[Strokes]

2 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I'm glad that you support open debate about Brexit - and I agree with your wider point about too many people (often leftists) wanting to silence others, rather than argue with them.

 

This is not the right thread for an extensive debate about Brexit, but I dispute your claim that there was a vote for a Hard Brexit. I responded to this claim in detail before, but both your and my posts were lost in the FT technical meltdown a few months back. Gove expressed his personal view that we should leave the single market, but Vote Leave generally were completely unclear about this (probably deliberately so, as they knew it was a potential vote loser). That is why there was so much debate about "the Norwegian/Swiss/Albanian options" etc. Leading Leave campaigners were repeatedly pressed about the issue and repeatedly avoided committing themselves - until, in an interview with Marr about a fortnight before the vote, under pressure Boris said "Yes", he agreed with Gove.....why would he have even been asked the question if the answer had already been made clear?! Hard Brexit was doubtless what you and many other committed Brexiteers wanted, but it absolutely was NOT on the ballot paper (only Leave/Remain was) and was NOT clearly campaigned for by Vote Leave. I paid much more attention to the campaign than most people and it certainly was NOT clear to me (though I did miss that particular Boris interview). It's also extraordinary that you're partly basing your case on the claims of Remain campaigners, when you dismiss their other claims as "Project Fear". Maybe some of them believed that Remain or Hard Brexit are the only options (and maybe they'll be proved right) but others were doubtless seeking to scare soft Leave voters into the Remain camp with claims that departure from the single market was inevitable. 

 

The Vote Leave page is still up: http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/why_vote_leave.html

Please point me to a commitment to leave the single market.

I see commitments to save £350m per week to be spent on the NHS, schools & housing (though talk is now of a bill of up to £60bn for leaving); to be in charge of our borders; to control immigration; to trade freely with the whole world (indeed there were false claims that this would start immediately after the vote); to make our own laws - & the spectre of Turkey joining the EU (which Boris has since offered to help with!). The only reference to the single market that I can find is the odd small-print reference to "free trade" with the single market & comparisons to Norway, Switzerland & Iceland. Like the claim that the Labour Govt caused the deficit/debt/2008 recession, the claim that a vote to Leave equals a vote for Hard Brexit is a deceit - and one that must be challenged every time it is raised.

Hang on a minute Alf, if the country had gone remain, would we be debating what kind of remain we wanted because it wasn't on the ballot slip? A soft brexit to me is a remain and to lots of leave voters. The mandate may not be clear because of the ballot slip but it's unfair to say it was not clear which brexit was being portrayed by both sides.

[Alf Bentley]

It's a can of worms, that's for sure.

 

As it will be a hassle for the EU as well as us if we leave the single market, my guess is that the EU would show some flexibility on border control if it kept the UK in the single market. Probably not enough flexibility to satisfy Brexit hardliners, though.

Politically, the EU can't really afford to be too generous on border control or many other member states will press for the same terms. Maybe a bit more flexibility in exchange for some well-concealed extra contributions?

 

There has been some flexibility before - most EU nations took up the option to delay free entry from East Europe by at least 2 years. I've also just seen this, about a likely compromise on free movement between the EU and Switzerland: https://euobserver.com/justice/136398

 

Mind you, the latest figures showed that annual immigration from outside the EU is now 289,000 (still higher than from the EU).

So, anybody hoping to suddenly be rid of most foreigners will be disappointed (the expectation of some, not all, obviously).

Even if immigration figures fall a bit, there could be a lot of angry people in a year or two if economic times don't improve and there are still a lot of foreigners in the country.

 

[Alf Bentley]

2 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Hang on a minute Alf, if the country had gone remain, would we be debating what kind of remain we wanted because it wasn't on the ballot slip? A soft brexit to me is a remain and to lots of leave voters. The mandate may not be clear because of the ballot slip but it's unfair to say it was not clear which brexit was being portrayed by both sides.

 

We've been debating the nature of "Remain" ever since we joined in 1973 - some wanting out, some wanting in but on a variety of terms. If we'd voted Remain, I'm sure that debate would have continued.

 

The one thing thing that would have been clear would have been that we would have Remained in the EU. The one thing that is clear now is that we will Leave the EU. The idea that Leaving the EU is the same as Remaining in the EU is obviously bollocks - and that's the only thing we voted on. You can prefer certain terms for leaving and I can prefer others. No terms were on the ballot paper. There was no commitment to leave the single market and no mandate to do so. Our position is up for democratic decision - and then for negotiation with the EU.

 

As for it being clear which Brexit was portrayed, I'll make the same challenge to you as I made to Matt. Go to the Vote Leave link that I posted and find me a commitment to leave the single market:: http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/why_vote_leave.html

There are promises to control borders, to spend an extra £350m per week on stuff like the NHS, to negotiate new trade agreements ("immediately" they stated elsewhere, though this would be illegal until we leave) - and a claim that Turkey "is joining the EU". Where is the commitment to leave the single market?

[Webbo]

2 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

 

 

As for it being clear which Brexit was portrayed, I'll make the same challenge to you as I made to Matt. Go to the Vote Leave link that I posted and find me a commitment to leave the single market:: http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/why_vote_leave.html

There are promises to control borders, to spend an extra £350m per week on stuff like the NHS, to negotiate new trade agreements ("immediately" they stated elsewhere, though this would be illegal until we leave) - and a claim that Turkey "is joining the EU". Where is the commitment to leave the single market?

So leave said we'd stop paying into the EU, control our borders/immigration, make our own trade deals and make our own laws? I defy you to find any definition of soft Brexit that includes that.

[Guest MattP]

1 hour ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Have a look at the Vote Leave page: http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/why_vote_leave.html

 

It promises: "If we vote to leave the EU...

we will be able to save £350m a week. We can spend our money on our priorities like the NHS, schools and housing;

we [will] be in charge of our own borders;

we can control immigration;

we will be free to trade with the whole world;

we can make our own laws;

Turkey is one of five countries joining [not future tense, not conditional - present tense] the EU"

 

That's a lot categorical statements - and promises (conditional only on winning the referendum). 

How difficult would it have been to add, after "If we vote to leave the EU...we will leave the single market"?

 

Vote Leave deliberately chose NOT to make a clear commitment over the single market. The claim that the vote to leave the EU was a vote to leave the single market is a lie. The claim that Vote Leave made it clear that we would leave the single market is also a lie. It would be good if people stopped spreading such lies. Of course, people are perfectly free to campaign for a Hard Brexit and for us to leave the single market - or for a Soft Brexit and for us to stay in - because there is no specific mandate for either. Some combination of parliament and government will decide our initial negotiating position (depending on the court appeal) and no option is closed off except Remain (unless this is somehow reversed through another referendum or general election, which I don't support).

 

As for the point of opting for Soft Brexit, some people (myself included) see a massive difference in the sort of economy, society and nation that might result from Soft and Hard Brexit. On balance, I'd have preferred to remain in the EU, but that option is gone. Soft Brexit is the second best option. I can see Soft Brexit saving us from a future of economic collapse, falling living standards, rising public and private debt, declining public services, rising unemployment, social strife, bitter hatred of politicians, extreme racist violence and/or potential upsurge in fascism. That's a worst case scenario, obviously, but I'd certainly expect a fair bit of it to happen - and to be worth avoiding by opting to maintain a closer bond with our neighbours. You presumably have a much more optimistic outlook for Hard Brexit. Both viewpoints are perfectly valid - and there is no mandate for either, so let debate and democratic politics ensue...

 

As for the 2020 election, that's a long, long way off, with a 3-year roller-coaster inbetween. What UK politics or society will look like in 2020 is almost impossible to predict, given the variables over the international economy, the state of the EU, Brexit negotiations, the effects of uncertainty on the UK economy etc. 

 

If the Vote Leave website states we will be in control of our borders then that's a clear indiciation we'll have to be outside of the single market, the EU has consistently told us from the start of Cameron's negotiation that it's simply non-negotiatable to be a member of it and have any restriction on freedom of movement.

 

As I say, the reason they probably haven't put that in writing is that they were in no position to do it, you obviously think it was being sly as it would cost them votes, we'll agree to disagree on that.

 

We again have different opinions on what the future holds, for what it's worth I think the EU has done more for fascism across the continent than anything over the past ten years, I doubt these movements would have sprung up without the mass unempoyment and debt that the Eurozone has caused. I'd argue more people would turn to extremes here if the government is seen to implement a version of Brexit that seems to be more the desire of the remain side than the leave side, I do think this has been quite strange, I don't think a losing side in an national referendum/election has ever demanded so much influence over the result than this one, although the Clinton lot are giving them a run for their money.

 

All a soft Brexit would do is change our situation from being half in the European Union to being half out of it, obviously we can't predict what politics will look like in three years time but as I say, soft Brexit and I'm confident that we'll have enough of that 17.4million voting to make sure it's done properly next time around.

 

A question back to you would be? What really changes if we remain a member of the single market? What would even be the point of leaving?

 

My last post now until after the festive season, so a Merry Christmas to everyone!

[Strokes]

5 minutes ago, Webbo said:

So leave said we'd stop paying into the EU, control our borders/immigration, make our own trade deals and make our own laws? I defy you to find any definition of soft Brexit that includes that.

You beat me too it webbo, we have been to pre and post vote, that we can't have these and EU benefits. Yet the vote to leave was returned. People voted for a so called hard brexit.

[Barky]

Boris Johnson was pretty clear that he wanted a softish brexit in this piece

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-eu-referendum-single-market-brexit-a7104846.html

[Guest MattP]

1 minute ago, Barky said:

Boris Johnson was pretty clear that he wanted a softish brexit in this piece

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-eu-referendum-single-market-brexit-a7104846.html

North Korea has access to the single market, that means nothing.

[Barky]

4 minutes ago, MattP said:

North Korea has access to the single market, that means nothing.

That's not all he said. He also said Britons would retain their right to live, work and settle in the eu. You can't do that unconditionally without freedom of movement, so he's implying that a degree of free movement would continue. Soft brexit.

[Alf Bentley]

48 minutes ago, Webbo said:

So leave said we'd stop paying into the EU, control our borders/immigration, make our own trade deals and make our own laws? I defy you to find any definition of soft Brexit that includes that.

 

39 minutes ago, Strokes said:

You beat me too it webbo, we have been to pre and post vote, that we can't have these and EU benefits. Yet the vote to leave was returned. People voted for a so called hard brexit.

 

As someone opposed to Hard Brexit, I have no interest in finding a way of including your Hard Brexit aspirations in Soft Brexit, Webbo.

We already make our own laws (though some of them implement EU laws or are subject to EU justice). Good luck with stopping paying into the EU - they're talking about a £60bn bill for leaving, aren't they? Did Vote Leave mention that?

Making our own trade deals was not a major factor in the vote, I don't think. Border control certainly was, so negotiations on that are important; my guess is that limited flexibility would be available, but not full border control AND single market membership.

 

If we're going to expect politicians to achieve all their declared aspirations, we must also expect the Brexit Tories to deliver a booming economy, £350m extra per week for the NHS, immediate trade negotiations etc. Likewise, we should presumably hold the government to its declared policies - to eliminate the deficit by 2020, to improve public services, to reduce net migration to under 100,000 etc.

 

If you wanted people to vote to leave the single market, you should have asked that question - in which case, you'd have united Remainers and Soft Brexiteers and would have lost the vote.  

In reality, Strokes, people voted for one thing only: