As someone who would advocate for a "soft Brexit" I would define it as follows: Basically Norway, outside the EU but remaining part of the EEC.CBJ wrote:There has already been a lot of head-scratching and general disbelief from the EU side, about the UK's weird ideas about what may and may not even be up for discussion. Indeed the whole concept of a "soft Brexit" is one that only appears to exist in the minds of optimists in the UK camp.
This approach would also have the advantage of delivering EXACTLY what was written on the ballot paper: We will leave the EU, nothing more and nothing less.
I'm afraid that no one voted to leave the EEC, or end free movement etc etc they may have thought that's what they were voting for but more fool them. . . . to repeat some old exam advice: "Read the bloody question, then read it again to be sure"
But this is of course flippant and unfair to those voters, the real problem was that boiling such a complex issue down to a single question was moronic. Admittedly with hindsight the ballot should have had many more questions upon it such as:
- Should Britain remain part of or leave the EEC?
- Should EU national remain free to live and work in the UK, and UK nationals remain free to live an work in Europe?
Of course its become increasingly clear that the question many Leave voters were actually voting upon was not the one on the ballot paper, it was instead:
- Should immigration to the UK be dramatically reduced?
This is broadly acknowledged and there seems to be consensus that Brexit should try to deliver upon it. So, given that, I agree it is extremely hard to imagine what a "Soft Brexit" that rejects freedom of movement would look like. The two ideas are essentially mutually exclusive.
It was been mooted by some in the aftermath of the election that, with immigration the real issue here, the EU might offer an essentially improved version of what David Cameron was seeking to try and avoid the referendum in the first place. I.e. Remain in the EU but enforce far stricter rules on immigration across the whole Union and/or arrange a special exception for Britain. Anti-immigration sentiment is not after all unique to Britain at the moment, a broader restriction might go down well in many EU states.
Of course if that were the deal Farage and co would absolutely flip their nuts, and would be justified in doing so, it would not deliver upon the referendum question . . . but rather on one that was not asked.
Cobra Mk. III Cmdr.
