Originally Posted by
Saracen
I think part of the problem is terms like "hard Brexit". First, there's no exact definition, so if I say I support it and you say you don't, we still don't know what each other really means.
Secondly, it's a term much misused and often abused, by politicians on TV and indeed by some, mostly LibDem, as a term of abuse.
It is, I guess, an overly-simplistic contraction of a variety of complex positions.
I see where you're coming from. It's why, IMHO, the Brexiter position on retaining single market (or more accurately, internal market) membership changed, fairly early, to "maximum possible access".
But you can strip it back further. In large part, the Common Market was about agreeing common standards within a geographically defined group, and hence facilitating trade because the people within that group could rely on goods meeting those common standards, wherever things were sourced from. That facilitated lowering of customs controls within the group, because they weren't necessary and were an unwanted extra burden.
Contrast that to current days. Having been members for 45 years, wherever standards compliance is necessary, tbe UK already complies, will on the last day of membership, and will on Brexit + 1 day. It should not be beyond the wit of politicians and civil servants to parlay that into a deal that provides considerable levels of internal market access, precisely because it is mutually beneficial. And, no doubt, it is going to involve conditions and compromise.
All that COULD be being discussed, as part of a complex process with a two-year ticking clock on it. And that access does not require either the EU to compromise on the four freedoms, OR the UK to compromise on basic sovereignty by accepting free movement of people.
The ptoblem is the EU won't consider even starting those discussions until 'exit terms' are sorted. It then had the temerity to put the position of each side's nationals in the other dide as a priority as if the UK were the obstacle, when in fact we wanted to start on tbat months ago, and the EUs response was a flat no.
My view is that "hard Brexit" is an unhelpful term, and concept, and that Brexit is simply Brexit. It is the UK leaving a block of nations actively seeking "ever closer union", to be what we were, a sovereign nation. It is the situation where laws are made by OUR parliament, which is elected by OUR citizens. It is NOT one where, for instance, international courts are superior to UK courts AND parliamentary will, on matters that are nothing to do with internal market trade ... like telling parliament that it can't determine prisoner's right to franchise.
And no, I don't want to get into differences between ECJ and ECtHR, etc. My point is that, as a sovereign country, we could, and should try to, achieve a deal that works in the best interests of BOTH sides, but tgat necessarily is going to involve an adversarial 'battle' for position.
So, on the one hand, the EU comes up with silly levels of 'exit cost', like €100bn. I will make a girm prediction now that that sort of figure is never going to fly. It is politically absolutely unsellable here. So, the response is " 'No deal' is better than 'bad deal' ", which is a simple truism.
Hopefully, we can rapidly reach a point where both undesirable extremes are .... dropped.
But make no mistake, both sides are and for quite some time have been "pre-negotiating", and a lot of the "hard" stuff, on both sides frankly, is like two elderly men squaring up for a fight, puffing out their chests, sucking in their beer guts and trying desperately to "look 'ard".
A "hard Brexit", therefore, either is or isn't a good idea depending on exactly what is meant by it. My view is that, as Theresa May said, to some unfair derision, Brexit means Brexit. That is, the laws that bind up to EU treaties are repealed, and we cease to be bound by them. Everything is is up for negotiation, but that negotiation has to respect that BOTH sides have uncrossable red lines, and it's because some of each others red lines are uncrossable that Brexit is necessary, whether we pejoratively refer to it as Brexit. .Just don't forget that many of those going on about "hard Brexit" are doing so because what they really want no Brexit at all.