Cont: Brexit: Now What? 7th heaven...

[Tolls]

Up against highly experienced trade negotiation teams from China, India, Brazil, the US with decades of experience under their belts we'll have a couple of experienced negotiators supported by kids just out of school. You literally could not make it up

Lambs to the slaughter...

 

[Nessie]

Do you have any cites for 'soft Brexit' or 'hard Brexit' from prior to the referendum?

You made the claim that those terms were not in use before the referendum, so off you go and evidence that claim.

 

[Nessie]

So you don't. I thought so.

Has anyone been able to find any cites of hard Brexit or soft Brexit from before the referendum using the terms in the same context they've been used since remain lost?

I hope someone can, but I haven't been able to. To give you the incentive to prove me wrong, I'll make the following claim.

I claim that the terms hard Brexit and soft Brexit were invented by remainers after they lost the referendum, and I cite the whole web as evidence.

I genuinely expect to be proved wrong in that claim, but I'm interested to discover who first coined the terms, and when.

You should have fact checked before you made your claim. This should give you the incentive to fact check in the future.

 

[Nessie]

It is indicative of how little planning there was prior to the EU referendum, that the real debate over how to leave and the implications of "hard" or "soft" were only discussed in detail then.

Those terms make it seem like there is a relatively simple choice between two options. But within each option there are numerous versions.

One option that was suggested prior to the referendum, was the "Norway" one and its looser membership. But it included membership that allows free movement, so that was quickly sidelined by the Brexiters.

 

[GlennB]

You made the claim that those terms were not in use before the referendum, so off you go and evidence that claim.

It doesn't even matter. The concepts of leaving with/without a deal were clear, even though they might not have been named as soft/hard Brexit.

 

[Wudang]

http://leavehq.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=275

This is not "remoaner" speculation. Our own findings at The Leave Alliance paint a pretty grim picture of the WTO Option. This is a simple matter of law. If we have no formal relations with the EU then trade simply does not happen.
........(snip)....

All of this has been made clear in the EU's Notices to Stakeholders. These are formal notifications based on the current law. This is no scaremongering or diplomatic threat. This is the business end of the EU.
(snip)

So deep and comprehensive is EU integration that there is no escaping the regulatory gravity of the EU without serious and lasting harm. It is therefore not remotely realistic to suggest that things can function without a formal framework for trade. Leaving without a deal simply is not an option.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

So you don't. I thought so.

Has anyone been able to find any cites of hard Brexit or soft Brexit from before the referendum using the terms in the same context they've been used since remain lost?

I hope someone can, but I haven't been able to. To give you the incentive to prove me wrong, I'll make the following claim.

I claim that the terms hard Brexit and soft Brexit were invented by remainers after they lost the referendum, and I cite the whole web as evidence.

I genuinely expect to be proved wrong in that claim, but I'm interested to discover who first coined the terms, and when.

I haven't checked if the terms existed but the concepts certainly did.

 

[ceptimus]

https://time.com/4635762/theresa-may-hard-brexit-britain/



Now, enough of this waste of time.

Not good enough. The article is from 2017 - well after the referendum, and only says 'the term is thought to have originated...' That's not a cite. I want to see a non-faked actual cite where we can be sure of a date when the terms 'hard Brexit' or 'soft Brexit' were used. I'm not even pressing for the 'brexit' word as I'm not sure when that was coined - as long as the words 'hard / soft' are used they could be paired with 'departure' or some other similar word.

It's got to be in context though - something like 'leaving the EU will be hard', won't suffice. We need something like a newspaper report, a transcript of a speech, or similar, that uses the terms and has a date.

I still have to read the other posts in the thread, but so far it seems my claim has not been refuted...

 

[ceptimus]

Delphic provided a link. There was certainly contradictions on the leave side showing there was no single policy. However it is only post election that leaving without a deal has become a position for some leave supporters.

I've addressed the link, which was not a cite (as far as I could see) for using the words hard versus soft with respect to leaving the EU. I think you mean post referendum rather than post election - but here you seem to be agreeing with my claim that the terms were invented by remainers after they lost.

 

[Tolls]

I seem to remember Hard Brexit coming up as a term in reporting on May's first conference speech.

I'm pretty sure it wasn't a remain invention, though.

This is the Standard from November 2016, talking about the (then new) term.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/explainer-what-is-hard-brexit-a3365896.html

 

[Tolls]

And this is the Standard from October, reporting on her speech:
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/...ff-as-article-50-date-confirmed-a3359266.html

"Mrs May put Britain on track for a "hard Brexit" by the spring of 2019"


Now, before anyone says "but the Standard". They were not alone.
In response to the speech Labour used the term, and they were not a Remain party at that point.

Or the Telegraph:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...exit-boris-johnson-david-davis-liam-fox-live/

"She rejected the argument Britain must choose between "hard Brexit" - in which the nation regains control over immigration but loses full access to the European single market - and "soft Brexit", under which access to the single market comes with a requirement to allow free movement of EU workers."

 

[ceptimus]

I seem to remember Hard Brexit coming up as a term in reporting on May's first conference speech.

I'm pretty sure it wasn't a remain invention, though.

This is the Standard from November 2016, talking about the (then new) term.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/explainer-what-is-hard-brexit-a3365896.html

Thanks. That article doesn't actually say who first used the term and when - only that it "emerged". Again, the report is dated after the referendum. Edit: your links to other reports in your next post are also dated post-referendum.

It looks like, to my surprise, that my claim so far hasn't been disproved. As to who invented it, I still claim it was a remainer. Remember, I include people such as Theresa May and Jeremy Hunt as remainers. They voted remain in the referendum, and campaigned for remain before it.

 

[Lothian]

I've addressed the link, which was not a cite (as far as I could see) for using the words hard versus soft with respect to leaving the EU. I think you mean post referendum rather than post election - but here you seem to be agreeing with my claim that the terms were invented by remainers after they lost.

No I am saying a hard brexit was not part of the leave plan and it is only after the vote that brexiteers have decided that is where they want to go. Show me where before the vote leave were telling voters we will be leaving the EU with no deal, with tariffs and with border controls.

 

[ceptimus]

No I am saying a hard brexit was not part of the leave plan and it is only after the vote that brexiteers have decided that is where they want to go. Show me where before the vote leave were telling voters we will be leaving the EU with no deal, with tariffs and with border controls.

Hard Brexit still isn't part of the leave plan: virtually every Leave supporter, including Boris, Rees Mogg, and such continue to maintain that they would much prefer to leave with a deal.

The problem is that the only deal currently on the table has been rejected by MPs multiple times. It's no good saying that this is down to the ERG - the plan would still have been rejected by opposition and DUP MPs, even if the ERG had voted for it.

The EU maintain that no change to the plan, and certainly no changes to the backstop, will be made - so the only way we CAN now leave, unless either or both sides change their red lines, is 'no deal'.

Note that 'no deal' is something of a misnomer - there are already several 'mini-deals' that have been agreed that will address such matters as allowing planes to keep flying, even in the event of a 'no deal.'

 

[Lothian]

I found a website that gives links to mentions of a hard brexit prior to the vote.
It is called Google, not sure if anyone has heard of it.


https://www.google.com/search?q="ha...r:1,cd_min:6/10/2010,cd_max:6/23/2016&tbm=nws

 

[Lothian]

Hard Brexit still isn't part of the leave plan: virtually every Leave supporter, including Boris, Rees Mogg, and such continue to maintain that they would much prefer to leave with a deal.

The problem is that the only deal currently on the table has been rejected by MPs multiple times. It's no good saying that this is down to the ERG - the plan would still have been rejected by opposition and DUP MPs, even if the ERG had voted for it.

The EU maintain that no change to the plan, and certainly no changes to the backstop, will be made - so the only way we CAN now leave, unless either or both sides change their red lines, is 'no deal'.

Note that 'no deal' is something of a misnomer - there are already several 'mini-deals' that have been agreed that will address such matters as allowing planes to keep flying, even in the event of a 'no deal.'

We all want a great deal. That wasn't the question. Where did vote leave say we could end up with no deal, with high tariffs and with hard borders or do you accept that a hard brexit was not what vote leave promised and not what people voted for.

You know that the public would not have voted for a hard brexit yet that is what we are getting.

 

[ceptimus]

I found a website that gives links to mentions of a hard brexit prior to the vote.
It is called Google, not sure if anyone has heard of it.


https://www.google.com/search?q="ha...r:1,cd_min:6/10/2010,cd_max:6/23/2016&tbm=nws

Thank you. So we have at least one cite of 'hard Brexit' from three days before the referendum from the Telegraph:


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/c...-have-to-pay-duty-on-goods-i-bring-back-from/

Jeremy White, a barrister at tax specialists Pump Court Tax Chambers who specialises in Customs and Excise law said at this stage any consideration of the impact a hard Brexit might have on duty is “pure speculation”.

I'd prefer a cite that includes both 'hard' and 'soft' if anyone can find one, but based on that link, I'll admit that I was wrong and the term originated before the referendum. It does seem to be from a remain supporter though.

 

[The Don]

We all want a great deal. That wasn't the question. Where did vote leave say we could end up with no deal, with high tariffs and with hard borders or do you accept that a hard brexit was not what vote leave promised and not what people voted for.

You know that the public would not have voted for a hard brexit yet that is what we are getting.

I think what you're failing to grasp is that even if the UK ends up with a no-deal, it's all the fault of Remoaners (including the whole of the EU).

It's all the EU's fault that the Brexiteers were unable to deliver the "all the benefits of EU membership with none of the responsibilities" Brexit that they had promised during the referendum campaign. Sure the EU had pointed out repeatedly that this would be impossible and the Remain campaign had been clear that this would be impossible but this was just part of Project Fear. Ultimately it's all the EU's fault that they were unwilling to completely abandon all their principles in order to ensure that the country leaving the EU enjoys considerable benefits over those still in the EU.

Given that the deal the UK truly deserved was unavailable, Theresa May's deal is the best one that the EU would let the UK have (even though the UK held all the cards as you'd expect, they needed us more than we needed them). It's all the Remoaners fault that the deal failed to make it through Parliament, they should have just reversed their opinion and accepted a deal which gave them nothing of what they wanted. OTOH the ERG are blameless, how could they be expected to make one or two small compromises in order to achieve their broader objective ?

 

[Pixel42]

There were always numerous options for Leave (staying in or leaving the Customs Union, giving up some or all of the four freedoms and so on); I'm not sure when those various options got grouped into 'soft Brexit' and 'hard Brexit' but the fact that there were many possibilities, and that the Leave campaigners mostly promised what are now categorised as 'soft' ones, was certainly clear to me before the referendum. I don't think the 'hard Brexit' options originally included No Deal, as even the most ardent Brexiteers insisted an acceptable deal could be negotiated up until quite recently, so the move to using 'hard Brexit' as a synonym for 'No Deal' is sneaky: it's basically recategorizing anything that isn't No Deal as a 'soft Brexit', including those variations which would have been regarded as 'hard Brexit' ones less than a year ago.

 

[ceptimus]

We all want a great deal. That wasn't the question. Where did vote leave say we could end up with no deal [snip]?

It didn't have to. Vote leave said, not surprisingly, that we would LEAVE. If the EU and the UK parliament are unable to agree a deal, then it follows inexorably that 'no deal' becomes the only option.