The BBC continues to peddle the idea of a ‘soft Brexit’ as the best and only possible option, a ‘hard Brexit’ as a cliff edge disaster, in the hope that voters will shrug their shoulders and make no protest as Remain politicians try to neuter Brexit, failing that it ‘suggests’ a second referendum, the ground having being laid by the BBC’s torrent of pro-EU and anti-Brexit propaganda, or failing that it works towards forcing another general election that brings in a government that refuses to complete Brexit…hence its continued attempts to suggest May is weak and on borrowed time when there are absolutely no grounds for thinking so.
Of course a soft Brexit is no Brexit at all. The use of such terms is a delibrate attempt to influence how people think about Brexit…Brexit, or ‘Hard Brexit’, that was democratically voted for, is bad, ‘Soft Brexit’, ie continued membership of the EU, is good but was not voted for, it was rejected but the BBC wants you to change your mind.
The biggest problem with Soft Brexit is that it’s not attainable
In the first of two extracts from their new book, Liam Halligan and Gerard Lyons say the commonly held belief that Britain would be better off inside the single market and customs union is misconceived
There has been much talk of “Hard Brexit” versus “Soft Brexit”. Such labels are ubiquitous during these Article 50 negotiations – used freely by the broadcast media – yet they are partisan and deeply misleading. Hard Brexit makes leaving the European Union sound extreme and damaging, suggesting isolation and a bleak economic future. Soft Brexit, conversely, conveys a comfortable, ongoing relationship with the EU, with Britain still “part of the club”.
Leaving the single market and the customs union isn’t Hard Brexit – even if the name is deliberately coined to sound painful. It is simply Brexit. Staying inside the EU’s two main legal constructs, meanwhile, isn’t a harmonious Soft Brexit. It amounts, instead, to a deliberate and cynical failure to implement the 2016 referendum result.
A political narrative has developed that Britain would clearly be far better off staying inside the single market and customs union. As such, anyone wanting to actually implement Brexit, by leaving both, is seen to be obsessed only with sovereignty and immigration – and prepared for the economy to suffer, as long as they get their way.
Remaining a member of the single market and/or the customs union, in contrast, is presented as an enlightened “Soft Brexit” compromise, a balance between the Leave side’s “hard” ideology and Remain campaigners’ common sense. These are the terms of the UK’s Brexit debate, as viewed by much of our political and media class as we enter the autumn of 2017 and these EU negotiations heat up. Yet they are wrong on every level.
Soft-headed
Many Parliamentarians say they “respect the referendum result” but want “Soft Brexit”. Attempting to negotiate such an outcome, though, would seriously damage the UK, the EU and the vital ongoing relationship between them.
While Soft Brexit is often presented as liberal and progressive, the single market promotes the interests of producers over consumers while entrenching the advantages of large corporations – which are far better able than smaller rivals to handle the complex regulation. Freedom of movement rules provide big firms with a ready stream of cheap, easily exploitable labour, while suppressing the wages of the UK’s most financially insecure workers. The single market also facilitates large-scale corporate tax avoidance.
Perhaps the biggest problem with Soft Brexit is that it is unobtainable. Back in December 2016, the EU’s chief negotiator Michel Barnier said: “The single market and its four freedoms are indivisible – cherry-picking is not an option.” Yet this is precisely what the Soft Brexiteers are attempting, breaching EU rules by seeking single market membership along with a special dispensation from freedom of movement that no other country has.
That’s why “Soft Brexit” will actually end up being “Messy Brexit”. Pushing for this outcome puts the UK in direct and absolute conflict with the EU’s core principles – which, if seriously breached, could tear the bloc apart, as others demand the same deal. The most likely Soft Brexit outcome would be a diplomatic stand-off, along with chronic uncertainty for citizens, investors and businesses, risking serious economic and political damage.
The UK will, of course, continue to trade and collaborate with the EU extensively after Brexit. Complaints that we are “cutting ourselves off” or “pulling up the drawbridge” are infantile and absurd. With a hung parliament, though, and the Conservatives vulnerable in the Commons and the Lords, the Soft Brexiteers sense this is their moment.
Far from “respecting the referendum result”, they are promoting an unobtainable outcome and sowing parliamentary chaos. Their aim is nothing less than to reverse the June 2016 referendum and, in doing so, topple the Government.
I wouldn’t worry, does anyone watch or listen to the BBC any more let alone take any notice of what they think and say. I know I don’t and I rarely if ever watch or listen to their output. Their obvious bias on a number of subjects killed it for me and the only thing I regret is having to pay their money with menaces for something I don’t want and hold in utter contempt.
I avoid the BBC like the plague. Mme Goat occasionally listens to Women’s Hour, but only when I am out of earshot.
Large corporations are loved by the liberal left / BBC as they can be used in their propaganda war .
Firstly large corporations pay large salaries to their executives , so the Beeb and left can shout fat cats , greed , etc
Secondly the BBC and left can say we need international organisations and governments like the EU to curtail big international corporations from running amok and despoiling the world .
Thirdly large organisations pay huge taxes because they have near monopolies . This is termed Taxploitation by Rodney Atkinson .
Fourthly large corporations advise and lobby governments to initiate policies that favour both to the detriment of ordinary people .
Fifth there is more fluid movement between large organisations and politicians especially when the latter retires . Look at George Osbourne for example .
Sixth large organisations can make token protests against government policies or governments themselves , then cosy up to exploit the new legislation.
Take the minimum wage for example . The corporations protest it’s bad for businesses, then profit by importing cheap labour , so more people are brought down to the minimum wage than people being brought up to it .
The soft Brexit narrative has developed in the media bubble.Im sure Leavers are even more determined. I don’t think the recent bomb will have helped the open borders crowd despite the BBCs spinning .Im sure we will have all manner of excuses trotted out .People outside the London bubble are losing patience with the excuses.
I too hardly watch the BBC ,in fact I find I’m watching much less TV generally ,I just can’t be bothered. Since Murdoch removed Fox News from the Sky platform ,all tied up with his attempt to get hold of Skys shares, I am even considering cancelling my Sky subscription.I used to watch Fox a lot. So censorship is everywhere.
Deborah,
“I’m watching much less TV general”
Me as well. I’ve been thinking maybe I’m just getting old! Life is too short to waste too much of it on the ‘idiot box’ There is choice, a mute button & an off switch. Some people seem to have the box on all the time. I’d rather have a DVD on. There really is life without television. Especially modern BBC programs.
Soft Brexit is for Snowflakes who shy away from anything that sounds like it may be hard.
Better terminology would be ‘Strong Brexit’ and ‘Weak Brexit’, which is more descriptive.
However, picking up on an interview with Dennis Skinner on another thread, perhaps we should reflect regional differences in the process. London can have it’s ‘Soft Brexit’ or even remain in the EU, the rest of the country can have it’s Hard/Strong/Proper/Real Brexit. It is not impossible or without precedent: think of the ‘One country, two systems’ policy used by China with regards to Hong Kong and Taiwan.
There would, of course, have to be border controls to prevent the inhabitants of London coming into Free Britain (apologies to any ‘real’ Londoners who are still remaining there)…
Just close the entrance/exits on the London side of the M25?
I was thinking more of a Trump/Israeli wall around the M25…
I had the thought after watching Sir Vince this morning that it is hard to know what the core beliefs are of any of our major parties now. That has been the case since even before Blair.
However I know what the BBC’s core political beliefs are, which shouldn’t be possible, if they were impartial reporters rather than active campaigners.
The core beliefs of the major parties – are well known – they just prefer not to state them in public. That’s the role of the state broadcaster, which doesn’t have to worry about being re-elected or raising money to finance its operations:
Core Beliefs:
1. Globalism, with One World Government
2. EU, as regional pre-cursor and model for above
3. Global monopoly capitalism
4. Interventionist wars against countries opposed to the above
5. Destruction of national borders in pursuit of above
6. Undermining of national identity through mass immigration and multi-culturalism
7. Destruction of traditional family unit by attacking marriage, promoting extreme feminism and gender manipulation
8. Racialisation & identify politics to assist with previous two points
9. Global Warming scam (‘global problems need global governance to resolve’)
10. State involvement in all aspects of life