Brexit

[grassroots]

"Political views " aside what is a good deal for the UK . Let's have a good level headed discussion .

[rare-pepe999]

"Political views " aside what is a good deal for the UK . Let's have a good level headed discussion .

The best deal would be to just leave, drop everything EU related, repeal all t he red tape it has created and ignore their demands for a ridiculous bill.

no deal would be better than a "soft brexit", everyone knows it. The remoaners are just trying to cling on to anything from their beloved EU.

[grassroots]

The best deal would be to just leave, drop everything EU related, repeal all t he red tape it has created and ignore their demands for a ridiculous bill.

no deal would be better than a "soft brexit", everyone knows it. The remoaners are just trying to cling on to anything from their beloved EU.

Don't think we can just leave and walk away , may be wrong . If we did just that wouldn't we lose the faith of the rest of Europe and all that goes with that . As far as the red tape goes I think it my take years to repeal it .

[Toodles McGinty]

I don't see how we can walk away with any kind of 'good' deal. If we do, it would be a clear signal to other EU members that they'd be better off out of the Union.

For jobs, business and free access to the single market, as soft a Brexit as we can manage while keeping the rabid Brexiteers happy would suffice.

I speak as someone who voted to leave, but has since changed my mind. So I'd like to keep as many of the advantages as possible.

[The PNP]

The best deal would be to retain as much as possible of the trading benefits and human rights that we enjoy now.....But in fact expect the end result to be one big cockup, costing us a packet and taking many years to sort out.

[grassroots]

I don't see how we can walk away with any kind of 'good' deal. If we do, it would be a clear signal to other EU members that they'd be better off out of the Union.

For jobs, business and free access to the single market, as soft a Brexit as we can manage while keeping the rabid Brexiteers happy would suffice.

I speak as someone who voted to leave, but has since changed my mind. So I'd like to keep as many of the advantages as possible.

Toodles what in your opinion would be a "soft" Brexit .

[dav]

Real Brexit rather than the nonsense of "hard" and "soft" Brexit. We just need to walk away, paying nothing, and act as a sovereign nation again. World Trade rules allow that and forbid penalties from the EU. Short term hardship is worth it for long term prosperity, the ability to set our own deals with the rest of the World (we can't do this while in the EU) and the right to save our country from the madness of continued mass immigration and all the terrorism that will continue to bring. Whether our poorly educated populace, made ever more stupid by listening to the BBC and other EUrophile broadcasters, is prepared to accept temporary hardship for the greater goood of the country is another matter.

[Alikado]

We need to think why did we join?

All the problems and issues we had before we joined will reappear and more.

[The PNP]

[B]A)) We just need to walk away, paying nothing, and act as a sovereign nation again.

B) the right to save our country from the madness of continued mass immigration and all the terrorism that will continue to bring.

A) Can't see that happening tbh. Way too many U.K. businesses depend on selling to their customers within the E.U.....'Walking away' would jeopardise that trade and the U.K. jobs that go with it.

B) Then make a start now by clamping right down on immigration from outside the E.U., in particular from those places where all this terrorism originated.

[dav]

We need to think why did we join?

All the problems and issues we had before we joined will reappear and more.

We joined something that was supposed to be just a trading block. It is no longer that.

[dav]

A) Can't see that happening tbh. Way too many U.K. businesses depend on selling to their customers within the E.U.....'Walking away' would jeopardise that trade and the U.K. jobs that go with it.

B) Then make a start now by clamping right down on immigration from outside the E.U., in particular from those places where all this terrorism originated.

a) We can still trade with the EU even when not a member. That's what the WTO protects. The EU is also a declining market and there is a big wide world out there. Free of the EU we can set our own agreements with these countries; presently we can't.

b) Couldn't agree more - but plenty of the terrorists are originally from third world countries but have been given EU passports so we currently have to accept them.

[Toodles McGinty]

Toodles what in your opinion would be a "soft" Brexit .

I think a soft Brexit will have as little impact as possible on all of the small businesses employing millions in this country. Retaining access to the single market would be preferable. After all, wasn't that what we joined in the first place? A 'common market', before it became a European super state?

Of course, we'll have to make contributions, just as Switzerland or Norway do, but that is part and parcel of trading with close countries rather than waiting for 'the rest of the world' to come to us. It may also encourage those big players to continue to see us as a gateway to Europe.

As far as immigration is concerned, it should be controlled, sure. But we need immigration. Anyone who says otherwise is a fool, a racist, or probably both. Perhaps a visa-waiver scheme? I think what rattled most people's cages about free movement between EU countries was the fact that convicted murderers and rapists could just walk in willy-nilly. That and the perfect timing of seemingly millions of Muslims marching across into Europe that were very obviously not asylum-seekers or seeking refuge. In fact, had that not happened when it did, I doubt the whole question of membership would have arisen.

[grassroots]

I think a soft Brexit will have as little impact as possible on all of the small businesses employing millions in this country. Retaining access to the single market would be preferable. After all, wasn't that what we joined in the first place? A 'common market', before it became a European super state?

Of course, we'll have to make contributions, just as Switzerland or Norway do, but that is part and parcel of trading with close countries rather than waiting for 'the rest of the world' to come to us. It may also encourage those big players to continue to see us as a gateway to Europe.

As far as immigration is concerned, it should be controlled, sure. But we need immigration. Anyone who says otherwise is a fool, a racist, or probably both. Perhaps a visa-waiver scheme? I think what rattled most people's cages about free movement between EU countries was the fact that convicted murderers and rapists could just walk in willy-nilly. That and the perfect timing of seemingly millions of Muslims marching across into Europe that were very obviously not asylum-seekers or seeking refuge. In fact, had that not happened when it did, I doubt the whole question of membership would have arisen.

Some interesting points, especially the one about asylum seekers , and the point on the timing of the referendum .i

[Alikado]

We joined something that was supposed to be just a trading block. It is no longer that.

But we had a referendum on whether to implemement the Mastrich Treaty and we voted yes straight away unlike several European neighbours.
If we are not in the Single Market and the Customs Union goods will be held up for ages at the Channel, fresh produce will rot & livestock will die, this is why we joined.

[Alikado]

a) We can still trade with the EU even when not a member. That's what the WTO protects. The EU is also a declining market and there is a big wide world out there. Free of the EU we can set our own agreements with these countries; presently we can't.

EU is our biggest market, WTO tarriffs would make us uncompetitive.