Brexit matters

[Enthusiast]

There were I suspect a lot of "soft Brexiters" who had reservations about the EU but wished to retain FoM/SM/CU.

Hard Brexit was implemented for political gain, and political gain only, because the Tories knew that they could win elections from the votes of a coalition of traditional Tory voters and small-c conservatives whom hard Brexit appealed to.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Jun 2024 ==


So should anyone expressing support for Brexit in 1983, or indeed any time after that, been told by EU supporters "I can't believe we're still having these arguments..." - because the 1975 referendum had settled it once and for all and arguing about something eight years later was pointless?

I suspect most would answer No.

The inherent bias I find in a lot of Brexit supporters is that it was quite acceptable for them to spend years complaining about the EU, but as soon as those of us who want to be in the EU start complaining about Brexit, we're told "the decision has been made, accept it...."
It's as if the 2016 referendum is somehow more binding than the 1975 one. In reality, 2016 is just as much a random year in history as 1975 is. What people believed in 2016 is not necessarily what they believe now.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Jun 2024 ==


Ah ok, thanks, sorry. I was completely confused by it.

Plus of course, a wafer-thin majority for Brexit arguably should have resulted in "almost-EU membership in practice, just not in name" - as such an outcome would be the kind of compromise that would reflect a split-down-the-middle vote. It would implement the referendum result (so would tick that box) yet not completely ignore the wishes of the 12 out of 25 who voted Remain.

It's the fact that Remainers have been completely sidelined and ignored that many of us are upset about, despite the vote being very close (12 Remainers for every 13 Brexiters). If there had been any attempt at compromise, even I suspect this thread would be a good deal quieter than it actually is. But there has been zero.

I've asked this before (and never got much by way of an answer): how much "compromise" do you think there would have been had the result been to remain by the same margin? I'll tell you what I think: Mr Cameron would have appeared on the steps of No10, with beaming smile, declaring "That's it. We've asked the question and the people have given their answer. The UK's place is in the EU" (or similar). And that would have been the end of it. There would not have been four years of domestic poliical acrimony and "negotiations" with the EU (what would there have been to negotiate?).There is no possibility that any compromise would have taken place (none that the EU would countenance, anyway). And that's for one very good reason - it's a binary choice: you're either in or you're out. Non-EU nations which are members of the SM and/or CU are deluded. They might as well be EU members because the only thing they haven't got is a say in what goes on (for what that's worth).

There was no consideration by Cameron and the government of the day as to what format Brexit would take because none of them in their wildest dreams believed the vote would go against them. But that's scarcely the fault of those who voted to leave and who expected, should their will prevail, that the government would do just that.

In your opinion. Who knows what the EU might have agreed to with further negotiations?

And some of us would believe that if the EU could not agree to a soft Brexit with SM/CU, it should have been "sorry, guys, we tried our best but we couldn't negotiate a moderate Brexit" and offered a second referendum, explicitly between Remain and Hard Brexit.
Controversial, I know - and I know it won't be popular amongst many here - but that's my own opinion.

So basically, then, people who voted to leave (properly) could only have been granted a "pretend" leave. Leaving the EU but retaining membership of the SM/CU amounts to little more than crossing the leaver's name off the list of members and withdrawing their right to elect MEPs. So it's back to the question above: what sort of "soft remain" would we have seen had there been a slim majority the other way? What compromises might the EU have agreed to in order to accommodate that?

The answer to that is "none whatsoever". The EU does not do compromise in that respect and indeed why should it? You're either a member or you are not. I know that lots of lies were peddled suggesting we could leave but still retain many of the advantages. But quite honestly, I don't know why anybody believed that we were likely to be granted such a privileged position. Anyone who voted to leave and expected that has only themselves to blame; they should have voted to remain.

 

[nw1]

I've asked this before (and never got much by way of an answer): how much "compromise" do you think there would have been had the result been to remain by the same margin?

The answer is the status quo because we already had a Soft Remain with plenty of compromises agreed between Cameron and the EU already. We weren't in Schengen, for starters, and we had our own currency.

Soft Remain for marginal remain lead, Soft Brexit for marginal leave lead. Sounds fair to me.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

OK I shouldn't have said pariah state.
But we are marginalised and to an extent ignored, and we have lost ground as a world financial centre.
Our GDP is small relative to the EU27, so no-one is falling over themselves to do trade deals with us - certainly not the US or even Canada.
The farmers and fishers, who dominated the leave debate, don't like the result which adversely affects their markets and livelihoods.
The security and cooperation agreement with the EU, and now Horizon, is at least something, but it could be so much better.
The claptrap about the new border inspections, involving all the vets and certificates, being "to protect the UK from harmful diseases" is complete nonsense when they were not needed 4 years ago under the CU/SM regime.

If Labour had supported Theresa May's "equivalence" deals, we would be in a happier place, but they supported the Tory rebels.
The Johnson/Frost hard Brexit that followed was not the inevitable result of the referendum, but it is what happened.
Yes I'm a remoaner, because Brexit was bad for Britain in so many ways.
I just hope Labour can improve things, over time.
Future changes in the EU (eg the likely drift to the right) don't help.

 

[Senex]

If Labour had supported Theresa May's "equivalence" deals, we would be in a happier place, but they supported the Tory rebels.
The Johnson/Frost hard Brexit that followed was not the inevitable result of the referendum, but it is what happened.

Which is why Corbyn's Labour is every bit as much to blame as Johnson's Tories for the disaster we ended up with.

 

[317 forever]

Which is why Corbyn's Labour is every bit as much to blame as Johnson's Tories for the disaster we ended up with.

Yes, they were more interested in embarassing the minority Tory government than securing a healthy ongoing relationship with the EU as part of our Brexit settlement.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

To answer a number of recent posts regarding how various options could have been formally considered but weren't, and this is definitely with the benefit of hindsight on my part, perhaps the referendum should have been a two round process much like a French Presidential election. So first round would have had 4 options:

- status quo Remain
- renegotiated Remain, ie a firm message to both UK government and the EU to try harder in the negotiations with a defined time limit leading to a further referendum on the outcome of said negotiations
- soft Brexit ie a Norway or Switzerland type arrangement, with the preferred model to be chosen by further referendum if it was the winning choice
- hard Brexit, as we have ended up with but with the consequences clearly laid out before polling day.

The first round would choose two options for a further vote. By having 2 choices on each side you avoid the risk of one side being overall the preferred choice but failing to put any options on that side through to a second round. It would also have made people think much more carefully about what they really wanted. Note that the renegotiated Remain option would have sent a very clear signal to all concerned that the views of the electorate do actually matter!

My suspicion is that that the two middle options would have gone through for a second ballot but that may just be my own bias! And yes a choice for renegotiated Remain could still have led to Brexit but in a way that would at least allow voters to have some transparency in the process. It's that relative lack of transparency, with deals being done in the corridors of Westminster etc, that leaves so many people feeling somewhat disenfranchised over the issue today.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The answer is the status quo because we already had a Soft Remain with plenty of compromises agreed between Cameron and the EU already. We weren't in Schengen, for starters, and we had our own currency.

That logic doesn't work. People weren't voting for a hypothetical Remain-without-any-opt-outs. The choice was Remain (with all the opt outs etc. the UK already had) or Brexit. 52% of people looked at that situation and decided that even with all the compromises/etc. already agreed, they still preferred Brexit.

If that result had gone the other way with 52% voting Remain, that would have meant that 48% of people had decided that they preferred Brexit to remaining , even with all the opt-outs and compromises the UK already had. You appear to be saying that, in that event, you would not do anything at all to take into account the views of those people - yet with the boot on the other shoe you're demanding that the Government offer compromises to take into account the 48% who voted Remain.

 

[edwin_m]

That logic doesn't work. People weren't voting for a hypothetical Remain-without-any-opt-outs. The choice was Remain (with all the opt outs etc. the UK already had) or Brexit. 52% of people looked at that situation and decided that even with all the compromises/etc. already agreed, they still preferred Brexit.

If that result had gone the other way with 52% voting Remain, that would have meant that 48% of people had decided that they preferred Brexit to remaining , even with all the opt-outs and compromises the UK already had. You appear to be saying that, in that event, you would not do anything at all to take into account the views of those people - yet with the boot on the other shoe you're demanding that the Government offer compromises to take into account the 48% who voted Remain.

If the vote had been 52% for Remain, the equivalent to what actually happened the other way round would have been the government taking it as a mandate to join the Euro and Schengen and commit the UK to political union.

 

[nw1]

That logic doesn't work. People weren't voting for a hypothetical Remain-without-any-opt-outs. The choice was Remain (with all the opt outs etc. the UK already had) or Brexit. 52% of people looked at that situation and decided that even with all the compromises/etc. already agreed, they still preferred Brexit.

If that result had gone the other way with 52% voting Remain, that would have meant that 48% of people had decided that they preferred Brexit to remaining , even with all the opt-outs and compromises the UK already had. You appear to be saying that, in that event, you would not do anything at all to take into account the views of those people - yet with the boot on the other shoe you're demanding that the Government offer compromises to take into account the 48% who voted Remain.

Not at all.

Eurosceptics already had some compromises made to them before Brexit even happened. No Euro, no Schengen, for starters, and no prospect of joining either. I believe Cameron also negotiated some other opt-outs for the UK, too, if I remember right.

Remainers have had almost no compromises made to them, other than the government hasn't (yet) been mad enough to take us out of the ECHR.

As @edwin_m says, the equivalent would be to join Schengen and/or the Euro in the event of a narrow lead for Remain. Perhaps if Remain had obtained more than two-thirds, we could have had a further referendum on such matters (two separate questions, one for Euro, one for Schengen). Likewise, if Brexit obtained a similar clear lead, we could have had a further referendum on SM/CU and FoM (two separate questions, once again). To me, that is very balanced and symmetrical.

That said, I do understand that some continental countries have more in the way of checks to prevent free movement of criminals, etc, than we did. Basically more form-filling involved if you want to emigrate, though in the majority of cases they would not say No. Maybe Cameron could have implemented similar measures in the event of a narrow Remain lead.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Not at all.

Eurosceptics already had some compromises made to them before Brexit even happened. No Euro, no Schengen, for starters, and no prospect of joining either. I believe Cameron also negotiated some other opt-outs for the UK, too, if I remember right.

Remainers have had almost no compromises made to them, other than the government hasn't (yet) been mad enough to take us out of the ECHR.

You're completely missing the point. We had a referendum based on the situation as it was in 2016. Do we want to remain in the EU on the basis of all the agreements around our existing membership. 52% of those who voted said, no, they didn't want that, they preferred to withdraw completely. The fact that the current situation happened to include some opt-outs is irrelevant to the logic because that was already factored into the referendum terms. It's fairly safe to infer that, if we hadn't had all those opt-outs, then Brexit's winning margin would have been rather bigger.

You have now made it clear that, if 'only' 48% had voted for Brexit, you would have offered that 48% of voters absolutely no compromises or sweeteners in the name of consensus, but would have simply ploughed on 100% with the situation that those 48% of people voting had voted against. Therefore you have no business demanding that Brexiters offer anything for the 48% who actually voted remain.

 

[edwin_m]

You're completely missing the point. We had a referendum based on the situation as it was in 2016. Do we want to remain in the EU on the basis of all the agreements around our existing membership. 52% of those who voted said, no, they didn't want that, they preferred to withdraw completely. The fact that the current situation happened to include some opt-outs is irrelevant to the logic because that was already factored into the referendum terms. It's fairly safe to infer that, if we hadn't had all those opt-outs, then Brexit's winning margin would have been rather bigger.

You have now made it clear that, if 'only' 48% had voted for Brexit, you would have offered that 48% of voters absolutely no compromises or sweeteners in the name of consensus, but would have simply ploughed on 100% with the situation that those 48% of people voting had voted against. Therefore you have no business demanding that Brexiters offer anything for the 48% who actually voted remain.

The question was "Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?". No mention of existing agreements.

@nw1 did not say that they would have pushed for closer relations with the EU in the event of a narrow Remain majority. What they and I were pointing out was that to do so would have been just as legitimate or illegitimate as what the Leave camp actually did, having obtained a narrow Leave majority. Perhaps your reaction to this hypothetical proposal (which I don't believe would ever have happened) may give Leave supporters some insight into how Remain supporters felt when the Leave faction interpreted the result as a mandate for an extreme Brexit. And therefore why we consider that the position the UK finds itself in was not as a result of an honest mistake but of dishonesty.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The question was "Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?". No mention of existing agreements.

But it's obvious that most people would have understood 'remain a member of the European Union' to be referring to our existing membership (possibly with some consideration of what might hypothetically happen in the future if we remained members). And that existing membership (with all the particular established agreements and opt-outs around it) is what 52% actually rejected.

 

[edwin_m]

But it's obvious that most people would have understood 'remain a member of the European Union' to be referring to our existing membership (possibly with some consideration of what might hypothetically happen in the future if we remained members). And that existing membership (with all the particular established agreements and opt-outs around it) is what 52% actually rejected.

And it was obvious to many that leaving the European Union referred to keeping many of our existing arrangements, because many of the Leave campaigners said so.

 

[dosxuk]

No. We got a hard Brexit because it was the only meaningful way we could Brexit. Anything less - such as staying in the single market - would have in practice meant almost nothing changed with regard to the EU except for the UK losing our voice in decisions that impacted us. It would have amounted to almost-EU-membership in practice, just not in name.

Then why did so many of the leave campaign repeatedly describe the consequences of what we now call a hard Brexit as "Project Fear", and that in particular "nobody is talking about threatening our place in the single market"?

It's almost like they knew that if the only option was a hard Brexit they would lose the vote...

 

[nw1]

You're completely missing the point. We had a referendum based on the situation as it was in 2016. Do we want to remain in the EU on the basis of all the agreements around our existing membership. 52% of those who voted said, no, they didn't want that, they preferred to withdraw completely. The fact that the current situation happened to include some opt-outs is irrelevant to the logic because that was already factored into the referendum terms. It's fairly safe to infer that, if we hadn't had all those opt-outs, then Brexit's winning margin would have been rather bigger.

You have now made it clear that, if 'only' 48% had voted for Brexit, you would have offered that 48% of voters absolutely no compromises or sweeteners in the name of consensus, but would have simply ploughed on 100% with the situation that those 48% of people voting had voted against. Therefore you have no business demanding that Brexiters offer anything for the 48% who actually voted remain.

This argument works both ways.

I think it's fairly safe to infer that, had the "Leave" option made it clear what sort of "Leave" would result, Remain would have led by a significant margin.

Plus "Remain" meant what it said on the tin, continue with what we had. It's very unlikely any attempt to join the Euro or Schengen would have happened, because Cameron recognised these would not be so popular. "Leave" was non-specific, and had no implication of a hard Brexit. So the "Leave" side has been dishonest while the "Remain" side was not.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Then why did so many of the leave campaign repeatedly describe the consequences of what we now call a hard Brexit as "Project Fear",

I would say, because the Remain campaign consisted almost entirely of predictions of dire economic collapse if we Brexited (predictions which by the way have proven almost completely unfounded). In other words, Remain were largely trying to secure victory by making us all too scared to leave the EU. 'Project Fear' seems pretty accurate to me as a description of that campaign.

and that in particular "nobody is talking about threatening our place in the single market"?

Yes, that particular statement was arguably dishonest by the Leave campaign. It should've been obvious that - given the requirements the EU imposes on single market membership - there was no way to meaningfully Brexit without leaving the single market.

 

[nw1]

Yes, that particular statement was arguably dishonest by the Leave campaign. It should've been obvious that - given the requirements the EU imposes on single market membership - there was no way to meaningfully Brexit without leaving the single market.

But would the casual voter realise that?

I am more interested in politics than average, and I certainly didn't know. It's certainly not obvious, even if it's true, which I have my doubts about.

 

[edwin_m]

Yes, that particular statement was arguably dishonest by the Leave campaign. It should've been obvious that - given the requirements the EU imposes on single market membership - there was no way to meaningfully Brexit without leaving the single market.

The EEA countries are members of the Single Market without being members of the EU.

 

[dosxuk]

I would say, because the Remain campaign consisted almost entirely of predictions of dire economic collapse if we Brexited (predictions which by the way have proven almost completely unfounded). In other words, Remain were largely trying to secure victory by making us all too scared to leave the EU. 'Project Fear' seems pretty accurate to me as a description of that campaign.

The remain campaign, I think we can all agree, was terrible. But the main problem was they didn't force the Leave campaign to put their stake in the ground and campaign on one issue. Remain brought up numerous times that leaving the EU meant leaving the SM and CU - every time Leave would then call that "Project Fear", utter nonsense and that our future relationship would have to be negotiated. While you can say now that maybe Leave shouldn't have said that, it was what the wider electorate wanted to hear and that's why it was said - and that's why they won the vote. Not because they had a plan, they were honest about that plan and the majority of people supported it, but because they were vague enough about everything that just about everyone could see some merit in some aspect of what they were talking about.

 

[AY1975]

Apologies if this has already been discussed upthread (or in another thread), and not sure whether this belongs here or warrants a separate thread, but I understand that since Brexit UK nationals may be asked for proof of accommodation and sufficient funds (£85 per day for Spain - not sure about other EU countries) before being allowed entry into the EU.

If you're staying with friends or relatives, do you have to show proof of their address such as a message that contains their address?

I believe that there's a worldwide ban on using cameras and mobile phones in customs and passport control areas, so is it OK to show this information on your phone if you have it on there, or do you need printouts of your invitation from your hosts (or your booking confirmation if staying in paid-for accommodation) and your bank or card statements?

 

[najaB]

I believe that there's a worldwide ban on using cameras and mobile phones in customs and passport control areas, so is it OK to show this information on your phone if you have it on there, or do you need printouts of your invitation from your hosts (or your booking confirmation if staying in paid-for accommodation) and your bank or card statements?

I can't speak for all airports, but generally the ban is against taking photos/videos, but once you're at the desk there's no problem showing the immigration official info on your phone.

 

[Gloster]

Apologies if this has already been discussed upthread (or in another thread), and not sure whether this belongs here or warrants a separate thread, but I understand that since Brexit UK nationals may be asked for proof of accommodation and sufficient funds (£85 per day for Spain - not sure about other EU countries) before being allowed entry into the EU.

If you're staying with friends or relatives, do you have to show proof of their address such as a message that contains their address?

I believe that there's a worldwide ban on using cameras and mobile phones in customs and passport control areas, so is it OK to show this information on your phone if you have it on there, or do you need printouts of your invitation from your hosts (or your booking confirmation if staying in paid-for accommodation) and your bank or card statements?

In the last few weeks I read somewhere (Grauniad or Independent, probably) about the hoops that your hosts in one country (Spain, I think) have (theoretically) to jump through in order to let you visit them. It was so complicated that some people were considering booking hotel accommodation and then not using it.

 

[JamesT]

Apologies if this has already been discussed upthread (or in another thread), and not sure whether this belongs here or warrants a separate thread, but I understand that since Brexit UK nationals may be asked for proof of accommodation and sufficient funds (£85 per day for Spain - not sure about other EU countries) before being allowed entry into the EU.

If you're staying with friends or relatives, do you have to show proof of their address such as a message that contains their address?

I believe that there's a worldwide ban on using cameras and mobile phones in customs and passport control areas, so is it OK to show this information on your phone if you have it on there, or do you need printouts of your invitation from your hosts (or your booking confirmation if staying in paid-for accommodation) and your bank or card statements?

It’s a general Schengen policy for visitors from outside the area. It may be that the Spanish have been more diligent in enforcing this so they’ve been referenced.
https://france-visas.gouv.fr/en/web/france-visas/your-arrival-in-france is a page referring to the requirements for visiting France.

Proof of accommodation covering the whole duration of the stay (hotel reservation and/or certificate of staying with a relative validated in the town hall);
Sufficient financial means. The means of subsistence shall be assessed according to the duration and purpose of the stay and by reference to the average prices for accommodation and food in the Member States;

So that sounds like an email from your family is not sufficient, you need the official form from their local authority that you can present.

 

[Mojo]

If you're staying with friends or relatives, do you have to show proof of their address such as a message that contains their address?

From a quick tally of stamps in my passport I have crossed the Schengen border about 20 times (including crossing into Spain twice) in the 2 years since face masks were widely scrapped on aeroplanes and have never been asked to show any proof of residence. I do however believe anecdotal stories that there must be reasons why people are being asked in Spain.

The Spanish government has a process whereby the person who owns the property you are staying at will provide the requisite documents and a Carta de Invitación will be issued. There is information regarding this at this unofficial website https://www.immigrationspain.es/en/invitation-letter-spain/

 

[Cloud Strife]

I do however believe anecdotal stories that there must be reasons why people are being asked in Spain.

It's almost exclusively coming from the La Linea border as the usual Spanish trick of putting pressure on Gibraltar. The requirement does formally exist, but is rarely checked. In all my years of travelling, the only time I've ever been asked was on entry to Belarus. Spain has no interest in discouraging tourists entering elsewhere.

I believe that there's a worldwide ban on using cameras and mobile phones in customs and passport control areas, so is it OK to show this information on your phone if you have it on there, or do you need printouts of your invitation from your hosts (or your booking confirmation if staying in paid-for accommodation) and your bank or card statements?

Phones are more than enough. Not everywhere bans the use of cameras: I've taken plenty of pictures of passport control areas in my time without even a word.

 

[geoffk]

Just had a reply from my MP (one of the new Labour intake) -

"I am committed to supporting efforts to improve the UK’s trade and investment relationship with the EU, by tearing down unnecessary barriers to trade. This does not mean reopening the divisions of the past and returning to the single market, the customs union or freedom of movement. Instead it means seeking to deepen ties, such as by seeking to negotiate a veterinary agreement to prevent unnecessary border checks and help tackle the cost of food; help our touring artists; and secure a mutual recognition agreement for professional qualifications to help open up markets for UK service exporters."

This reads a bit like cherry-picking, something which we know the EU won't consider. And of course nothing about Erasmus, which I had mentioned in my own e-mail.

 

[infobleep]

Just had a reply from my MP (one of the new Labour intake) -

"I am committed to supporting efforts to improve the UK’s trade and investment relationship with the EU, by tearing down unnecessary barriers to trade. This does not mean reopening the divisions of the past and returning to the single market, the customs union or freedom of movement. Instead it means seeking to deepen ties, such as by seeking to negotiate a veterinary agreement to prevent unnecessary border checks and help tackle the cost of food; help our touring artists; and secure a mutual recognition agreement for professional qualifications to help open up markets for UK service exporters."

This reads a bit like cherry-picking, something which we know the EU won't consider. And of course nothing about Erasmus, which I had mentioned in my own e-mail.

It reads like a copy and paste from official Labour Party press releases or statements.

 

[Senex]

Just had a reply from my MP (one of the new Labour intake) -

"I am committed to supporting efforts to improve the UK’s trade and investment relationship with the EU, by tearing down unnecessary barriers to trade. This does not mean reopening the divisions of the past and returning to the single market, the customs union or freedom of movement. Instead it means seeking to deepen ties, such as by seeking to negotiate a veterinary agreement to prevent unnecessary border checks and help tackle the cost of food; help our touring artists; and secure a mutual recognition agreement for professional qualifications to help open up markets for UK service exporters."

This reads a bit like cherry-picking, something which we know the EU won't consider. And of course nothing about Erasmus, which I had mentioned in my own e-mail.

It reads like a straight quote from his leader's play-book and unfortunately doesn't suggest someone able and willing to think for himself and formulate his own reply.

I think we shall come to regret the loss of Erasmus hugely. Not only did it give significant numbers of our own students the opportunity to live, work, and make friends and contacts in another European country, but also — and perhaps even more importantly — it brought large numbers of European students here who for the most part formed and took home with themselves favourable impressions of this country and quite warm attitudes towards it, which in the longer term (which I know politicians don't do) was surely a good thing professional and commercial relationships etc.

 

[RT4038]

It reads like a straight quote from his leader's play-book and unfortunately doesn't suggest someone able and willing to think for himself and formulate his own reply.

I think we shall come to regret the loss of Erasmus hugely. Not only did it give significant numbers of our own students the opportunity to live, work, and make

I doubt any MP has got the time or energy to formulate an own reply to such a question! Maybe on some matters within own constituency, but on national policy? Very unlikely, and I don't think that suggests anything about the MP.

 

[edwin_m]

They may have their personal views but there is a delicate balance to be made so the safe option is just to cut and paste the party line. In particular, many Labour MPs and members are likely to favour in principle a closer association with the EU going well beyond what is currently proposed. But this needs the EU to be interested in doing so, and confident that whatever is done won't just be reversed by a future Tory government. So expressing that sort of view risks unreasonably raising the hopes of those who share it, and annoying those who don't - but also the many who remember the strife of 2016-24 and don't want to go back there.

Over time, more Leave voters will see the downsides of Brexit and the demographic will shift as older and more likely anti-EU voters die off and younger more likely pro-EU people reach voting age. That process has to run for quite a while more before there's any question of a major realignment towards the EU.