Len, with regard your comment:
"
and you failed to mention the transition phase of probably an additional three years still fully or closely aligned to the EU which will be another compromise too far for many leavers"
I feel that this was covered implicitly by my view that I could see us paying contributions for up to 7 years - so long as we actually leave in a manner that reflects full separation.
I appreciate that there will almost certainly be a transition phase - in fact I would go as far as to say that I hope there is one so long as we really leave.
There is much to analyse and plan to unpick/replace with regard all the regulations and processes. If there is no transition phase I would assume that would mean that we have 'crashed out'. Whilst leaving by crashing out is OK by me as it means we have left, it is my fallback option rather than my preferred one. A jointly managed transition would reflect leaving on jointly agreed terms. That is better - so long as we actually leave.
Re your comment:
"And finally on immigration we will as a minimum have to give preferential access to EU workers." I disagree - you state it as a fact - I really doubt we will do that.
Re my comment on a couple of decades of rebuilding that you pick up on. I am really cool about that - so long as we have left, but is was not meant to imply that the UK will be serving some sentence for 20 years. Some good things, such as independent trade deals, will happen much sooner, I am just recognising the scale of the task represented by the Great Repeal bill - there are a lot of regulations to go through and we will need to either confirm/amend/replace them.
Finally, with regard your view that my comments reflect me being in the 'soft Brexit camp' - I can understand that suggestion but if you read my comments in a different light you could also see I am potentially in the hardest of hard Brexit camp.
My preferred option is that we negotiate, plan and manage full separation without causing damage to the EU - I would even pay to see us separate harmoniously. But I can well accept the UK crashing out early with no deal at all and I would absolutely prefer that happened if the EU game playing in negotiations was seeking to see us operating within a model that did not reflect clear separation.
For me, this is why I will be pleased to see May get a majority from the election that essentially gives her a free hand - free from the machinations of the Remain schemers and also the Brextremists. She can then shoot for the harmonious deal whilst being able to walk away if the EU continue the intransigence that is reflected in their current negotiating mandate. Also, as I have suggested many times, from a negotiating POV, the EU are more likely to act consistent with achieving an harmonious deal if they can see that they are facing off against a UK free of the Westminster machinations that would have been the case without an election.
I personally view these terms of hard and soft to actually be unhelpful - for me how the terms of the deal are shaped all depends on how the negotiations go. It follows that I tend to focus on the 'intended outcome' rather than stipulate Red Lines - at the level you seem to be wanting. When I say 'level, there is not implied criticism - I just see Red Lines described as:
- not more than £xx pa
- Immigration to be less than xx pa etc.
To be setting up hostages to fortune that can actually get the parties locked in and possibly falling out over outputs rather than focussing on the intended outcome.
