“Hard Brexit” generally means the UK leaving the EU, with in particular its membership of the Single Market (but not “access” to the Single Market, which others manage, tariff-free).
“Soft Brexit” seems to be “try to ignore the referendum without it being too obvious”. Hence it tends to involve staying in the Single Market. Which brings with it acceptance of FMP (Free Movement of People) and acceptance of the supremacy of European law. Which are the two issues most cited as reasons to vote for Brexit in the first place.
Hard Brexit = out of the EU, and prioritising border controls over retaining membership of the single market (hence, likely out of the single market).
Soft Brexit = out of the EU, and prioritising retaining membership of the single market over border controls (hence, likely little additional control of UK borders).
Not really. Accepting EU jurisdiction over our domestic technical standards, goods and services and no control over our borders wouldn’t strike many brexiteers as being “out of the EU”.
Perhaps not. But we’d nonetheless no longer be a member of the EU, thereby meeting the basic requirement of the referendum vote.
Incidentally, here’s a fairly prominent Brexiteer telling the British public back in June that we can leave the EU and retain access to the single market:
Nobody doubts we’ll have “access” to the single market. It’s whether we’re members or not that’s at stake. Just check the back of your iphone – it’ll say ‘designed in the US, manufactured in China”. Neither is a member of the single market, but both have access to it.
Here are two fairly prominent remainers telling the British public that a vote to leave the EU is a vote to leave the single market:
I probably come at this with a bit of a lawyer’s hat on (I know – boo, hiss!), but from where I’m sat the referendum gives a clear mandate to leave the EU. Anything beyond that is an interpretation that goes beyond the language, and therefore has to be treated with suspicion – we know that 17m people wanted to leave the EU, we don’t know for certain how many of those 17m would be prepared to leave the single market to control our borders.
It strikes me as quite dangerous to hold a referendum and then start extrapolating meaning beyond the actual wording posed – and particularly dangerous to then characterise that extrapolation as “the will of the people”.
I quite agree BL. However, it was fairly clear that the primary reason given for voting Brexit was to re-establish the supremacy of UK law (England and Wales at least) that had been handed over lock, stock and barrel without a vote. I’m fairly sure that most of the people voting for Brexit would far rather have control over our laws and borders than be a member of the SM. I’ve yet to read any Brexiteer wringing their hands over the potential loss of Single Market membership. On the contrary, the only people banging on about the SM appear to be remainers. From what I can see, it’s an entirely spurious argument designed to obfuscate, delay and generally bugger up any notion of actually leaving the EU. As has been calculated, the drag on the economy of complying with EU law and sending the EU our annual cheques tends to dwarf even WTO tariff levels.
The problem is, we can’t be sure what people voted for at the referendum, beyond membership of the EU. We can make assumptions, but that’s all they are.
I’m interested that you think concerns over exiting the single market are entirely spurious. I’m not sure that’s the case – it’s the number one thing that’s worried me throughout this process, because I’ve not seen any evidence that convinces me that there will be an economic benefit to doing so. You always seem a smart chap, and you certainly understand economics better than I do based on previous conversations, so it heartens me a little to hear your certainty on that score.
My own personal view on all this is that the vote was for Brexit, and we should move towards Brexit on whatever basis the government feels best (within reason), on the proviso that we do so with our eyes open, on a non-ideological basis and without the referendum vote becoming a sort of hostage to fortune.
If it becomes clear as we go through the process that this is a really bad idea (e.g. if companies start to withdraw from the UK, to give but one example), I’d expect us to correct our course to some extent. Because that’s how smart, grown up decision making works.
What I don’t want to see is a headlong charge for the exit, ignoring all contradictory evidence or data, because it’s become an article of faith that Brexit = good, or because all negative data is interpreted as some sort of conspiracy on behalf of the global elite to keep us in.
On that score, this is why I think it’s quite important that Remainers reel it in a little with the mockery and the finger pointing – the critical thing here is that it’s increasingly apparent that no one has any real clue how this thing is going to work out, and we should all be open to changing our minds, and given the opportunity to do so without ridicule.
Thanks BL. Mutual respect given and much appreciated.
There’s no doubt there will be rocks along the road. But yes, I have huge faith personally. We genuinely are a fairly robust, resourceful, open and entrepreneurial country that tends to be on the right side of history.
The EU seems by comparison a petty, vindictive, Napoleonic racket that is only redeemed by its adoption of a British initiative – the Single Market. With all the damage it’s wreaking across southern Europe – higher levels of unemployment and misery than those in pre-WWII Germany – as well as the ongoing buggering up of Africa, a complete unwillingness to address its weaknesses (the CAP, democratic deficit, the fact that its auditors continue to refuse to sign off on its accounts, susceptibility to corruption and Big Corporate lobbying, the benighted single currency etc), I think we’ve been offered a fairly handy life raft as the EU sails on empirically towards self-inflicted irrelevance and stagnation.
Genuinely, were the EU to spitefully refuse all trade agreements with the UK – and to my mind, the threats of an abusive former partner are an extra reason to leave, having had personal experience of that scenario – we’d likely be left with WTO trade tariffs. The cost of which would be lower than our current EU contributions and compliance costs.
There were costs associated with EU membership – our fishing industry was, for no justifiable reason, collateral damage, for instance. Likewise, the US paid a price for cutting itself off from the Empire. The UK will definitely face challenges, efforts to punish us “pour encourager les autres” and there will be plenty of gleeful publicity given to setbacks, in particular in the Guardian, FT and on the BBC. But if any country can make a success of not being in a corrupt trading bloc, it’s this one. In my view anyway!
Couldn’t agree more that some Remainers have been as bad as the obnoxious Brexiteers who keep telling us that those of us who believe we should stay in the EU should now just shut up. A friend of mine posted this article by AC Grayling triumphantly declaring that it quoshed all the arguments about the binding nature of the referendum. It does no such thing. Its actually a perfect example of the kind of patronising arrogance from some Remainers that plays perfectly into the Daily Mail and Telegraph’s hands.
I’ve been staying away from this as it’s not really my thing, but that “17 million” and elsewhere “52% of 70%” line bothers me. It’s just a fact that referendums have lower voter turnout and for the possibly laudable reason that, faced with an absolute yes/no question, those who are undecided or confused prefer to leave the decision to those with conviction. Knowing this, and knowing that you’re overturning a status quo that’s stood (and was supported by plebiscite) for over 40 years (almost as long as the band of the same name) you might have made it a condition that things would only change if X% or Y million voted for change.
But you didn’t, so you it’s something of an affront to democracy to say that it was “technically a minority” who passed the referendum.
Bingo’s spot on that you can’t presume what the vote means other than what is in the wording, which is why it’s imperative that you establish exactly what it is that people are voting for.
You had the option, in advance, to offer people what might be characterised as “soft” or “hard” options.
Our experience over here has been that ambiguous outcomes has simply made a clarifying referendum inevitable (guess what? you’ll get an even lower turnout). Mostly, we’ve been letting Edith Fnuction at our own Consitution, so it’s ourselves we’ve been tying in knots. I’m not sure how easy doing the Hokey Kokey with EU membership would be for you..
Thanks BL – very kind and much appreciated – as is the respect with which you’ve made your points.
Way back when, my Econometric thesis was on the effects of having a single currency across a varied economy – in that case, the pound sterling, controlling which had different effects on the South East to those in the North, for instance. People like me, who warned of the utter folly of establishing a European single currency were smeared as ‘Little Englanders’ – by the BBC in particular, who gave vanishingly small coverage to anyone who dared to question the glorious wonder of following our EU colleagues over the cliff. I know from experience that there tends not to be a “oh, sorry about that, we got it wrong – again” moment, so if post-Brexit Britain is a success, I don’t expect there to be any lessons learned sadly!
@bartleby and @bingo-little clearest views given here yet. I got very hot under the collar at the other thread and rambly but having watched and read over the weekend I now better understand the legal stuff (still haven’t read it @si-the-ref ) but Andrew Marr on Sunday morning was very enlightening. Apologies for my hissy fit.
Once we are all agreed that we are leaving I’m with Bartleby all the way that there is real opportunity for Britain, it’s farmers, it’s big thinkers and big business. If that success comes and trickles down to those who have nothing but welfare and no hope and used this as the “Silent Revolution” then Brexit can be seen as a real turning point.
Re the OP Hard Brexit is leaving and slamming the door behind us leaving the EU desperate for us to come back in, Soft Brexit is hovering at the door saying sorry while the EU sits on the sofa staring at the wall all mardy bum. I left my wife using Soft Wexit, I should have used Hard Wexit no point dragging out the pain and misery any longer than necessary
I’m not seeing the connection. Weetabix was pushed by braces-wearing skinheads who insisted you better avoid the croissants and waffles “if you know what’s good for you..”
Whereas Brexit was the calmly considered withdrawal from an unrepresentative bureaucracy..
You make a good point about branding, though: in a contest that close, what happens when the nickname for the process implies a particular outcome? It’s called the U.S. presidential election, not the Entrumpment
“Brexit” is a musical sub-genre that first emerged from the melting point of turn-of-the-decade dubstep. It’s signature sound was an extremely deep bass, coupled with frenetic, often seemingly arrhythmic beats, and heavily distorted samples of classic British sitcoms.
Many practitioners of Brexit first made their names in other dubstep sub-genres, such as TechStep and Purple, before evolving their sound towards the classic Brexit style we now recognise today. Producers/DJs like Mad Nige, MyBStFrnDsRBlk, Day Lee Male, and Gowve were all critical to the early Brexit scene, although most of them disappeared completely from sight when the genre crossed into the mainstream.
The division into Hard Brexit and Soft Brexit is only a very recent event, so it’s still a little hard to pin down. Please do bear with me, as I know this isn’t a style of music the Afterword usually dabbles in.
Hard Brexit first emerged in mid 2016, largely as a reaction to the mainstream success of records like “350mill”, “Breaking Point” and “Experts”. Where the sound differs is that the bass is even heavier, the beats are even more skittish and the sitcom influence is replaced with heavily vocodered samples of Winston Churchill, Jeremy Clarkson and the owner of that house in Rotherham with the massive cross of St George outside it. Critically, the Hard Brexit sound also brings with it more of an MC culture, with artists such as Charming Bastard, MC Treeza, and MC DirtyFoxx stepping up to the mic to spit increasingly offbeat rhymes.
Hard Brexit has proved fairly divisive in the community (more below), but it’s also scored some notable chart successes, with tunes like “Brexit=Brexit”, “R U Over Itt?”, “Carney Killer” and “Enemees of the State” gaining traction – the latter was recently used in a commercial for a home cleaning product, raising questions as to whether the Hard Brexit bubble may be about to burst. Proponents of the Hard Brexit scene are staunch supporters of their sound, believing that theirs is the “one true Brexit” (to quote a popular item of Hoxton graffiti) and that their duty is to push the genre to its logical end points – meaning ever more bass and ever less melody.
The “Soft Brexit” scene has taken the opposite approach. Favouring a slightly more cerebral and high-minded sound, they’ve stripped down a lot of the bassiness of the original Brexit, and also done away almost entirely with the samples. Beats are clearer and more regular.
This has lead to some really interesting work in the field, and a Mercury Prize nomination for G Milla’s seminal “Artikle 50” album, but also accusations that the new sound is not club-friendly, and is more or less impossible to dance to.
In a fairly well circulated YouTube clip back in August, Day Lee Male broke cover to issue a lengthy diatribe on the subject, suggesting that Soft Brexit was in danger of betraying the original Brexit sound, and did not represent “Brexit for the people”, but rather a Brexit more suited to a “head-nodding critical elite” (incidentally, Pitchfork and Quietus are huge champions of this stuff). There have also been accusations of cultural imperialism, with suggestions that Soft Brexit represents a sanitized, “white-friendly” sound.
We’re now left at something of an impasse. Hard Brexit has a commercial foothold, and dominates club nights across East London. But Soft Brexit appears to be making all the artistic and critical headway, which suggests that it may be better placed for the long haul. Needless to say, the enmity between the two camps is ongoing, with a high profile stabbing incident at this year’s Carnival and also the recent release of Hard Brexit scene mainstay Murdok’s new “Traitors” EP, which has allegedly provoked an increase in club night violence.
Hope that helps! Here’s some Soft Brexit to play us out:
Suggest we take a vote on what hard and soft brexit means once everybody has had their say and then present this to Teresa and their team so they don’t go naked (leopard print kitten heels allowed in, to distract the French) into the negotiating chamber. BUT, let’s this keep this to ourselves, we don’t want those dastardly Europeans getting advance notice of our position.
Hard means “we’re walking away as soon as we can and we’ll work out the details later”. Soft means “we’re going in a couple of years so can we gave a nice little chat about boring things like trade, freedom of movement etc?”
On the other hand it is clear nobody currently in Government thought this would happen so none of those fuckwits have a clue what hard or soft really means…..
I would think Hard Brexit means invoking Article 50, stating a timetable to completely dissolve our membership of The EU and a total parting of the ways, followed by the making of trade agreements etc. with whoever will make them with us, including remaining EU states and other states with whom our agreements are currently based upon membership of The EU, on whatever terms can be mutually agreed. Soft Brexit would be negotiating a relationship of some sort with The EU as a body, having invoked Article 50, and no longer being members of The EU. Also having other relationships with non-EU countries as and when/where we can establish them.
I don’t think that’s correct Mike. The triggering of Article 50 merely sets in place the 2 year timetable in which to negotiate Britain’s exit from the EU. It has nothing to do with negotiating our ongoing relationship with the bloc. That will require a new trade deal, an experience which Canada recently found so rewarding.
Late to thread. Nothing to add except to broadly echo posts by Dave Amitri and Bartleby.
Wider point – Motivated Reasoning seems particularly to the fore these days*. That notwithstanding, *my* motivated reasoning clearly, ahem, trumps yours.**
*’these days’ being an illusion, of course. Despite everything, almost certainly better than any other ‘days’ of yesteryear.
**I’m no fan of Hillary but even less so of The Donald. As a libertarian, I wish a plague on both their houses.
Bartleby says
“Hard Brexit” generally means the UK leaving the EU, with in particular its membership of the Single Market (but not “access” to the Single Market, which others manage, tariff-free).
“Soft Brexit” seems to be “try to ignore the referendum without it being too obvious”. Hence it tends to involve staying in the Single Market. Which brings with it acceptance of FMP (Free Movement of People) and acceptance of the supremacy of European law. Which are the two issues most cited as reasons to vote for Brexit in the first place.
Bingo Little says
Hard Brexit = out of the EU, and prioritising border controls over retaining membership of the single market (hence, likely out of the single market).
Soft Brexit = out of the EU, and prioritising retaining membership of the single market over border controls (hence, likely little additional control of UK borders).
Bartleby says
Not really. Accepting EU jurisdiction over our domestic technical standards, goods and services and no control over our borders wouldn’t strike many brexiteers as being “out of the EU”.
Bingo Little says
Perhaps not. But we’d nonetheless no longer be a member of the EU, thereby meeting the basic requirement of the referendum vote.
Incidentally, here’s a fairly prominent Brexiteer telling the British public back in June that we can leave the EU and retain access to the single market:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-eu-referendum-single-market-brexit-a7104846.html
Bartleby says
Nobody doubts we’ll have “access” to the single market. It’s whether we’re members or not that’s at stake. Just check the back of your iphone – it’ll say ‘designed in the US, manufactured in China”. Neither is a member of the single market, but both have access to it.
Here are two fairly prominent remainers telling the British public that a vote to leave the EU is a vote to leave the single market:
http://order-order.com/2016/10/12/brexit-means-leaving-single-market/
Bingo Little says
Ha – fair play!
I probably come at this with a bit of a lawyer’s hat on (I know – boo, hiss!), but from where I’m sat the referendum gives a clear mandate to leave the EU. Anything beyond that is an interpretation that goes beyond the language, and therefore has to be treated with suspicion – we know that 17m people wanted to leave the EU, we don’t know for certain how many of those 17m would be prepared to leave the single market to control our borders.
It strikes me as quite dangerous to hold a referendum and then start extrapolating meaning beyond the actual wording posed – and particularly dangerous to then characterise that extrapolation as “the will of the people”.
Just my tuppence.
Bartleby says
I quite agree BL. However, it was fairly clear that the primary reason given for voting Brexit was to re-establish the supremacy of UK law (England and Wales at least) that had been handed over lock, stock and barrel without a vote. I’m fairly sure that most of the people voting for Brexit would far rather have control over our laws and borders than be a member of the SM. I’ve yet to read any Brexiteer wringing their hands over the potential loss of Single Market membership. On the contrary, the only people banging on about the SM appear to be remainers. From what I can see, it’s an entirely spurious argument designed to obfuscate, delay and generally bugger up any notion of actually leaving the EU. As has been calculated, the drag on the economy of complying with EU law and sending the EU our annual cheques tends to dwarf even WTO tariff levels.
Bingo Little says
The problem is, we can’t be sure what people voted for at the referendum, beyond membership of the EU. We can make assumptions, but that’s all they are.
I’m interested that you think concerns over exiting the single market are entirely spurious. I’m not sure that’s the case – it’s the number one thing that’s worried me throughout this process, because I’ve not seen any evidence that convinces me that there will be an economic benefit to doing so. You always seem a smart chap, and you certainly understand economics better than I do based on previous conversations, so it heartens me a little to hear your certainty on that score.
My own personal view on all this is that the vote was for Brexit, and we should move towards Brexit on whatever basis the government feels best (within reason), on the proviso that we do so with our eyes open, on a non-ideological basis and without the referendum vote becoming a sort of hostage to fortune.
If it becomes clear as we go through the process that this is a really bad idea (e.g. if companies start to withdraw from the UK, to give but one example), I’d expect us to correct our course to some extent. Because that’s how smart, grown up decision making works.
What I don’t want to see is a headlong charge for the exit, ignoring all contradictory evidence or data, because it’s become an article of faith that Brexit = good, or because all negative data is interpreted as some sort of conspiracy on behalf of the global elite to keep us in.
On that score, this is why I think it’s quite important that Remainers reel it in a little with the mockery and the finger pointing – the critical thing here is that it’s increasingly apparent that no one has any real clue how this thing is going to work out, and we should all be open to changing our minds, and given the opportunity to do so without ridicule.
Again, OOAA.
Bartleby says
Thanks BL. Mutual respect given and much appreciated.
There’s no doubt there will be rocks along the road. But yes, I have huge faith personally. We genuinely are a fairly robust, resourceful, open and entrepreneurial country that tends to be on the right side of history.
The EU seems by comparison a petty, vindictive, Napoleonic racket that is only redeemed by its adoption of a British initiative – the Single Market. With all the damage it’s wreaking across southern Europe – higher levels of unemployment and misery than those in pre-WWII Germany – as well as the ongoing buggering up of Africa, a complete unwillingness to address its weaknesses (the CAP, democratic deficit, the fact that its auditors continue to refuse to sign off on its accounts, susceptibility to corruption and Big Corporate lobbying, the benighted single currency etc), I think we’ve been offered a fairly handy life raft as the EU sails on empirically towards self-inflicted irrelevance and stagnation.
Genuinely, were the EU to spitefully refuse all trade agreements with the UK – and to my mind, the threats of an abusive former partner are an extra reason to leave, having had personal experience of that scenario – we’d likely be left with WTO trade tariffs. The cost of which would be lower than our current EU contributions and compliance costs.
There were costs associated with EU membership – our fishing industry was, for no justifiable reason, collateral damage, for instance. Likewise, the US paid a price for cutting itself off from the Empire. The UK will definitely face challenges, efforts to punish us “pour encourager les autres” and there will be plenty of gleeful publicity given to setbacks, in particular in the Guardian, FT and on the BBC. But if any country can make a success of not being in a corrupt trading bloc, it’s this one. In my view anyway!
Bingo Little says
The above is the single most cogent argument for Leave that I’ve seen all year. Very well played, and I hope you’re proven entirely correct.
Blue Boy says
Couldn’t agree more that some Remainers have been as bad as the obnoxious Brexiteers who keep telling us that those of us who believe we should stay in the EU should now just shut up. A friend of mine posted this article by AC Grayling triumphantly declaring that it quoshed all the arguments about the binding nature of the referendum. It does no such thing. Its actually a perfect example of the kind of patronising arrogance from some Remainers that plays perfectly into the Daily Mail and Telegraph’s hands.
http://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/articles/philosopher_ac_grayling_on_why_parliament_must_resist_article_50_1_4635481
Vulpes Vulpes says
Worth a (sobering) listen:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b081lkmf#play
Sewer Robot says
I’ve been staying away from this as it’s not really my thing, but that “17 million” and elsewhere “52% of 70%” line bothers me. It’s just a fact that referendums have lower voter turnout and for the possibly laudable reason that, faced with an absolute yes/no question, those who are undecided or confused prefer to leave the decision to those with conviction. Knowing this, and knowing that you’re overturning a status quo that’s stood (and was supported by plebiscite) for over 40 years (almost as long as the band of the same name) you might have made it a condition that things would only change if X% or Y million voted for change.
But you didn’t, so you it’s something of an affront to democracy to say that it was “technically a minority” who passed the referendum.
Bingo’s spot on that you can’t presume what the vote means other than what is in the wording, which is why it’s imperative that you establish exactly what it is that people are voting for.
You had the option, in advance, to offer people what might be characterised as “soft” or “hard” options.
Our experience over here has been that ambiguous outcomes has simply made a clarifying referendum inevitable (guess what? you’ll get an even lower turnout). Mostly, we’ve been letting Edith Fnuction at our own Consitution, so it’s ourselves we’ve been tying in knots. I’m not sure how easy doing the Hokey Kokey with EU membership would be for you..
Bartleby says
Thanks BL – very kind and much appreciated – as is the respect with which you’ve made your points.
Way back when, my Econometric thesis was on the effects of having a single currency across a varied economy – in that case, the pound sterling, controlling which had different effects on the South East to those in the North, for instance. People like me, who warned of the utter folly of establishing a European single currency were smeared as ‘Little Englanders’ – by the BBC in particular, who gave vanishingly small coverage to anyone who dared to question the glorious wonder of following our EU colleagues over the cliff. I know from experience that there tends not to be a “oh, sorry about that, we got it wrong – again” moment, so if post-Brexit Britain is a success, I don’t expect there to be any lessons learned sadly!
Dave Ross says
@bartleby and @bingo-little clearest views given here yet. I got very hot under the collar at the other thread and rambly but having watched and read over the weekend I now better understand the legal stuff (still haven’t read it @si-the-ref ) but Andrew Marr on Sunday morning was very enlightening. Apologies for my hissy fit.
Once we are all agreed that we are leaving I’m with Bartleby all the way that there is real opportunity for Britain, it’s farmers, it’s big thinkers and big business. If that success comes and trickles down to those who have nothing but welfare and no hope and used this as the “Silent Revolution” then Brexit can be seen as a real turning point.
Re the OP Hard Brexit is leaving and slamming the door behind us leaving the EU desperate for us to come back in, Soft Brexit is hovering at the door saying sorry while the EU sits on the sofa staring at the wall all mardy bum. I left my wife using Soft Wexit, I should have used Hard Wexit no point dragging out the pain and misery any longer than necessary
Bartleby says
Cheers Dave,
I didn’t get around to reading the other thread – I tend to avoid the political ones funnily enough!
I guess I did a hard Brexit from my marriage. But it took me a couple of years to build up the stamina and self belief to dare to try and escape.
Chrisf says
For some reason, whenever I see the word Brexit, I think of Weetabix – so I think soft brexit is too much milk and hard brexit is with jam on.
Sewer Robot says
I’m not seeing the connection. Weetabix was pushed by braces-wearing skinheads who insisted you better avoid the croissants and waffles “if you know what’s good for you..”
Whereas Brexit was the calmly considered withdrawal from an unrepresentative bureaucracy..
You make a good point about branding, though: in a contest that close, what happens when the nickname for the process implies a particular outcome? It’s called the U.S. presidential election, not the Entrumpment
Moose the Mooche says
Cue poster of Demi Moore sticking her bum out
Sewer Robot says
Are you thinking of Catherine Zeta Jones? I know I am..
Bingo Little says
I’ll take a crack.
“Brexit” is a musical sub-genre that first emerged from the melting point of turn-of-the-decade dubstep. It’s signature sound was an extremely deep bass, coupled with frenetic, often seemingly arrhythmic beats, and heavily distorted samples of classic British sitcoms.
Many practitioners of Brexit first made their names in other dubstep sub-genres, such as TechStep and Purple, before evolving their sound towards the classic Brexit style we now recognise today. Producers/DJs like Mad Nige, MyBStFrnDsRBlk, Day Lee Male, and Gowve were all critical to the early Brexit scene, although most of them disappeared completely from sight when the genre crossed into the mainstream.
The division into Hard Brexit and Soft Brexit is only a very recent event, so it’s still a little hard to pin down. Please do bear with me, as I know this isn’t a style of music the Afterword usually dabbles in.
Hard Brexit first emerged in mid 2016, largely as a reaction to the mainstream success of records like “350mill”, “Breaking Point” and “Experts”. Where the sound differs is that the bass is even heavier, the beats are even more skittish and the sitcom influence is replaced with heavily vocodered samples of Winston Churchill, Jeremy Clarkson and the owner of that house in Rotherham with the massive cross of St George outside it. Critically, the Hard Brexit sound also brings with it more of an MC culture, with artists such as Charming Bastard, MC Treeza, and MC DirtyFoxx stepping up to the mic to spit increasingly offbeat rhymes.
Hard Brexit has proved fairly divisive in the community (more below), but it’s also scored some notable chart successes, with tunes like “Brexit=Brexit”, “R U Over Itt?”, “Carney Killer” and “Enemees of the State” gaining traction – the latter was recently used in a commercial for a home cleaning product, raising questions as to whether the Hard Brexit bubble may be about to burst. Proponents of the Hard Brexit scene are staunch supporters of their sound, believing that theirs is the “one true Brexit” (to quote a popular item of Hoxton graffiti) and that their duty is to push the genre to its logical end points – meaning ever more bass and ever less melody.
The “Soft Brexit” scene has taken the opposite approach. Favouring a slightly more cerebral and high-minded sound, they’ve stripped down a lot of the bassiness of the original Brexit, and also done away almost entirely with the samples. Beats are clearer and more regular.
This has lead to some really interesting work in the field, and a Mercury Prize nomination for G Milla’s seminal “Artikle 50” album, but also accusations that the new sound is not club-friendly, and is more or less impossible to dance to.
In a fairly well circulated YouTube clip back in August, Day Lee Male broke cover to issue a lengthy diatribe on the subject, suggesting that Soft Brexit was in danger of betraying the original Brexit sound, and did not represent “Brexit for the people”, but rather a Brexit more suited to a “head-nodding critical elite” (incidentally, Pitchfork and Quietus are huge champions of this stuff). There have also been accusations of cultural imperialism, with suggestions that Soft Brexit represents a sanitized, “white-friendly” sound.
We’re now left at something of an impasse. Hard Brexit has a commercial foothold, and dominates club nights across East London. But Soft Brexit appears to be making all the artistic and critical headway, which suggests that it may be better placed for the long haul. Needless to say, the enmity between the two camps is ongoing, with a high profile stabbing incident at this year’s Carnival and also the recent release of Hard Brexit scene mainstay Murdok’s new “Traitors” EP, which has allegedly provoked an increase in club night violence.
Hope that helps! Here’s some Soft Brexit to play us out:
Kaisfatdad says
Very witty! Good to have you back in the DJ booth, Mr Little.
I’m off to Brexify to make a playlist of all those fab artists.
Dogbyte says
In reality we’ll probably end up with something between the two, a “Spongy Brexit”.
hubert rawlinson says
Like the difference between hard and soft toilet paper.
Moose the Mooche says
Hard Brexit doesn’t get rid of the shite, just spreads it around.
Dodger Lane says
Suggest we take a vote on what hard and soft brexit means once everybody has had their say and then present this to Teresa and their team so they don’t go naked (leopard print kitten heels allowed in, to distract the French) into the negotiating chamber. BUT, let’s this keep this to ourselves, we don’t want those dastardly Europeans getting advance notice of our position.
Lodestone of Wrongness says
Hard means “we’re walking away as soon as we can and we’ll work out the details later”. Soft means “we’re going in a couple of years so can we gave a nice little chat about boring things like trade, freedom of movement etc?”
On the other hand it is clear nobody currently in Government thought this would happen so none of those fuckwits have a clue what hard or soft really means…..
Mike_H says
I would think Hard Brexit means invoking Article 50, stating a timetable to completely dissolve our membership of The EU and a total parting of the ways, followed by the making of trade agreements etc. with whoever will make them with us, including remaining EU states and other states with whom our agreements are currently based upon membership of The EU, on whatever terms can be mutually agreed.
Soft Brexit would be negotiating a relationship of some sort with The EU as a body, having invoked Article 50, and no longer being members of The EU. Also having other relationships with non-EU countries as and when/where we can establish them.
Bartleby says
I don’t think that’s correct Mike. The triggering of Article 50 merely sets in place the 2 year timetable in which to negotiate Britain’s exit from the EU. It has nothing to do with negotiating our ongoing relationship with the bloc. That will require a new trade deal, an experience which Canada recently found so rewarding.
DougieJ says
Late to thread. Nothing to add except to broadly echo posts by Dave Amitri and Bartleby.
Wider point – Motivated Reasoning seems particularly to the fore these days*. That notwithstanding, *my* motivated reasoning clearly, ahem, trumps yours.**
*’these days’ being an illusion, of course. Despite everything, almost certainly better than any other ‘days’ of yesteryear.
**I’m no fan of Hillary but even less so of The Donald. As a libertarian, I wish a plague on both their houses.