Mellsblue wrote:Son of Mathonwy wrote:Mellsblue wrote:I know this is Rugby Rebels but I’m not getting into an argument over the meaning of plenty
I don’t think the softest of soft Brexits would satisfy Leavers, you do. Unless one of US decides to study for a doctorate on the subject I doubt we’ll find out the truth!
Damn, I thought we could have got at least a couple more pages out of that.
A soft Brexit won't satisfy all leavers but it might well satisfy enough of them.
I’m up for giving it a go!!
I’m sure it will. I think something along the lines of Common Market 2.0 would be acceptable. It is pretty much what the official Leave campaign stood on and gets you out of most of the mechanisms and institutions that piss people off, ie the ones I listed when showing WT I didn’t think Norway = brino. My disagreement with you was that you couldn’t leave the EU but stay in the CU, SM, CAP, CFP etc etc and please most/enough/plenty Leavers. Another good thing about Common Market 2.0 is that it keeps freedom of movement which is the thing that seems to have emotionally affected people the most. Stom is rightly worried about it and it’s causing my mother in law (and therefore my wife and therefore me), and all the other expats she knows in France, a lot of stress.
Before anyone picks me up on the fact that I’ve argued there should be no need for compromise. I still believe that if you lose a vote (which I did) then you lose, and I still believe that Canada++ would be closest to what Leave campaigned on. Admittedly, there is ambiguity on whether that included staying in the SM depending on who you listened to!! However, if Canada++ isn’t acceptable, and it may have now been ruled out unilaterally and seemingly out of nowhere by Macron, and freedom of movement is, rightly, such a big concern then I think Common Market 2.0 should tick enough of the boxes for Leavers. Plus, as mentioned above, there were those such as Hannan who said that Brexit didn’t mean leaving the SM. Though, a lot of Leavers think he’s an idiot and thoroughly wrong on every other point he makes!
Al that must gives us at least enough for another page
To be honest, although my preferred soft Brexit would be what you call Brino, I guess joining EFTA would be fairly acceptable... other than the Northern Ireland issue - I don't know enough about the issue to know if anything other than the CU and hence open border would keep the Good Friday Agreement functioning (clearly May was unable to find such a solution).
On the matter of compromise, consider this, the curry house analogy:
29 people are planning to go out for an office celebration. They take a vote on whether or not to go to the local Indian restaurant. The result is 15 for and 14 against (that's 52:48
). So Indian it is.
On approaching the restaurant, the holder of the social fund announces that, as money is tight everyone will have to have the same meal. So the question is, what should the meal be?
In particular, would it be reasonable to order 29 servings of extra strength vindaloo?
The 14 who were against curry would almost certainly not like this but indeed how many of the 15 would in all honesty prefer a mild dish? Indeed who knows how many, if any, of the group would actually like the strongest possible curry, since no one was ever asked this?
Surely, I would argue, it is more likely to be acceptable to the majority if a mild curry is chosen.
(To take the analogy further, onto other issues:
After they are told they must all have the same dish, someone says, "Hold on. Do we really want to have a curry after all (now that we appreciate the details of the idea)? Would anyone fancy a pizza instead, next door? Can we have another show of hands, just to make sure what we really want before it's too late?")
