Re: It's time for EVERYONE to compromise...
Posted: Fri Sep 27, 2019 7:21 pm
You don't have to.
Audiophile discussion, articles, bake-offs, Doc-Mods, music. NVA reviews, loan scheme, orders & support. Phono stages, amplifiers, semi-omni speakers, cables, headphone amps, digital, vinyl.
https://www.hifisubjectivist.org/
I largely follow the logic...but would you really countenance leaving without a deal on the say so of as low as 26% of those who voted?Stemcor1990 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2019 6:50 pm Unless I am mistaken, we currently live in a democracy.
In a democracy, the will of the majority should prevail. So why is brexit so problematic ? I think that the answer lies in the fact that the referendum question was flawed. Cameron et al did not do their homework. Correct me if I am wrong but the EU leaving document is a few lines and no structure for an exit. I suspect that nobody in the EU ever thought that a nation would leave so no need to negotiate the exit conditions when a new member joins. After all, who wants to talk about leaving when you are joining ?
So, here’s my compromise :
Revoke article 50, negotiate the terms of a withdrawal and publish them in full. At the same time, make it clear to the public what leaving without a deal means. Once this has been done, hold a referendum with the following conditions :
If a majority elect to revoke, we revoke and stay. If the sum of “leave with a deal” and “leave without a deal” is the majority then we leave. The terms of leaving are the leaving mechanism which receives the greatest number of votes.
It was not a con. How? Cameron justified the referendum by saying there would have to be one eventually. If you join a club you should be able to leave otherwise you have no independence. I voted in a previous referendum to join the common market. The Maastricht treaty changed all that to a union that was a path to a united states of Europe. The people weren't consulted. This was John Major's baby and is why he is sticking his oar in now. There should have been a referendum on Maastricht and likely that would have been rejected and would have been vetoed. Of course the Eu would probably try and force us to have that over and over again. If we were still in a common market the referendum result would have been different. The idea you can't leave just makes half the country more determined to leave. I would agree this relationship is very difficult to unravel when the EU has so many red lines. Of course they want to make it impossible so no other country leaves! If we stay I'm sure the situation will be worse than before because they will seek to punish and diminish us and turn us into a satellite state of Germany and France.Daniel Quinn wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2019 7:31 pm We can't leave without a deal.
We would be plunged in to chaos.
Its why leaving is and always was a con.
During the referendum campaign, Johnson said there was no way we would leave without a deal. Davis said doing a deal would take half an hour. Fox said it would be the easiest deal in history.Classicrock wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2019 8:06 pmIt was not a con. How? Cameron justified the referendum by saying there would have to be one eventually. If you join a club you should be able to leave otherwise you have no independence. I voted in a previous referendum to join the common market. The Maastricht treaty changed all that to a union that was a path to a united states of Europe. The people weren't consulted. This was John Major's baby and is why he is sticking his oar in now. There should have been a referendum on Maastricht and likely that would have been rejected and would have been vetoed. Of course the Eu would probably try and force us to have that over and over again. If we were still in a common market the referendum result would have been different. The idea you can't leave just makes half the country more determined to leave. I would agree this relationship is very difficult to unravel when the EU has so many red lines. Of course they want to make it impossible so no other country leaves! If we stay I'm sure the situation will be worse than before because they will seek to punish and diminish us and turn us into a satellite state of Germany and France.Daniel Quinn wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2019 7:31 pm We can't leave without a deal.
We would be plunged in to chaos.
Its why leaving is and always was a con.
I think unless they get a deal soon the opportunity for compromise will have gone and it can't leave us worse of than being a member for enough MPs to accept it. The question is that if this does not happen is there any point in voting? Leave have the moral high ground because they have the majority in the referendum. I would have accepted if the vote went the other way. Govt agreed to abide by the decision at the time so advisory in name only. Anyway it's been changed into a party political battle on one level while there are splits in the main parties themselves. May didn't help because her negotiations were handled incompetently by civil servants who wanted to stay. This proved that trying to please everyone doesn't work. You can only compromise so far and some have to be left unhappy. There isn't a compromise that will please everyone but maybe one that gets a small majority. Obviously staying (real or virtual) which is opposite of the vote isn't compromise