Why is it delusional, apart from the fact it's the only way Corbyn can try to get back remain voters from the Lib Dems before the next GE?
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
Why is it delusional, apart from the fact it's the only way Corbyn can try to get back remain voters from the Lib Dems before the next GE?
So the only to win back these remain voters is letting a tory who voted to further Boris Brexit deal be caretaker PM ? Is there polling or anything to show this to be the case(genuine question) ?
Because Corbyn knows he has fek all chance in an election so will never give up his only chance to become pm
I feel like Macron is just playing the bad cop, in a good cop - bad cop game. I think when push comes to shove he will grudgingly offer the extension. It will most likely be an offer of extension to exit on the 15th of November unless the deal is signed, in which case automatic extension till the 31st.
I thought no his main interest is pressuring Corbyn into accepting the election as he does not want to be having another extension for no clear reason in January
No, I'm saying that the only way he can try to win back those remain voters is by insisting on being temp PM.
It ends in two ways
1. with the Lib Dems saying no (actually they haven't, they've said they would back anyone who could command a majority and have rightly said Corbyn can't because the ex tories would never back him). This way he gets to say the Lib Dems were willing to risk a no deal instead of back him and so undercut their remain credentials.
2. With him managing, somehow, to pull it off and win a vote of confidence. Then he gets to go into an election saying he stopped a no deal/guaranteed a confirmatory ref.
You didn't answer my question, why is it delusional?
His main interest is exactly the same as of the rest of the EU; seeing a deal signed asap. And so he will play the bad cop to focus the minds of opposition parties on voting for the deal (under the theoretical threat of no extension and therefore no-deal Brexit) or opting for an election. But he doesn't want to encourage aimless delays. Some Labour MPs are too scared of an election and quite happy to sit in opposition and just vote everything down. However he doesn't want a no-deal Brexit either. Especially not one that will be blamed partly on him.
His main interest is on looking to be tough on the UK for his domestic audience.
A unity government without Corbyn is delusional because it destroys what little legitimacy Corbyn and the Labour Party have left. The role of the caretaker has always been the leader of the opposite. To give way to a tory(That again just voted to further Boris deal, why doesn't that rule out Clarke for the Lib Dems ?)and then go campaigning asking the British public to vote for you as PM, is well delusional. Plus there aren't the number in the house to get a confirmatory referendum, there just isn't. Plus there seems to be nothing to suggest it would win back voters. Again fantasy football politics.
Also any national unity government be it with Corbyn as caretaker or not just plays into the ''people vs parliament'' schtick. A general election(Which results in some form of Labour government) is the only way at the moment we can try to get out of this mess.
No nataional government or caretaker government has ever been led by the oppostion leader.
I suggested Harman or Clarke as the Mother and Father of the House, not as Labour or Conservative, what would be the problem with Corbyn backing Harman?
Like I said, but you ignored, the Lib Dems said they would back anyone who could command the support of the HoC to stop a no deal, that would have included Corbyn if he had any chance of winning a VoNC, which he doesn't.
He is trying to sell his fence sitting position on Brexit as him being the adult in the room who's above all the ideological squabbling, backing someone like Harman or Clarke would show he was genuine in this, but he obviously isn't.
His domestic audience doesn't really care that much. Sure, asked if they want a tough stance towards the UK the French will answer yes. But it's way down the least of things they are preoccupied with. It's mostly on this side that it's a daily topic and subject of concern for the populace. At a political level however, it is sapping a lot of time and energy and they do not want that going on forever.
Not so sure of this, part of Macron's strategy must be to look to the future and to which Head of State will fill Merkel's shoes within the EU. This game of double bluff will sit well for the future of his EU leadership bid, even if it doesn't come off, because it throws the 'no deal' threat back at the UK and in effect says to any other Country thinking of exiting the EU, 'don't try this at home' the EU will not be bowed by such threats!
It is also perhaps a reason why Ken Clarke is now changing his mind over the Boris deal, if everybody is waiting for everyone else to move first then the cliff edge may get too close to avoid and the political inertia becomes in a way an odd form of momentum which could take us over the top.
The game of 'chicken' has now become a three way affair, Boris/Jeremy/Macron and with Ken Clarke watching on saying "oh my god they've all gone mad, grab the wheel someone."
That makes little to no sense, there's no EU leadership bid and Merkel's shoes won't be filled by Macron. She represents the biggest nation in the EU both financially and demographically. Whoever succeeds her domestically will fill her shoes as the most important European political figure and that won't change whatever Macron does.
EDIT: Not to mention that Merkel effectively installed Ursula Van Der Leyen as the President of the European Commission (the executive branch of the EU) before departing ensuring very strong German influence over proposed EU laws for the next 5 years.
Last edited:
Same applies to Harman being caretaker.
So why don't they just let him have and go and fail then ? If its so clear that the only reason they wouldn't vote for him is because of the numbers, then show everyone.
No one is genuine in this, the lib dems are no more serious than labour on this. Its politics! The unity government is just good shtick to use to attack other political parties.
Again no amount of - Sir I demand to see the manager politics is going to be us out of this shite.
Or if simple minded folk didn't just parrot Daily Mail and Sun headlines...
Those pesky simpletons at the ehrc...
May be a fair point there.
But you could just as easily argue that other MP's should compromise and accept Corbyn as temp PM (seeing as he is leader of the opposition with the highest number of MP's after the Tories).
I was referring to the various childish tabloid phrases in your post.
Well it's probably easier than actually acknowledging the extensive public polling showing the massive unpopularity of jezbollah
Equally delving into the evidence level that has to exist to trigger the antisemitism investigation from the ehrc as well as the highly publicised links of interference from comrade corbyns office probably isn't an argument you can win either
So yeah attack the poster etc... Cracking ...
The difference is Corbyn has ambitions to be PM and is a hugely polarising figure for the Tories and Lib Dems so getting behind him has electoral costs for both, getting behind Harman or Clarke (as examples, there are others) has far fewer costs, if any, for everyone involved.
Is there more MP's who would pick Harman / Clarke (or joint) leadership to avoid no deal Than not (I think almost certainly yes provided MP's were not whipped against it by opposition parties)
Is there a majority of mps who would back Corbyn rather than face a no deal... NOT A CHANCE
Last edited:
While I agree on the people vs parliament point, I don't see what the electoral cost of backing Harman is for a Labour leader. The possible risk is he loses control of the Labour party itself rather than it costing him votes, I actually think it would improve his image considerably.
The Lib Dems weren't stopping him from trying, they were saying he can't get the votes with or without them, so why should they take the electoral risk of backing him publicly, and it's a perfectly valid point.
The point I was making is Corbyn is trying to make out his policy of renegotiation followed by a 2nd ref is because he's above the ideological and entrenched positions of the Tories and Lib Dems, stepping back when no deal was the main threat a few weeks ago in favour of Harman or whoever would have demonstrated it wasn't calculated bullshit (which it clearly is).
The Lib Dems are making no such claims to being impartial on Brexit.
Personally I think he is the only one who is being remotely sensible. Under the fixed term parliament act the tories might theoretically be the government until 2022 which is in no-ones interest not only in the UK but also in the EU. Never before have we ever had the situation where a government is unable to govern which is the current position. Whatever happens I reckon its a nailed on certainty that the next government, even if its a coalition, will repeal the fixed term act. For democracy its poison although it suits some at present.
As to the current dithering over will we or won't we its almost as bad for the 27 as it is for us. No-one is winning. Unless be can say what we will do with an extension other than continue to go round in ever decreasing circles I can totally understand why the French are saying enough is enough.
Not really, the domestic audience doesn't care about the UK and have no will to be tough on them. Now french companies do not want to see this brexit limbo last eternally and they made it clear a couple of months ago.
So how you get around the people vs parliament point ? A caretaker government just plays into the hands of the far right in Britain.
You can't be the leader of the opposition and then make away for someone else being being caretaker PM. It would kill the chances of Corbyn wanting to be PM. Unless you got some polling to suggest otherwise, then at the very least you must see this risk ?
As for the Lib Dems, they shouldn't of just responded in the same way other remain parties - SNP, Greens and Plaid Cymru. The fact they didn't and then got attack by the other remain parties shows the whole we are the ultra remain party and will do anything to stop stopping Brexit, as a load of old shite(Again no one is genuine in this, the caretaker stuff has always been nothing more than easy hit points for political parties).
Honestly the caretaker government stuff is and has a huge time waste.
Last edited:
That is indeed true, but it won't stop Macron making a bid. A lot will depend on who takes over from Merkel and how much power they actually hold in Germany itself, its difficult to see at the moment anyone coming through who will have the same dominant domestic power as Merkel and who will at the same time face a different political situation inside Germany. The UK's withdrawal from the EU will change things (with or without a deal) inside the Union, Macron knows this and will want to ensure he is best placed to lead on matters Germany traditionally stays out of, e.g. the Military. Nothing will stay the same, Merkel's stepping down at the same time as the UK withdraws, will bring big changes to the EU, especially if the new German government doesn't want to take up the economic 'slack' when we leave.
https://www.independent.co.uk/voice...ohnson-corbyn-macron-article-50-a9172336.html
A good article on the current situation in parliament.
A good article on the current situation in parliament.
The Gordian knot of Brexit has started to come loose. We have got to that stage of untangling a set of Christmas tree lights where you can feel rather than see how the impossible mass could be resolved.
Tuesday’s vote for the second reading of the EU (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill was the historic moment. There is now a majority in the House of Commons in favour of the principle of getting Brexit done. That still leaves the question of when it might get done, but it feels different from what has gone before.
It is hard to see the way ahead because no one is saying what they mean. After the Commons voted against Boris Johnson’s unreasonably short timetable for getting Brexit done, Jeremy Corbyn offered to discuss a “reasonable” timetable with him.
The prime minister, not unreasonably, didn’t believe him. Labour has engaged in insincere negotiations before, with Theresa May – negotiations which predictably got nowhere and resulted in the election of Johnson as her successor.
It is worth remembering, incidentally, when Labour complains about Johnson’s right-wing hard Brexit, that it could have had May’s slightly less right-wing, slightly softer Brexit if the party had voted for it.
So Johnson didn’t think Corbyn really would agree a timetable for the Brexit legislation. He knows that Corbyn does not want to be portrayed as the enabler of Brexit. It is not just that Labour Party members would be cross, but that Labour’s strategy after we leave the EU has to be built on complaining about the terrible consequences of a “Tory Brexit” – which would be harder if the response was, “You allowed it to happen.”
The prime minister, or some of his advisers at least, understand the significance of losing control of the parliamentary timetable. Without what in the old days used to be called a “guillotine” but in today’s sanitised language is called a “programme motion”, the government cannot easily bring a debate to a close.
That is why we got the distracting nonsense on Thursday about a pre-Christmas election. It is not going to happen. Johnson needs at least 127 opposition MPs to vote for it on Monday to reach the two-thirds majority required. Labour MPs are worried about losing their seats, and they have the excuse that EU leaders have not yet formally agreed to extend the 31 October Brexit deadline.
That means that a no-deal Brexit is still “on the table”, as Corbyn puts it, and Labour refuses to dissolve parliament because leaving without a deal on Thursday is still theoretically possible.
Johnson’s next hope was that Emmanuel Macron would help by insisting on a short extension. This would impose a hard timetable on the UK parliament from the outside. According to James Forsyth of The Spectator, the prime minister sang “Oh come, oh come Emmanuel” to the cabinet on Thursday – but he had to admit that the French president was “too isolated” to prevent EU leaders agreeing a longer extension.
If they agree to move the deadline to the end of January, that doesn’t take no-deal Brexit off the table, however; it just moves the table to the next room. Labour will still refuse to vote for an election, arguing that the prime minister could set a date in February and that we could still leave without a deal on 31 January.
There are other routes to an election, but they don’t work either. Corbyn refuses to table a motion of no confidence in Johnson’s government, and would find a reason not to vote for one tabled by the Scottish National Party. He does not want to fight an election while Britain is still in the EU, because he would spend much of the campaign explaining that Labour is the party of both Leave and Remain.
Johnson refuses to table a bill to amend the Fixed-term Parliaments Act and set the election date. This has the advantage from his point of view that he would need only a simple majority in the Commons, rather than a two-thirds vote, and the SNP and Lib Dems might vote for it. But such a bill would also be amended, and the opposition parties would combine to give the vote to 2 million EU citizens. They are already on the electoral roll for local elections, and, unlike 16 year olds, could be enfranchised immediately for a general election. The prime minister does not want to fight a Brexit election against 2 million additional anti-Brexit voters.
So I don’t think there is going to be an election, and I suspect that, if EU leaders agree a three-month extension, all they will do is create another Brexit crisis in the run-up to 31 January. By then, they may run out of patience and refuse any further extensions, but lots of people said that about the 31 October date.
Without an election or an externally imposed deadline, the only way parliament will force itself to make a decision is by setting itself a timetable. In the end, it will take eight MPs who voted for the bill on Tuesday but against the programme motion to switch sides and agree a new timetable. That means independent Conservative MPs such as Philip Hammond, the former chancellor, and Labour MPs such as Dan Jarvis, the mayor of the Sheffield city region, hold the fate of Brexit in their hands.
Tuesday’s vote for the second reading of the EU (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill was the historic moment. There is now a majority in the House of Commons in favour of the principle of getting Brexit done. That still leaves the question of when it might get done, but it feels different from what has gone before.
It is hard to see the way ahead because no one is saying what they mean. After the Commons voted against Boris Johnson’s unreasonably short timetable for getting Brexit done, Jeremy Corbyn offered to discuss a “reasonable” timetable with him.
The prime minister, not unreasonably, didn’t believe him. Labour has engaged in insincere negotiations before, with Theresa May – negotiations which predictably got nowhere and resulted in the election of Johnson as her successor.
It is worth remembering, incidentally, when Labour complains about Johnson’s right-wing hard Brexit, that it could have had May’s slightly less right-wing, slightly softer Brexit if the party had voted for it.
So Johnson didn’t think Corbyn really would agree a timetable for the Brexit legislation. He knows that Corbyn does not want to be portrayed as the enabler of Brexit. It is not just that Labour Party members would be cross, but that Labour’s strategy after we leave the EU has to be built on complaining about the terrible consequences of a “Tory Brexit” – which would be harder if the response was, “You allowed it to happen.”
The prime minister, or some of his advisers at least, understand the significance of losing control of the parliamentary timetable. Without what in the old days used to be called a “guillotine” but in today’s sanitised language is called a “programme motion”, the government cannot easily bring a debate to a close.
That is why we got the distracting nonsense on Thursday about a pre-Christmas election. It is not going to happen. Johnson needs at least 127 opposition MPs to vote for it on Monday to reach the two-thirds majority required. Labour MPs are worried about losing their seats, and they have the excuse that EU leaders have not yet formally agreed to extend the 31 October Brexit deadline.
That means that a no-deal Brexit is still “on the table”, as Corbyn puts it, and Labour refuses to dissolve parliament because leaving without a deal on Thursday is still theoretically possible.
Johnson’s next hope was that Emmanuel Macron would help by insisting on a short extension. This would impose a hard timetable on the UK parliament from the outside. According to James Forsyth of The Spectator, the prime minister sang “Oh come, oh come Emmanuel” to the cabinet on Thursday – but he had to admit that the French president was “too isolated” to prevent EU leaders agreeing a longer extension.
If they agree to move the deadline to the end of January, that doesn’t take no-deal Brexit off the table, however; it just moves the table to the next room. Labour will still refuse to vote for an election, arguing that the prime minister could set a date in February and that we could still leave without a deal on 31 January.
There are other routes to an election, but they don’t work either. Corbyn refuses to table a motion of no confidence in Johnson’s government, and would find a reason not to vote for one tabled by the Scottish National Party. He does not want to fight an election while Britain is still in the EU, because he would spend much of the campaign explaining that Labour is the party of both Leave and Remain.
Johnson refuses to table a bill to amend the Fixed-term Parliaments Act and set the election date. This has the advantage from his point of view that he would need only a simple majority in the Commons, rather than a two-thirds vote, and the SNP and Lib Dems might vote for it. But such a bill would also be amended, and the opposition parties would combine to give the vote to 2 million EU citizens. They are already on the electoral roll for local elections, and, unlike 16 year olds, could be enfranchised immediately for a general election. The prime minister does not want to fight a Brexit election against 2 million additional anti-Brexit voters.
So I don’t think there is going to be an election, and I suspect that, if EU leaders agree a three-month extension, all they will do is create another Brexit crisis in the run-up to 31 January. By then, they may run out of patience and refuse any further extensions, but lots of people said that about the 31 October date.
Without an election or an externally imposed deadline, the only way parliament will force itself to make a decision is by setting itself a timetable. In the end, it will take eight MPs who voted for the bill on Tuesday but against the programme motion to switch sides and agree a new timetable. That means independent Conservative MPs such as Philip Hammond, the former chancellor, and Labour MPs such as Dan Jarvis, the mayor of the Sheffield city region, hold the fate of Brexit in their hands.
I've been told a million times in this thread that Germany and France dont run the eu.
Like feck they dont
Like feck they dont
And the politicians in this country are so fecking beta and lacking in intelligence that they’re completely unable to show any leadership themselves on the European stage.
They don't, they just run the UK
.Taking back control, Brexiters hoping for no deal desperate that Macron says no extension - you couldn't make it up.
Unable to govern? What because parliament is preventing them from passing whatever the hell it wants? That's exactly what is supposed to happen in a representative democracy, it's for the government to compromise to find legislation that pleases a majority.
How the hell do you think our democracy works exactly?
Actually I criticised the content of your post and the fact it mirrors childish tabloid headlines. Perfectly valid.
I see your point. The problem for both major parties is the fact that we're effectively in a hung parliament. The Tories could only form a government by "bribing" the DUP with over £1bn investment. Ultimately it's hard for anyone to get a consensus on anything.
We probably should have had another election much sooner. If we have another hung parliament after the next election then it's continued stalemate. Cummings and co. are taking advantage of this situation.
You really don’t think Le Pen’s lot care about France looking tough towards a traditional rival? I think Macron is making sure he covers quite a lot of political bases with his stance towards the UK. Seeking to just roll over to whatever Westminster wants isn’t going to help keep those French anti-EU voices in check. I still think he’ll give the extension, but it does him no harm at all acting like he’s doing it grudgingly.
Well, its about all the members not just 2. Oh wait...
They are obviously the most influential as they are the biggest economies and largest populations in the EU, it's just common sense.
We could be in a position of equal influence with them both in the largest community of democracies and largest free trade area in the world if out press weren't so xenophobic.
No I don't think so and particularly not when it comes to Brexit since they have been on the side of the UK, if he wanted to go in their direction he would be very nice to the UK. In general looking tough isn't really something that will see you gain anything in France particularly not Macron who would gain by pretending to be magnanimous. The reason he doesn't want a long extension is because french companies don't want it, it doesn't go further than that.
Latvia, Lithuania or Luxembourg can decide if the UK gets an extension, the UK cannot. The UK could leave but they don't seem to want to. Perhaps the sunlit uplands look more like a desolate wasteland.
Yawn.
Latvia and such will wait to hear what Merkron says before voting for anything and you know that, dont pretend otherwise.