International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   Non-USA & General Politics (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=98)
-   -   Continuation Brexit: Now What? 9 Below Zero (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=339007)

Squeegee Beckenheim 4th October 2019 04:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal (Post 12843939)
Actually i think the FTPA does not detail the process for an official VONC

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...ts-are-divided

GlennB 4th October 2019 05:29 AM

It's now being reported that Johnson will request an extension if no deal is struck.

Clearly he has a cunning plan, but I'm wondering whether Cummings has told him yet exactly what that plan is.

The Don 4th October 2019 05:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim (Post 12843955)
Ken Clarke, for example, might. I think you're underestimating how much some people hate Corbyn.

Or perhaps someone who is towards the centre of the GNU politically.

Ken Clark would be towards the right, Jeremy Corbyn towards the left, is there a centreist candidate (a moderate Labour MP or peer) who could fit the bill ?

Tolls 4th October 2019 06:27 AM

Harriet Harman?
Isn't she one of the names that's popped up?

She has the advantage of being Labour...but the disadvantage of not being the right sort of Labour (I can't see Corbyn agreeing).

The Don 4th October 2019 06:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tolls (Post 12844023)
Harriet Harman?
Isn't she one of the names that's popped up?

She has the advantage of being Labour...but the disadvantage of not being the right sort of Labour (I can't see Corbyn agreeing).

Which speaks to the factionalism which has always been a part of the Labour Party (at least in my 35+ years of experience).

My personal view is that a GNU to prevent a damaging no-deal Brexit is something worth swallowing one's pride over. Jeremy Corbyn clearly differs which leads me to believe that his fantasy is to have a no-deal and ride to the rescue.

catsmate 4th October 2019 07:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Don (Post 12843997)
Or perhaps someone who is towards the centre of the GNU politically.

Ken Clark would be towards the right, Jeremy Corbyn towards the left, is there a centreist candidate (a moderate Labour MP or peer) who could fit the bill ?

What about the LDP? Jo Swinson for PM.

The Don 4th October 2019 07:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by catsmate (Post 12844107)
What about the LDP? Jo Swinson for PM.

Possibly, but a case could be made for Labour providing the PM because it's the biggest party.

Squeegee Beckenheim 4th October 2019 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Don (Post 12843997)
Or perhaps someone who is towards the centre of the GNU politically.

Ken Clarke would be towards the right, Jeremy Corbyn towards the left, is there a centreist candidate (a moderate Labour MP or peer) who could fit the bill ?

Clark is towards the right, but there's been a lot of buzz about him being someone who could be acceptable to most.

There are advantages to having someone from the right, too. The biggest one being that it takes the wind out of the sails of any right-wing narrative that it's the left trying to take over illegitimately. You can't really call it a "coup" if it's someone like Clarke. He could also bring in people from the right who wouldn't otherwise support a GNU.

I mean, I'm not suggesting he's the only candidate, or that he would necessarily be someone who could lead a caretaker government. But he's definitely a better choice who is more likely to succeed than Corbyn.

Because some people hold Corbyn's political views against him. But others hold his perceived inflexibility, incompetence, and lust for power at the expense of all else against him. Clarke doesn't have the perception of those last three things.

Also because Corbyn actually does want to be PM. Clarke doesn't. A caretaker PM shouldn't want to be PM for realsies, but just for while whatever needs to be sorted out is sorted out.

Darat 4th October 2019 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim (Post 12843906)
Because he doesn't have the numbers to form a GNU.

Because he is Corbyn...

Darat 4th October 2019 08:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim (Post 12843955)
Ken Clarke, for example, might. I think you're underestimating how much some people hate Corbyn.

But it's meant to be about national unity...

Archie Gemmill Goal 4th October 2019 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim (Post 12843955)
Ken Clarke, for example, might. I think you're underestimating how much some people hate Corbyn.

I don't think Ken Clarke has the support of Labour does he? And not sure the SNP would back him as he wants to leave the EU.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim (Post 12843958)

I stuck an extra not in there. I think the FTPA DOES day how and official VONC works. I.e. the 14 day thing

Archie Gemmill Goal 4th October 2019 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by catsmate (Post 12844107)
What about the LDP? Jo Swinson for PM.

Edited by Agatha:  Removed breach of rule 0 and rule 12

Camillus 4th October 2019 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by catsmate (Post 12844107)
What about the LDP? Jo Swinson for PM.

Not a hope. There is no way that the Labour Party (and probably SNP) would stomach her as PM. From their point of view she's a Yellow Tory and completely untrustworthy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Don (Post 12844109)
Possibly, but a case could be made for Labour providing the PM because it's the biggest party.

Labour Party rules, as I'm sure you know, say that the Leader of Party is the PM when the party is in Government. That means that Corbyn would have to resign as leader and Tom Watson would be PM until a new leader could be chosen. I can't see that being acceptable to anyone and Corbyn, or his anointed, would win the subsequent election for the new leader easily.

The guff from the Lib Dem's about this all being Corbyn's fault is just that: at the end of the day any GNU is a Labour government, and the Lib Dems and the other independent remainers (and anti-hard Brexiteers) have to decide what is worse for the country: a Labour government, with a guaranteed second referendum or a no-deal Brexit.

If I was conspiracy theory minded I'd be starting to think Lib Dems have looked at the success of Farage and decided that emulating him is the way to power - let Brexit happen and then been seen as the only port for the dissatisfied Remainers to flock to to undo the damage. If they let Labour into power and a second referendum ends up with remain winning they go back to being a political irrelevance whose raison d'etre is electoral reform.

acbytesla 4th October 2019 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim (Post 12843902)
For better or for worse, the Queen acts as a final balance of power. She very, very rarely exercises her power, but some people are envisioning a situation in which she might in the very near future.

ATM, there is no actual law requiring a PM who has lost a vote of no confidence to resign. It's just been tradition and the "gentleman's agreement" of UK politics to date that has meant that every one who has lost such a vote did resign. If Johnson were to refuse to leave after losing a vote of no confidence, then the only way for him to be removed would be for the Queen to fire him and appoint a new PM.

It was reported a little while ago (last week, maybe?) that the Queen had indeed been seeking legal advice about her powers to remove the PM in an extraordinary circumstance like that.

This isn't to say that there can't be better systems, but she does have a purpose. As does the also-unelected-by-the-public House of Lords.

UK politics is set up with a series of built-in checks and balances. How effective they all are, and how democratic and fair they all are is a matter for debate. But the idea that we should just "move on" is simplistic.

It's also worth noting the difference between how it is on paper and how it is in reality. From my observations people in the US tend to be far more deferential towards and worshipful of their politicians than people in the UK are of theirs - or even the Queen.

Similarly, the UK has a state religion with the Queen as the head of it, and a law requiring an act of collective worship for schoolchildren in schools, every single day. Separation of Church and state is absolutely not a thing here (as the fact that the Lords Spiritual in the House of Lords are 26 Bishops).

But in practice it seems that US politics is more influenced by religion, and people in the US seem more accepting of religion in politics. There was a survey a while back which indicated that a politician who was openly atheist had very little chance of being elected in the US. OTOH, an overtly religious politician would be seen as strange and suspicious over here. I can't imagine a politician mentioning God in a speech, Tony Blair avoided converting to Catholicism until he was out of office and when asked about his religious beliefs a spokesperson famously said "we don't do God".

And as for the daily act of collective worship in schools? The majority of headteachers just ignore it and break the law, with zero consequence. I have, in fact, had debates with people who had been teachers in the UK for decades who had no idea that that law even existed.

A lot of how these things work are based on tradition and convention, and aren't quite how they seem. This is, in fact, why Johnson and Cummings are having the impact they're having and are quite as dangerous at they are - they're undermining the traditions and conventions. Perhaps that means that steps should be taken to mitigate the possibility of that kind of thing in the future, but these are extraordinary times and such protections simply haven't been needed before. Similarly, if the Queen were to try to overstep the limits of her power, that would almost certainly lead to her losing her power altogether.

There is no question in my mind that both countries need a rewrite of their foundational laws. You need to dump the farce of royalties and birth rite titles not to mention the religious requirements. I'm all for checks and balances, but not one that is hereditary.

Yes, the US seems to be more influenced by religion despite the prohibitions against it in the Constitution. The whack a doodles are a major coalition in the Republican party particularly in the Deep South.

3point14 4th October 2019 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by acbytesla (Post 12844355)
There is no question in my mind that both countries need a rewrite of their foundational laws. You need to dump the farce of royalties and birth rite titles not to mention the religious requirements. I'm all for checks and balances, but not one that is hereditary.

Yes, the US seems to be more influenced by religion despite the prohibitions against it in the Constitution. The whack a doodles are a major coalition in the Republican party particularly in the Deep South.

It's not Whackadoodles though, is it?

It's clever people who tell whackadoodles what they want to hear in order to gain power.

If they were honest whackadoodles that would somehow be less annoying

lomiller 4th October 2019 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3point14 (Post 12844377)
It's not Whack-a-doodles though, is it?

It's clever people who tell whackadoodles what they want to hear in order to gain power.

Not anymore. Back in the 1980’s and 1990’s there were clever people coming up with talking points that could get the whackadoodles to vote the way they wanted. The idea back then was that once they were elected they could take a more moderate, reasonable position with the policy they followed.

The problem is that the “clever people” were among those who were swayed by those talking points so now the whack-a-doodles are running the show.
Quote:

Originally Posted by 3point14 (Post 12844377)

If they were honest whackadoodles that would somehow be less annoying

I think the honest whack-a-doodles are a bigger problem as they actually try to follow through on their whack-a-doodle ideas, while the people to just pretend to be whack-a-doodles do gain power would quietly shelved the worst ideas once they were in power.

Francesca R 4th October 2019 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal (Post 12843934)
If JC doesnt have the numbers then nobody else does either.

How do you know that? Lots of people can not stand Corbyn

Francesca R 4th October 2019 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tolls (Post 12844023)
Harriet Harman?
Isn't she one of the names that's popped up?

She has the advantage of being Labour...but the disadvantage of not being the right sort of Labour (I can't see Corbyn agreeing).

This is why he is an idiot child

Francesca R 4th October 2019 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim (Post 12844176)
A caretaker PM shouldn't want to be PM for realsies, but just for while whatever needs to be sorted out is sorted out.

Agreed. From that perspective Corbyn is the most ineligible candidate of all.

(However I would still prefer a JC caretaker than none)

Francesca R 4th October 2019 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camillus (Post 12844254)
Not a hope. There is no way that the Labour Party (and probably SNP) would stomach her as PM

Not very national or unifying of them is it?.

Quote:

Labour Party rules, as I'm sure you know, say that the Leader of Party is the PM when the party is in Government.
Oh. So Corbyn's hands are tied. It has to be him. Nothing to do with weapons-grade pig-headedness and being hell-bent on getting his way. Got it.

Lothian 4th October 2019 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Francesca R (Post 12844554)
Oh. So Corbyn's hands are tied. It has to be him. Nothing to do with weapons-grade pig-headedness and being hell-bent on getting his way. Got it.

'Labour' will not be in Government
They will be part of a coalition government.

SezMe 4th October 2019 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by acbytesla (Post 12843276)
Then why not move on? Either it's a waste of time or it's sad.

I suspect retaining royalty and all the fluff that goes with it to be a huge tourist draw and thus a not insignificant boost to the English (and UK?) economy.

Delphic Oracle 4th October 2019 07:24 PM

A caretaker PM will need to be a Primus Inter Pares ("first among equals") type of leader. More important than them is the coalition members managing to seat the right people in the right ministry chairs. So they need a PM who can parry and thrust and survive a good while totally alone in the spotlight and when they are finally VONC'd out, hopefully enough good solid work got done in the meantime to make some kind of difference. Shifts in leadership within the coalition could also be pre-arranged not to interfere with the ministry seating (as both important functions not to interrupt and also because that balance will probably be a major binding feature of the coalition).

Samson 4th October 2019 08:40 PM

It really starts looking like EU agreeing to an extension giving time to hold a referendum between status quo (equals stay), and a set list of arrangements for leaving.
Thus some semblance of order and reason will return. This would take a year but everyone could plan properly.

Archie Gemmill Goal 4th October 2019 09:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Francesca R (Post 12844524)
How do you know that? Lots of people can not stand Corbyn

And he is leader of the Labour Party so they should stand behind him and not vote for someone else.

If someone else CAN get the numbers they can try of course.

Its just that idiot Swinson playing silly buggers at the minute.

Mojo 4th October 2019 10:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Don (Post 12830815)
The thread title will have me dusting off my lime green vinyl copy of Don't Point Your Finger....


Will the next iteration reference Bobo Jenkins?

The Don 4th October 2019 11:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo (Post 12844907)
Will the next iteration reference Bobo Jenkins?

Not with a back catalogue which also includes "Democrat Blues", it won't :p


Though that's a heck of a level of knowledge about Mr Jenkins

Francesca R 4th October 2019 11:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal (Post 12844871)
If someone else CAN get the numbers they can try of course.

Yeah didn't think you did.

Francesca R 4th October 2019 11:49 PM

I suspect what may stop Corbyn playing self-important silly buggers and stand aside, would be emergence of perception that in the final analysis it was largely his fault the country left with no deal, because there was a clear chance to avert it that was ruined by Corbyn's personal brand of stupid.

Squeegee Beckenheim 5th October 2019 03:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darat (Post 12844180)
Because he is Corbyn...

Exactly. Not because of the Lib Dems. Just like Johnson can't command a majority because he's Johnson, rather than because of the Lib Dems.

Squeegee Beckenheim 5th October 2019 03:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darat (Post 12844181)
But it's meant to be about national unity...

...which is why you need a leader that a majority can get behind.

I feel like you're deliberately on a wind-up, now.

psionl0 5th October 2019 03:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by acbytesla (Post 12843322)
I think its a crime that the "royals" are enormously wealthy. As if they did anything to earn any of that. I think it's a bigger crime that people, an entire modern nation in the 21st century is willing to carry on such a charade. It's like the Kardashians on steroids. I guess it sells a lot of tabloids.

I understand that the Royal family is a net financial benefit to the UK.

Estimates that I have read suggest that the Sovereign Grant is costing UK taxpayers 82.2m this financial year. However they are said to contribute 1.8 billion to the economy of which 550 million comes from added tourism. These numbers appear to be debatable but it is evident that the Royal family is less costly than a popularly elected (or Parliamentary appointed) head of state.

In any case, there is little popular support for a UK Republic.

Darat 5th October 2019 03:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim (Post 12845054)
...which is why you need a leader that a majority can get behind.



I feel like you're deliberately on a wind-up, now.

No I'm not but the issue isn't Corbyn or LibDems it's the fact that no one is willing to let one of their political rivals become PM. The idea of a government national unity sounds good but no one is willing to do what is necessary.

catsmate 5th October 2019 03:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12845062)
I understand that the Royal family is a net financial benefit to the UK.

Estimates that I have read suggest that the Sovereign Grant is costing UK taxpayers 82.2m this financial year. However they are said to contribute 1.8 billion to the economy of which 550 million comes from added tourism. These numbers appear to be debatable but it is evident that the Royal family is less costly than a popularly elected (or Parliamentary appointed) head of state.

In any case, there is little popular support for a UK Republic.

About 30% isn't "little popular support". It's peaked at over 50% at times, such as in 2009.

Darat 5th October 2019 03:50 AM

Off topic post deleted didn't realise what thread I was in!

Squeegee Beckenheim 5th October 2019 03:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal (Post 12844207)
I don't think Ken Clarke has the support of Labour does he?

There are rumblings that he'd likely have the support of enough of them. Certainly more than Corbyn does from the Tories.

Quote:

And not sure the SNP would back him as he wants to leave the EU.
They might back him if they felt he could be trusted not to exploit the system for his own ends and to instead negotiate a reasonable deal in good faith and hold a second referendum.

The thing is that Brexit has mainly been scuppered by May's "red lines". The Brexit that was originally promised by the Leave campaigners included things like staying in the customs union and retaining free movement. It was May who decided that a hardest-of-hard Brexits was the only possible path.

I think, at this stage, that most MPs would back a deal that didn't do too much damage to the UK, regardless of whether or not it's something they actually want - because they understand what the realistic alternatives are.

One way to make it work is to negotiate a Brexit that's more or less a Brexit-in-name-only, leaving us not dissimilar to Norway. Part of this leaving deal includes a timeline stretching over a period of years for slowly pulling out of other aspects of the EU. This reduces the negative impact of Brexit, allows the Brexiteers to claim that they've won (even if they don't feel like they have) and leaves everybody in a situation that they're not entirely happy with but can live with.

It can be sold to the public as something that's over and done with and all the continuing negotiations can go on in the background. More than that, they can be quietly forgotten and life can go on as normal, should that be what a future government wants. We could even re-join the EU at some point in the future relatively easily and perhaps even without much attention being drawn to it. Any further withdrawal or re-joining could even be sold as if it's a different matter entirely.

We'll still be worse off than we currently are, but everybody gets to save face, everybody gets to convince themselves that they've won, the damage is reduced as low as it possibly can be, and everybody can get on with their lives. It's far from ideal, but it's something that I think most MPs and most of the public could live with.

Francesca R 5th October 2019 03:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12845062)
I understand that the Royal family is a net financial benefit to the UK.

I suspect they would accept a large cut in pay and benefits without resigning (the option to resign could be granted along with the compensation reduction).

Then their profitability would jump. They should welcome that, it being the only ethically defensible justification for their roles.

Squeegee Beckenheim 5th October 2019 03:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camillus (Post 12844254)
Labour Party rules, as I'm sure you know, say that the Leader of Party is the PM when the party is in Government.

A GNU would not be a Labour government.

Squeegee Beckenheim 5th October 2019 04:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by acbytesla (Post 12844355)
There is no question in my mind that both countries need a rewrite of their foundational laws. You need to dump the farce of royalties and birth rite titles not to mention the religious requirements. I'm all for checks and balances, but not one that is hereditary.

The royals have pretty much all been dumped as checks and balances. The role is almost entirely ceremonial. If it does come to the Queen exercising her powers it will be after extensive consultation with and on the advice of advisers.

As I say, if you want to have a rant in this direction you'd be better pressed to look to the House of Lords, who exercise their power all the time. There has been some reform there in recent years, but it's still a lot closer to what you're ranting against than the royal family are.

That said, I think there are benefits to people who act as checks and balances being unelected, in theory, at least. It prevents stacking in one direction. Here I'm thinking about the current US Senate, and Supreme Court.

In fact, after their Supreme Court loss one of the first things the current UK government started doing was talking about abolishing the Supreme Court in favour of judges who were politically appointed by the government. This, I think, would unquestionably be a less preferable arrangement.

Squeegee Beckenheim 5th October 2019 04:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal (Post 12844871)
And he is leader of the Labour Party so they should stand behind him and not vote for someone else.

That doesn't make sense. If someone else could do a good job, is willing to do it, and will command more respect from their fellow MPs, then why vote for someone that you (for example) don't trust and think is incompetent? The idea that people should vote for him because he's the leader of a different party entirely makes no sense.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:00 PM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2015-20, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.