Continuation Brexit: Now What? 9 Below Zero

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Originally Posted by Darat

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.

As I said, it seems that people would likely get behind Ken Clarke, or Harriet Harman, or a number of other names. All reports indicate that people absolutely are willing to do what is necessary. But not with Corbyn, for a variety of reasons, and Corbyn is unwilling to do what's necessary if it's anybody other than him.

Corbyn is the biggest - and perhaps only - obstacle here.

[Francesca R]

No deal on 31 Oct will be Corbyn's fault. Ah well.

[Pixel42]

Originally Posted by catsmate

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

I predict a significant bump when the Queen dies.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Pixel42

I predict a significant bump when the Queen dies.

It's quite strange, I'm working in Windsor at the moment so not surprisingly royalty often comes up in casual conversations, and I've been astonished how many people seem to think the next Monarch will be William. They've either forgotten Charles or think he'll take a pass on being the King!

[Francesca R]

Originally Posted by GlennB

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.

Probably the old "invisible ink" wheeze.

[ceptimus]

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

The Brexit that was originally promised by the Leave campaigners included things like staying in the customs union and retaining free movement.

Remainers in these threads try to argue that, and then in the next breath argue that leavers only voted the way they did in order to STOP free movement.

Which is it? You can't have it both ways.

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal

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.

Why? They were elected to serve the nation and their constituents, not just the Labour party.

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by Pixel42

I predict a significant bump when the Queen dies.

Yeah, Charles IV is unlikely to happen.

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Oh, FFS: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1180447076062117888

Quote:

+BREAKING+

Govt Lawyers advising have warned that the forthcoming “Queen’s speech” maybe “unconstitutional”.

Queen’s speeches start a new legislative period they are not to be given immediately before an election otherwise this risks using the monarch for an election broadcast.

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

Remainers in these threads try to argue that, and then in the next breath argue that leavers only voted the way they did in order to STOP free movement.

Which is it? You can't have it both ways.

I think perhaps your mistake is in your head fusing everybody into a gestalt entity which has just one opinion on everything, rather than treating everybody who posts in this thread as an individual with their own thoughts and opinions.

[Lothian]

Post brexit we are relying on America to treat us as equals, and with respect.

In other news it appears that an American diplomat had fled the country after killing one of our citizens. I am sure our friends will put her on the first plane back

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

Remainers in these threads try to argue that, and then in the next breath argue that leavers only voted the way they did in order to STOP free movement.

Which is it? You can't have it both ways.

Thing is, having it both ways is exactly what the leave campaign promised and what was voted for.
The problems started once they needed to actually keep those promises. Which is why Nigel Farage washed his hands of the whole working that out thing the moment that became clear.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by catsmate

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

The support would quickly dwindle once it came down to the form of the alternative head of state.

Originally Posted by Francesca R

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.

That's not an economic argument - especially if you consider how much a president with all his trappings would cost.

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

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

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

And who is that?

There seems to be an accetance that Labour should throw their leader under the bus just to appease others but nobody else should even consider holding their nose and supporting him.

Its the usual anti Corbyn **** from so called reasonable centrists. Swinson should get behind Corbyn but she won't because she's an idiot and a Tory who would rather no deal than a left wing government even for a couple of weeks.

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

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



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.

When you day Tories do you mean Tories or the rebels? The actual Tories wont support him. The rebels maybe but thats a handful. Plus lib dems maybe. Ok so you start at a base of 40 votes? How do you get to 300 odd?

Thats the nonsense of this Swinson numbers line. Cornyn starts at 300 with the SNP. Others would be starting at 10 or 15 percent of that.

If there was a group of actual Tories who would say they would suppprt Ken Clark or Rory stewart or whoever then its a different situation but there isnt.

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

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.

Sorry I meant the Labour party should stand behind him ehich makes it hard to get their votes.

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

Remainers in these threads try to argue that, and then in the next breath argue that leavers only voted the way they did in order to STOP free movement.

Which is it? You can't have it both ways.

Why not? The leave campaign(s) did?

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Originally Posted by catsmate

Why? They were elected to serve the nation and their constituents, not just the Labour party.

And the people who elceted them voted for JC as PM.

if people want a gnu the easiest way to achieve that is put jc in. that's why the snp agree to it.

all the lib dems and rebel tories might want to reflect on how they best serve the nation also. the clock is ticking. get it done. he can be removed instantly if there is any issue

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Originally Posted by psionl0

The support would quickly dwindle once it came down to the form of the alternative head of state.


That's not an economic argument - especially if you consider how much a president with all his trappings would cost.

Does your economic argument include all the income from their 'personal' investments and crown estates that can be repatriated

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal

And who is that?

As I've said several times, Ken Clarke is a name that's being thrown around as a credible possibility. Harriet Harman is the other top contender.

Quote:

There seems to be an accetance that Labour should throw their leader under the bus just to appease others but nobody else should even consider holding their nose and supporting him.

How would Labour be throwing their leader under a bus? If anything, it'd be beneficial to Corbyn because he wouldn't have to be Prime Minister while holding the poisoned chalice that is Brexit. He'll get to to in to the election with his hands clean, and having demonstrated that he can behave like an adult when it's required of him.

Quote:

Its the usual anti Corbyn **** from so called reasonable centrists. Swinson should get behind Corbyn but she won't because she's an idiot and a Tory who would rather no deal than a left wing government even for a couple of weeks.

Corbyn doesn't have the numbers. Swinson getting behind him would make no difference to his ability to be leader of a GNU. She's better off throwing her support behind someone who could actually credibly lead one.

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal

When you day Tories do you mean Tories or the rebels? The actual Tories wont support him.

Tories who don't want a no-deal Brexit are far more likely to support a Tory as PM in order to facilitate that, than they are Jeremy Corbyn.

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal

Sorry I meant the Labour party should stand behind him ehich makes it hard to get their votes.

The Labour party should do whatever is best for the country which, at the moment, is not blindly standing behind someone who cannot command the confidence of the Commons. Better than that would be to try to persuade Corbyn that someone else should be PM.

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

As I've said several times, Ken Clarke is a name that's being thrown around as a credible possibility. Harriet Harman is the other top contender.



How would Labour be throwing their leader under a bus? If anything, it'd be beneficial to Corbyn because he wouldn't have to be Prime Minister while holding the poisoned chalice that is Brexit. He'll get to to in to the election with his hands clean, and having demonstrated that he can behave like an adult when it's required of him.



Corbyn doesn't have the numbers. Swinson getting behind him would make no difference to his ability to be leader of a GNU. She's better off throwing her support behind someone who could actually credibly lead one.

There is no evidence that Clarke or Harmann have the numbers either and start off from a much lower base.

As leader of the opposition JC is the person who would automatically be the choice. If Labour cede this easily its basically admitting that his own party dont think he can be PM.

And this is nothing to do qith holiding the can for brexit. The remit is to get an extension and then resign and have an election

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

The Labour party should do whatever is best for the country which, at the moment, is not blindly standing behind someone who cannot command the confidence of the Commons. Better than that would be to try to persuade Corbyn that someone else should be PM.

Its going round in circles but as things stand nobody can command confidence. what you are saying is that labour should hold their nose and get behind Clarke but that Tories shouldn't do the same for Corbyn. Its just double standards.

I couldnt really care less who gets the extension and calls an election, do you? why should a Tory?

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by The Don

Greggs are stockpiling pork to ensure continuing supplies of sausage rolls post-Brexit:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49890034

Couldn’t they just use gammon?

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal

There is no evidence that Clarke or Harmann have the numbers either and start off from a much lower base.

There is evidence that Corbyn doesn't.

Quote:

As leader of the opposition JC is the person who would automatically be the choice. If Labour cede this easily its basically admitting that his own party dont think he can be PM.

He can't be PM. He doesn't have the numbers.

That isn't to say that he couldn't win an election and get the numbers. But that's the future.

Quote:

And this is nothing to do qith holiding the can for brexit. The remit is to get an extension and then resign and have an election

The remit is most likely to get an extension, hold a referendum, and then have an election.

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal

Its going round in circles but as things stand nobody can command confidence. what you are saying is that labour should hold their nose and get behind Clarke but that Tories shouldn't do the same for Corbyn. Its just double standards.

It doesn't have to be Clarke. It has to be someone that a majority can get behind. Unless something drastic changes, that is not Corbyn, no matter how much you wish it were.

That doesn't mean it has to be a Tory. I've mentioned Harriet Harmon several times. Margaret Beckett is another name that is being bandied about, although she'll most likely become Speaker.

Quote:

I couldnt really care less who gets the extension and calls an election, do you? why should a Tory?

Corbyn, rightly or wrongly, is perceived to be incompetent and untrustworthy. That's why people care. Not because of what colour tie he wears.

Look at it this way - there's a bunch of people saying "not Corbyn", and Corbyn saying "only me". The two positions are not equivalent. One is shutting down a lot more possibilities than the other, and in a way that seems designed to personally benefit him rather than trying to do right by the country as a whole.

Part of a politician's job is making people warm to and trust you. Corbyn is not good at this. Another part of a politician's job is compromising for the good of the country. Corbyn is refusing to do this. His truculence on this matter is an example of why people don't trust him to be PM, and it's an example of why they're probably right not to - he wouldn't act like the statesman he'd be required to and, even if he did manage to get appointed as PM, the government would likely fall apart PDQ as he tried to push through what he thought was right rather than what the majority wants and people rebel against him. A GNU would require a delicate touch, which Corbyn has not shown he possesses and, in fact, is currently demonstrating he doesn't.

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by psionl0

The support would quickly dwindle once it came down to the form of the alternative head of state.

If course it would...

Will you be supporting this claim with evidence or just expecting everyone to believe whatever you say, as usual.

[P.J. Denyer]

Originally Posted by Darat

It's quite strange, I'm working in Windsor at the moment so not surprisingly royalty often comes up in casual conversations, and I've been astonished how many people seem to think the next Monarch will be William. They've either forgotten Charles or think he'll take a pass on being the King!

My understanding is that he is adamant he will be King and get his name in the history of succession, but for the good of the institution of the monarchy is prepared to make it a short reign, ten years or possibly slightly less, before stepping aside for William.

[Lothian]

Originally Posted by P.J. Denyer

My understanding is that he is adamant he will be King and get his name in the history of succession, but for the good of the institution of the monarchy is prepared to make it a short reign, ten years or possibly slightly less, before stepping aside for William.

No-one wants him. Even the Queen said Charles will be King over her dead body.........

[Darat]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

Remainers in these threads try to argue that, and then in the next breath argue that leavers only voted the way they did in order to STOP free movement.

Which is it? You can't have it both ways.

Are all leave voters the same, did they all have the same motivation?

[Francesca R]

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal

There is no evidence that Clarke or Harmann have the numbers either

And why is there this lack of evidence? Because of Corbyn/McDonnell sheer pig-headedness. That's why.

Quote:

If Labour cede this easily its basically admitting that his own party dont think he can be PM.

That may be the truth but failure to cede indicates that they put the maintainence of such fantasy above national interest.

Corbyn is probably fine with no deal just as long as he isn't blamed. Hopefully consensus wisdom will start to blame him soon.

[Francesca R]

Originally Posted by Lothian

No-one wants him. Even the Queen said Charles will be King over her dead body.........

Nonsense. Brenda has said that when the time comes she will be dying for Brian to reign.

[Craig B]

Originally Posted by catsmate

Yeah, Charles IV is unlikely to happen.

It's not merely unlikely to happen; it's impossible, because if Charles succeeds his mother he will be Charles III of both England and Scotland and Charles I of the UK.

[Francesca R]

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

The remit is most likely to get an extension, hold a referendum, and then have an election.

I do not think it includes the middle one

[Lothian]

Originally Posted by Francesca R

Nonsense. Brenda has said that when the time comes she will be dying for Charles to reign.

I think he is trying to kill her. He said he will only succeed when she dies.

[Francesca R]

She could be throne under a bus tomorrow.

(Please don't read/quote my posts until I've finished looking up the private eye chav names for the Windsors)

[P.J. Denyer]

Originally Posted by Lothian

No-one wants him. Even the Queen said Charles will be King over her dead body.........

Badam Tish!

[P.J. Denyer]

Originally Posted by Francesca R

(Please don't read/quote my posts until I've finished looking up the private eye chav names for the Windsors)

Brenda & Brian for the Queen & Charles, don't remember noticing names for the others.

[The Don]

Philip - Keith
Margaret - Yvonne
Diana - Cheryl