Should the UK remain a member of the EU

[Vincent Vega]

57 minutes ago, sir roger said:

I am not getting the impression any of these Tory 'rebels' are going to back a VONC whoever is involved.

Exactly mate, they’ve shit out of collapsing their own government at every opportunity, what makes anyone think they’re going to change now.

I’m 100% convinced we’re heading for no deal on Halloween followed by an immediate election before shit gets real. 

[cloggypop]

[Duff Man]

3 hours ago, Rico1304 said:

JC lost the last election. How is he best to do the job now?  

No idea what that means. Here's the reality. This shit:

 

 

is patently absurd, and if they don't stop fucking about we'll all get hard Brexit and it'll be entirely on them. Everything else is just noise.

[aRdja]

If Corbyn explicitly backs remain then without a doubt we’d support him, but we all know he’s a secret Brexiteer.

 

*Corbyn comes out and backs remain*

 

Look... if he really wants us to remain he should really step down and let Harriet fucking Harman be PM. 

 

Eat my arse you bunch of clowns. 

[Numero Veinticinco]

Why HH? 

 

Why are LDs plucking names out of thin air, and why are people taking them seriously. 

[Barrington Womble]

9 hours ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

Nobody in the House of Commons who is in a position to stop Johnson's ruinous Brexit can command 320 MPs on their own. Nobody.

 

Her Majesty's Opposition has 247 MPs.  Add to that 35 SNP, 4 Plaid and 1 Green (all of whom have said they're open to Corbyn's plan) and we have 287 MPs. No other party has either a comparable base to work from nor a credible plan. It's time for the Lib Dems and the various "independent" squatters who have spent years banging on about how committed they are to stopping Brexit to actually show some integrity and do something about it. 

I've said it before on here and been slated for it. Corbyn is unpalatable to such large parts of his country, that is not going to happen. It actually amazes me people don't see it. These same people will not want to legitimise Corbyn by letting him come into a general election as prime minister. The aim here is not a unity government to last 5 years, it's to last a few weeks to extend article 50. Labour's position since the last conference has been to get a general election. Why would letting ken Clarke be the lightening rod for a few weeks and completely destroying the Tory party at the same time be a bad thing? If labour believe they can win a general election, they should embrace this path. 

9 hours ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

Ken Clarke wants a soft Brexit and no confirmatory referendum.  Whatever Swinson claims, Clarke isn't going to stop Brexit. 

 

What is a "neutral" on this issue, anyway? Corbyn has been getting dog's abuse for months because of his supposed fence-sitting and now suddenly he's not neutral enough?

Firstly, it doesn't matter what ken Clarke wants. We are not forming a government here to implement brexit, I thought the idea which had support was to have a government to do no more or less than extend article 50 and to go to the nation with a GE? Ken Clarke is clearly a remainer. He's spoken in parliament many times about this and also said he doesn't believe the government should have been bound by an advisory referendum. He voted with the government because he respected the platform the Tories stood on at the last election, even though he argues against that position in parliament. But it doesn't matter what he wants or thinks. He won't be prime minister beyond the autumn. 

[Jose Jones]

You’re right on the politics of it a bit there Barry, but you also need to look at it the other way too.

 

The Tory remainers don’t want to legitimise  Corbyn by giving him the hint of a chance of being seen to be reasonably capable. They’ve been successfully painting him as unpalatable for years and then giving him some legitimacy would undo all that work.

 

The Lib Dems are again misreading their own voters by acting as if Labour are there main rivals instead of the Tories. So also don’t want gift Labour the opportunity to lead.

 

On the other side, it will absolutely legitimise the Labour strategy, show they’re setting the agenda and enable them to demonstrate the ability to offer something to both Leavers and Remainers. It’s a massive opportunity.

 

All of them are thinking about 

 

Labour are bringing 250 MPs, the Lib Dems and the Tory rebels are bringing 25 between them. Why the hell should Labour be the ones to make all the compromises?

 

It’s pretty fucking ironic that the remainers in the Tories and Lib Dems have been very vocal about understanding the balance of power when it comes to the UK versus 27 EU countries, but they seem to have forgotten that when it comes to similar numbers in parliament.

[Moo]

13 minutes ago, Jose Jones said:

You’re right on the politics of it a bit there Barry, but you also need to look at it the other way too.

 

The Tory remainers don’t want to legitimise  Corbyn by giving him the hint of a chance of being seen to be reasonably capable. They’ve been successfully painting him as unpalatable for years and then giving him some legitimacy would undo all that work.

 

The Lib Dems are again misreading their own voters by acting as if Labour are there main rivals instead of the Tories. So also don’t want gift Labour the opportunity to lead.

 

On the other side, it will absolutely legitimise the Labour strategy, show they’re setting the agenda and enable them to demonstrate the ability to offer something to both Leavers and Remainers. It’s a massive opportunity.

 

All of them are thinking about 

 

Labour are bringing 250 MPs, the Lib Dems and the Tory rebels are bringing 25 between them. Why the hell should Labour be the ones to make all the compromises?

 

It’s pretty fucking ironic that the remainers in the Tories and Lib Dems have been very vocal about understanding the balance of power when it comes to the UK versus 27 EU countries, but they seem to have forgotten that when it comes to similar numbers in parliament.

You have a fair point, though I don't agree it's only Labour being asked to compromise, however Labour / Corbyn should not dismiss the chance to annex the Tories ahead of a GE and stop no deal.  Clarke is a good opportunity for Labour, I hope they're considering it. 

[Rico1304]

There’s an article in The Times today about the leaked Yellowhammer report.  As you are all scared of the Times as a gateway to fascism I’ll just say that food and medicine shortages, chaos at the ports and an immediate hard border are predicted.  

[A Red]

Want to stop no deal brexit - who will lead it?

 

Corbyn will lead it - not enough will vote for him

Clarke will lead it - enough might vote for him

 

Obviously if you prefer no deal over not having Corbyn leading it, stick to your guns

[aRdja]

3 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

There’s an article in The Times today about the leaked Yellowhammer report.  As you are all scared of the Times as a gateway to fascism I’ll just say that food and medicine shortages, chaos at the ports and an immediate hard border are predicted.  

The tories and UKIP members are high fiving each other as we speak now. 

[aRdja]

10 minutes ago, Moo said:

You have a fair point, though I don't agree it's only Labour being asked to compromise, however Labour / Corbyn should not dismiss the chance to annex the Tories ahead of a GE and stop no deal.  Clarke is a good opportunity for Labour, I hope they're considering it. 

Why?

[Jose Jones]

3 minutes ago, A Red said:

Want to stop no deal brexit - who will lead it?

 

Corbyn will lead it - not enough will vote for him

Clarke will lead it - enough might vote for him

 

Obviously if you prefer no deal over not having Corbyn leading it, stick to your guns

No that’s wrong.

Corbyn will lead it - about 300 will vote for him and they just need a few more.

Clarke will lead it - about 20 will vote for him and they just need 300 more.

[A Red]

2 minutes ago, Jose Jones said:

No that’s wrong.

Corbyn will lead it - about 300 will vote for him and they just need a few more.

Clarke will lead it - about 20 will vote for him and they just need 300 more.

So why isnt it happening then?

[AngryOfTuebrook]

1 hour ago, Barry Wom said:

I've said it before on here and been slated for it. Corbyn is unpalatable to such large parts of his country, that is not going to happen. It actually amazes me people don't see it. These same people will not want to legitimise Corbyn by letting him come into a general election as prime minister. The aim here is not a unity government to last 5 years, it's to last a few weeks to extend article 50. Labour's position since the last conference has been to get a general election. Why would letting ken Clarke be the lightening rod for a few weeks and completely destroying the Tory party at the same time be a bad thing? If labour believe they can win a general election, they should embrace this path. 

Firstly, it doesn't matter what ken Clarke wants. We are not forming a government here to implement brexit, I thought the idea which had support was to have a government to do no more or less than extend article 50 and to go to the nation with a GE? Ken Clarke is clearly a remainer. He's spoken in parliament many times about this and also said he doesn't believe the government should have been bound by an advisory referendum. He voted with the government because he respected the platform the Tories stood on at the last election, even though he argues against that position in parliament. But it doesn't matter what he wants or thinks. He won't be prime minister beyond the autumn. 

Right now, what is supposedly palatable to large parts of the country is irrelevant.   They don't get to choose the interim Prime Minister, just like they never got to choose Johnson. (Actually, they don't get to choose any Prime Minister; that's how our "democracy" works.)

 

(It's always worth bearing in mind that these judgements of how popular Corbyn is come from parts of the media who spend all their time pushing a false version of Corbyn, specifically designed to diminish his standing with the electorate. )

 

Do you think Ken Clarke or Harriet Harman or anybody else has more credibility than the democratically elected Leader of the Opposition? 

 

As for Clarke, his favoured position now is to stop No Deal and negotiate a softer Brexit. (Swinson would presumably know this if she'd spoken to Clarke, as she claimed she did, but he says she didn't. ) 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-politics-49372525

 

Clarke is also opposed to a second referendum. 

https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/eddie-mair/ken-clarke-second-brexit-referendum-silly-first/

 

So, Swinson and the Tinge group are busy blocking Corbyn when he represents the only credible chance of them achieving the very thing that they claim they've been fighting for all this time.

 

Again, Parliamentary convention and precedent dictates that in the event of a No Confidence vote going against the Government, the Opposition get a go at trying to form a Government.  Why not direct your logic towards Swinson and Umunna: "It doesn't matter what Corbyn wants. The idea is to have a Government which does no more or less than extend Article 50 then go to the nation with a GE."

[AngryOfTuebrook]

22 minutes ago, A Red said:

So why isnt it happening then?

Because Parliament is not in session.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

The argument of the Lib Dems and the Tinge squatters is basically "We can't support Corbyn because he doesn't command the support of people like us."

 

It's not particularly rational and it's certainly not principled.

[A Red]

Just now, AngryofTuebrook said:

Because Parliament is not in session.

But they are obviously talking to each other and no plan to do it as soon as parliament re-convenes, as far as i can tell.

 

Look, forget logic, forget what you think should happen, if not enough will support Corbyn as interim leader either the idea is dead in the water or alternatives have to be considered. Otherwise go with the government

[AngryOfTuebrook]

42 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

There’s an article in The Times today about the leaked Yellowhammer report.  As you are all scared of the Times as a gateway to fascism I’ll just say that food and medicine shortages, chaos at the ports and an immediate hard border are predicted.  

If you've got access to that, could you copy and paste it, please. 

 

(I don't want to give Murdoch anything to get past his paywall. )

[AngryOfTuebrook]

1 minute ago, A Red said:

But they are obviously talking to each other and no plan to do it as soon as parliament re-convenes, as far as i can tell.

 

Look, forget logic, forget what you think should happen, if not enough will support Corbyn as interim leader either the idea is dead in the water or alternatives have to be considered. Otherwise go with the government

Show me a more credible alternative to the Leader of HM Opposition and I'll go with it. 

 

Show me Swinson and Umunna talking about Clarke and Harman and I'll refer you to my request for a more credible alternative. 

[A Red]

1 minute ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

Show me a more credible alternative to the Leader of HM Opposition and I'll go with it. 

 

Show me Swinson and Umunna talking about Clarke and Harman and I'll refer you to my request for a more credible alternative. 

Doesnt matter what or who you want, its what the majority of mp's will go for. 

[Mudface]

6 minutes ago, A Red said:

Doesnt matter what or who you want, its what the majority of mp's will go for. 

So Corbyn then, seeing as he's the overwhelmingly democratically elected leader of by far the largest opposition party.

[A Red]

3 minutes ago, Mudface said:

So Corbyn then, seeing as he's the overwhelmingly democratically elected leader of by far the largest opposition party.

But it seems there isnt a majority of mp's that want him. If thats the case they have to see if there is someone else the majority will support. If there isnt then its dead in the water.

[Barrington Womble]

1 hour ago, Jose Jones said:

You’re right on the politics of it a bit there Barry, but you also need to look at it the other way too.

 

The Tory remainers don’t want to legitimise  Corbyn by giving him the hint of a chance of being seen to be reasonably capable. They’ve been successfully painting him as unpalatable for years and then giving him some legitimacy would undo all that work.

 

The Lib Dems are again misreading their own voters by acting as if Labour are there main rivals instead of the Tories. So also don’t want gift Labour the opportunity to lead.

 

On the other side, it will absolutely legitimise the Labour strategy, show they’re setting the agenda and enable them to demonstrate the ability to offer something to both Leavers and Remainers. It’s a massive opportunity.

 

All of them are thinking about 

 

Labour are bringing 250 MPs, the Lib Dems and the Tory rebels are bringing 25 between them. Why the hell should Labour be the ones to make all the compromises?

 

It’s pretty fucking ironic that the remainers in the Tories and Lib Dems have been very vocal about understanding the balance of power when it comes to the UK versus 27 EU countries, but they seem to have forgotten that when it comes to similar numbers in parliament.

I don't disagree with your point of view. However, I think we have to live in the real world. It doesn't matter what is fair to Corbyn, there is no rule that if he wins a no confidence vote, everybody has to start backing him. It doesn't matter if the lib Dems, Tory rebels and independents are being two faced. His job in my opinion, is to find a way through the current brexit deadline without us no-dealing and as all leaders of the opposition should want, a chance to fight a general election. He can come out of this smelling of roses in my opinion. He makes the sacrifice for the greater good of the country and doubles that with a blow that will rip the Tories apart. 

24 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

Right now, what is supposedly palatable to large parts of the country is irrelevant.   They don't get to choose the interim Prime Minister, just like they never got to choose Johnson. (Actually, they don't get to choose any Prime Minister; that's how our "democracy" works.)

 

(It's always worth bearing in mind that these judgements of how popular Corbyn is come from parts of the media who spend all their time pushing a false version of Corbyn, specifically designed to diminish his standing with the electorate. )

 

Do you think Ken Clarke or Harriet Harman or anybody else has more credibility than the democratically elected Leader of the Opposition? 

 

As for Clarke, his favoured position now is to stop No Deal and negotiate a softer Brexit. (Swinson would presumably know this if she'd spoken to Clarke, as she claimed she did, but he says she didn't. ) 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-politics-49372525

 

Clarke is also opposed to a second referendum. 

https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/eddie-mair/ken-clarke-second-brexit-referendum-silly-first/

 

So, Swinson and the Tinge group are busy blocking Corbyn when he represents the only credible chance of them achieving the very thing that they claim they've been fighting for all this time.

 

Again, Parliamentary convention and precedent dictates that in the event of a No Confidence vote going against the Government, the Opposition get a go at trying to form a Government.  Why not direct your logic towards Swinson and Umunna: "It doesn't matter what Corbyn wants. The idea is to have a Government which does no more or less than extend Article 50 then go to the nation with a GE."

For me this is all about how do we get a situation to extend article 50 and get a GE. As I said in this post above , it doesn't matter if the others are being two faced. It's about achieving the best outcome. It seems to me you would prefer a Johnson government and a no deal brexit over the chance of forming a unity government to delay leaving the EU and getting a GE. For me all that matters is the result. I don't care who it is out of Corbyn, Harman or Clarke. It is completely irrelevant. Do you want to win a cup final on a jammy own goal playing badly or being fucking brilliant a losing? For me there's times where the only thing that matters is the result. I don't want to crash out of the EU and I want a Johnson government for as short a period as possible. I'd embrace a path forward that can achieve those goals. 

[aRdja]

16 minutes ago, Mudface said:

So Corbyn then, seeing as he's the overwhelmingly democratically elected leader of by far the largest opposition party.

Even the centrist plebs want Corbyn.