Corbyn as caretaker

varian Quote [We must not be bullied by the brexit liars threatening civil unrest.

Most British people want to Remain in the EU.

Leavers want brexit "do or die"

Remainers want to revoke Article 50

A compromise would be another referendum.] End Quote

And thereby lies the basis for a terrible conflict.

We must not be bullied by the brexit liars threatening civil unrest.

Most British people want to Remain in the EU.

Leavers want brexit "do or die"

Remainers want to revoke Article 50

A compromise would be another referendum.

varian Quote [ Why would anyone one want to enact the result of a fraudulent referendum which was won by foriegn interference, lies and cheating and which would inflct terriible damage on our country?] End Quote.

There is much I would concur within your above post varian. However, I do not believe that those who voted Leave in the referendum would just "sit back and accept it" if the result of that original referendum was just disregarded and a second instituted.

The above could bring widespread disruption onto the streets of Britain while that second referendum campaign was carried out. As evidence of the possibility of the above coming about, reports of attacks on those who have admitted to voting to leave the European Union have been rapidly increasing in recent weeks in Britains workplaces. That situation has become especially prevalent in industries where employees feel that Brexit will have a very detrimental effect on their future employment. My own company has in several cases in recent weeks advised several employers as to their safety obligations in regard to such incidents occurring on their premises.

The above is the reason I believe that the result of the referendum must be upheld, but on leaving Britain must obtain from the EU a full trade and customs agreement to mitigate the impact on employment and in that the whole British economy.

Failure to have those agreements would I feel bring that pent up feeling and growing violence now in Britains workplace onto the streets of this nation should the referendum result be disregarded.

As awful as the above may be, that is the real situation that Britain is now in I believe.

Why would anyone one want to enact the result of a fraudulent referendum which was won by foriegn interference, lies and cheating and which would inflct terriible damage on our country?

I would agree varian with your post @21:16 today. For all those that believe that Britain "crashing out" of the EU with no deal would be disastrous for the British economy there would seem to be little other option but to have a "very temporary" government of national unity.

It may well be that there are those that voted in favour of the United Kingdom leaving the EU after hearing that a leave and trading agreement would be "the easiest negotiations ever concluded."

However, the above has not and will not now come about due to the ignorance and incompetence of this Tory government.

In the above, I believe that many (such as myself) feel that the result of the referendum has to be upheld. However, in Britain honouring that result, then the UK must obtain from the EU on leaving a free trade and full customs agreement.

And that is well possible.

The mess we are in is othing compared to tbe mess we would be in if we let Boris carry on.

We must stop brexit got the sake of our children a d grandcbildren

No thank you just leave it to Boris to get us out of this mess even if it means leaving with a no deal

It seems to me that unless some other legal device can be used to stop a no deal brexit a government of national unity is our best option.

POGS, you seem to spend a considerable amount of time in "Carping" at all and sundry on this forum and many outside of it in regard to the solutions they put forward to resolve the current crisis this country now finds itself in.

However, as far as I am aware you have never put forward any solutions to those problems yourself. So, POGS would care to inform this forum of how you view the current Brexit crisis being resolved.

Could it be that you believe that the current Boris Johnson solution of Britain leaving the largest and most powerful trading block in the world with no leave agreement would be the correct one?

So, come on POGs really join the debate and be forthcoming with your solutions.

Grandad

"Jabberwok, opposition politicians in the House of Commons have to rely on the reports that the government of the day provide to the house. In that, they also rely on the competence and knowledge of those in government in writing those reports.

In the above, when it is demonstrated that those in government through incompetence, dishonesty and self-interest have misled the House, as is the case with this government, then to have a motion of no confidence placed before all MPs is the constitutional way forward."
----

You keep saying this but the Conservative Party campaigned to REMAIN and most certainly told the public a vote to Leave would be disastrous.

How did the ' government of the day' mislead the public or the House?

varian Fri 16-Aug-19 18:01:24

"The result of the last general election was a hung parliament.

An arrangement was made (with the help of some dubious bribes using taxpayers money) that the DUP would support the Conservative Party, allowing them to form a government."
---

You see you make a point for me in that comment.

When there is a hung parliament then backroom deals will be done. It is how the system works and that is the procedure to obtain either a Coalition or Supply and Confidence government and ALL parties entertain the idea but shout ' foul play' when they don't like the outcome. Hypocrisy. Under PR it will be the name of the game and those who want PR will be moaning they don't agree with the partnerships formed if it doesn't suit them, more ruddy hypocrisy.

They are doing the exact same now by trying to form the ironically named ' Party of Unity', backroom deals, scratching each others backs whilst all the time they have ' No Confidence' in Corbyn. Even it is not Corbyn but Ken Clark or anybody else they simply do not agree what should happen.

It's a folly, an attempt for power without earning it from the electorate. It will be the first time it could truly be said parliament is lead by an ' Unelected Leader ' if they pull it off. More hypocrisy.

You say ' dubious bribes' were done. What 'bribes' do you think the SNP and Labour will make to throw their weight behind Corbyn, a 2nd Referendum? Perhaps the SNP will get Corbyn to finally state Labour is not interested in applying the referendum result, will Revoke Article 50, NOT renegotiate a better deal with the EU because he is now Leader of the Unity Party and Labour are totally a Remain Party, no ifs no buts.

He is so single minded to get a General Election I actually wouldn't put it past him to be honest because he is not a man of principle in my mind.

Watch this space because the flip flops, loss of principles will be evident and put to one side but when they eventually realise the gulf between their visions of Brexit/Referendums/Article 50 /Leader is just as dividing as we have at present the fur will fly.

In the meantime the UK has to watch and let even more time be wasted by our politicians.

I seem to recall that the leave campaign assured people that if they were successful a mutually beneficial deal with the EU would be easy to negotiate. I think it was Liam Fox who stated that it would be "the easiest thing in history" to reach such a deal.

Presumably, whilst some people would have voted to leave even if it meant "crashing out" (and possibly preferred such a scenario), there would have also been people who would not have voted to leave in such circumstances.

I did vote remain but I am not uncritical of the EU. However I did think that, with our country in its current run down state and bearing in mind the potential risk to EU environmental and employment protections, it was wiser to remain.

There are more and more indications of the risk of there being seriously negative repercussions if we leave without a deal and I think it is foolhardy not to do whatever is necessary to avoid it.

Jabberwok, opposition politicians in the House of Commons have to rely on the reports that the government of the day provide to the house. In that, they also rely on the competence and knowledge of those in government in writing those reports.

In the above, when it is demonstrated that those in government through incompetence, dishonesty and self-interest have misled the House, as is the case with this government, then to have a motion of no confidence placed before all MPs is the constitutional way forward.

Individual or groups of opposition MPs may have held doubts in regard to what they were informed of in regard to Brexit. However, they are only the opposition in Parliament, and in that do not have the numbers to change whatever the government decides to report on or bring forward as policy.

In that, the Tory Party and this shambles of a government are entirely responsible for the crisis that this nation finds itself in, and no other body.

Problem is many Tory supporters on this forum do not appreciate the truth being placed in front of them.

This is a link to Swinson's letter to Corbyn:

www.libdemvoice.org/in-full-jo-swinsons-letter-to-jeremy-corbyn-61743.html

To label it as "backtracking" doesn't recognise that it's a stateswomanlike attempt to negotiate.

Oh come on!! Are you seriously telling me that MP's with 40 years of association with the EU are going to meekly believe the propaganda and vote catching comments without doing just a tiny bit of research. Even I raised my eyebrows,but you are asking people to believe that apparently seasoned, professional experienced politicians took it all at face value? Pull the other one!!! The truth is that they all arrogantly thought remain would win and therefore there was no need to even consider any of it. As for article 50 they all signed up to keep their seats and to be able to plot on pulling Brexit down from their position in Parliament. Outside of course it would have been difficult.

I'm not, I am repeating what MP's have stated about JC leading this government. Jo Swinson seemed to think the idea ridiculous , although of course she has now backtracked. (sigh) The leader of the opposition would seem an obvious choice, so why the need to choose someone else?!!

There is only one body that is responsible for the largest political and now constitutional crisis this nation has faced in over seventy-five years and that body is the Conservative party and this shambles of a government born out of that party.

Yes, the vast majority of MPs in the House of Commons did vote in favour of signing Article Fifty, they had all been informed that gaining a withdraw and trade agreement would be a straightforward process.

In the above many members of this forum will remember David Davis stating on the day that Article fifty was signed that "these will be the easiest negotiations ever concluded. There was also any number of statements made by Tory brexiteers advising that the European Union needed Britain far more than Britain needed the EU and in that those European nations would go to any lengths to gain an agreement with the United Kingdom

How wrong they were.

We have then all witnessed the Tory negotiators for the last three years make leaving term demands of the European Union that they were completely unable to grant purely on the basis that those demands went against the treaties that Britain had been a leading nation in formulating.

What a bunch of Bozos those negotiators were.

Therefore, the ignorance and incompetence of this Tory government has brought the United Kindom to the brink of leaving the worlds largest and most powerful trading block with no agreement whatsoever, and in that placing a threat over tens of thousands of jobs and the whole British economy.

Therefore it is unsurprising that there may be a majority of MPs in the House of Commons that would be prepared to support a motion of no confidence in this shambles of a government and in that a number of those MPs supporting such a motion may well sit on the Tory benches.

A motion of no confidence is a constitutional and proper means of removing a government that has lost the support and respect of Parliament and has been used many times in the parliamentary history of Britain. No government has (in my humble opinion) deserved more to lose such a vote since the Neville Chamberlain led Tory government of nineteen forty.

Corbyn! This machine has a mind of its ow.

I gave you my answer to your article 50 question previously Jabberwok. Someone else my have something different to say but all I can do is refer you back to it. It was today at 6.51.

I haven't given any opinion of Cornyn. That's not for us to decide it's for all those MPs who don't want no-deal to work out how best to get the most MPs behind whoever leads for that (hopefully) short period of time. You are expressing you own views and prejudices but it isn't ours that count at this point but, like everyone else you can exercise you right to vote for the candidate of your choice at the next election.

Tbh, I can't understand why we had a referendum in the first place as it was obvious that unless remain won it was never going anywhere. The EU will never let us go and Parliament will never vote it through! Why on earth Parliament didn't just vote leave/remain in the first place particularly as at the end of the day they were going to anyway, then we would all have been saved a lot of hope followed by anguish, money, family rows and more besides when the end result was a forgone conclusion! Ever been had?!!! Never again, if nothing else this saga has proved that the calibre, honesty and commitment is sadly lacking in our politicians, what a dismal shower they are!. Even HM thinks so! A sorry state of affairs indeed!!!

But what about JC being unsuitable to lead this government, but suitable to lead the country after a GE?!! Bit of a contradiction here!!!!

GG2 is in the right of it.

Under our constitution Parliament is sovereign. This is what has been established since the Civil War in the 17th century. This was fought to remove Absolute power from the Monarch (In an Absolute Monarchy the monarch alone was able to direct how the country was run and had sole power to make the law). This was regarded as tyranny by Parliament.

Parliament consists of two elements, the Executive (the government) and the Legislature. The Executive rules on behalf of the Crown but sovereignty rests with the Legislature. If the Legislature decides to overrule the Executive because it feels it is abusing its power and becoming tyrannical they have a constitutional right to do so because they, not the Executive, are sovereign.

The Executive only retains power as long as they have the confidence of Parliament and can pass legislation with a majority vote in Parliament.

We have a party system because it developed as the most convenient way for the Executive to be able to pass legislation but no party member is constitutionally obliged in any way to support its party when in government if they feel that their proposed executive actions are wrong. Clearly, if the government (Executive) has a large majority they are able to pass legislation even if a few of their MPs dissent and fail to vote in support of them. Also, when the Legislature (the House of Commons) scrutinises proposed legislation any MP, from any party, is able to propose amendments to the proposed legislation and it can be changed if the Commons votes to accept the amendments.

A prime duty of a member of parliament is to consider the good of the country when scrutinising proposed legislation. The 'will of the people' really doesn't come into it. If MPs consider that proposed legislation will be damaging to the country they are perfectly entitled to make that consideration their prime motive for opposing the Executive.

Considering 'the will of the people' is a political consideration, not a constitutional necessity.

At the moment we have an Executive which is apparently determined to disregard the wishes of the Legislature by pursuing a 'no deal' Brexit despite the fact that it has no support for it in Parliament (and, only minority support in the electorate). It is proposing to do so by abusing its powers. MPs have every right to attempt to prevent it from succeeding and to defend the sovereignty of the Legislature.

This, like it or not, is how our Parliamentary democracy works and no amount of frothing at the mouth and shouting about 'democracy' can alter it.

As for a 'Party of Unity', the idea is relatively new and politics will be involved in sorting it. It would be unrealistic to expect it to emerge fully formed and with total agreement among its components right from the word go. If it is a goer differences will be sorted over a period of time. If they cannot be sorted then it won't succeed. But it is not unconstitutional or illegal in any way.

So why did they sign article 50? or didn't they read it or perhaps not understand it?!! Surely better to have abstained! At least Ken Clark did behave honourably by not signing!
I'm curious about one thing though, if JC as we understand it, is unsuitable to lead a government of N.U, how, if Labour win a GE, will he suddenly become 'suitable' for the highest office?!! or will MP's feel the necessity to have a vote of no confidence to bring him down, oobviously in the interest of the good of the country.

jura Friday 12.22
I agree.
I'm quite sure that those who are behind Corbyn and pull his strings are behind this opportunism

The result of the last general election was a hung parliament.

An arrangement was made (with the help of some dubious bribes using taxpayers money) that the DUP would support the Conservative Party, allowing them to form a government.

If, in order to prevent a no-deal brexit, some MPs who previously supported that government, decide to withdraw their support and support another grouping of MPs to form a different government, they are absolutely entitled to do that.

That is how our parliamentary democracy works.