Corbyn as caretaker

I believe that before the argument around who should lead any "temporary government", it should be remembered that "a vote of no confidence" has to be moved and then carried by the House of Commons on its return in September, and that is "no done deal."

For the above motion to be carried by the House, a number of Conservative MPs will have to vote against their own party and Government and that is by no means certain from reports in the media.

Jeremy Corbyn as leader of her Her Majesty's opposition is the only person in Parliament who can move such a motion against a sitting government. Therefore, what Corbyn states to the whole House of Commons in moving that motion of no confidence may well decide how the above Conservative MPs will vote.

Corbyn will have to convince a considerable majority of MPs that any temporary government set up following the fall of the Johnson administration would be in power for no more than to gain an extension of Article fifty from the European Union and then as a second and final act call a General Election.

The address that Corbyn gives to the House of Commons in moving that motion has to be the greatest speech of his political career I believe. However, it is accepted by many even within Corbyn's close associates that parliamentary speaking, unlike his political campaigning, is not Jeremy Corbyn's strongest forte.

In the above, should the Motion of no Confidence fail to be carried by the House of Commons, then I believe that Britain leaving the European Union with no deal would be almost inevitable.

Early September will be it seems a nail-biting time for all who wish to see stability maintained within the United Kingdom.

Further to my above post, it certainly looks as if Jeremy Corbyn will not voluntarily stand aside to allow any other MP to lead the temporary government that may be required following a successful vote If no confidence in the Johnson administration.

The above I believe is the correct course of action for Corbyn, as it is him as leader of the opposition that will have to move the above motion of no confidence and therefore convince the House of Commons that this shambles of a government should be removed.

Therefore, should the motion of no confidence be carried by the house them it should be for Jeremy Corbyn to immediately set up that temporary government which will have only two sole purposes, that being to secure an extension of Article fifty from the EU and then call a General Election.

It has to be remembered that following the loss of a vote such as the above Johnson will have fourteen days to try and form a government that is acceptable to parliament prior to him resigning as Prime Minister. Should that be the case any temporary administration formed may have only days to prevent Britain crashing out of the EU with no deal at the end of October.

In the above, there will be no time for argument around who should head that temporary government, and therefore I believe that Corbyn should in such circumstances just select a small number of members for that administration and put that body before parliament for acceptance or rejection.

In short, challenge the House of Commons to accept that body or in all probability condemn this nation to the mayhem of a no-deal withdrawal from the EU.

I think calling it a "temporary" government sums it up so much better that reusing the war-time "Government of National Unity. We are not at war. This current government are willing our country to be a less "weighty" player in the world. A temporary government would only have one job to do and that is to give us a chance to reverse a situation no one ever voted for.

GracesGranMK3, I very much agree with your above post. Britain does not require any "government of National Unity" should this Boris Johnson shambles fall.

All this nation would need would be a few MPs that agree on one issue, and that would be to stop this nation facing the chaos of leaving the European Union at the end of October with no deal.

Nothing else would be required but that.

What this country urgently needs is a political leader brave enough to do what the majority of our UK population want and STOP BREXIT.

I would certainly support a temporary government led by Jeremy Corbyn or anyone else, which would immediately REVOKE ARTICLE 50.

You will lose everything Varian, because you cannot compromise.

Who cannot compromise? If compromise means leave the EU on any terms I don't see the point. How would that be as good, let alone better than the great deal we have now?

No Varian that was not what I meant at all but your intransigence will not let you see alternatives that might allow you to be nearer to your choice and possibly even achieve it.

What alternatives are there for the majority who want to premain in the EU?

Remain

If the leave campaign had lost the vote, would you accept leavers nevertheless demanding that the vote be ignored and we leave anyway?

The referendum was ill-conceived, fraudulent and won by lies and foreign interference. Just because the leave side cheated their way to a narrow win, that does not make it right to condemn us all and future generations to accept the dire consequenses.

I would support any leagal measure to stop the madness, including Corbyn becoming a temporary PM.

I understand that is how you see it Varian, but it is not, as you must be aware, how others see it. By insisting on winning each battle you may well end up losing the war.

Whatever we think of the referendum we know we do not all share the same view of the EU. We come out roughly 50/50 whenever a poll is taken.

However, this is not 50% who insist on one extreme (as in furthest from the middle) - no change from the status quo or 50% who insist on the other extreme (as in furthest from the middle) - leaving with no deal. It is closer to about 33% who want to remain exactly as things have been up to now and that 33% want to "just leave" with a no-deal. That leaves 33% who are split between those who are happy to stay if we leave the political EU or leave if we stay in the economic EU.

The winner will probably be the extreme that can attract the largest number of the middle group. The loser will probably be the extreme that cannot even discuss a compromise.

This is not about democracy now. It is about politics and I rather think it always was.

Very succinctly put GracesGranMK3.

I don't know where you're getting your percentages from GGMK3

Opinion polls over the last two years have consistently shown a majority in favour of REMAINING in the EU.

It is absurd to suggest that all those who want to remain "want things to remain exactly as things have been up to now". Most of us recognise that the EU is not perfect, but it has given us great benefits. It will change over time and as members we will be able to influence that change for the better. Far from being an extreme position, this is mainstream.

It is a sad reflection on the power of the media to influence attitudes that even some folk who voted remain now just seem to accept that leaving is inevitable. It is wrong to be so defeatist. If you voted Remain because you believed that was best for our country, and still believe that, why should you ever accept that we must inflict harm on our country by leaving?

whatukthinks.org/eu/questions/if-a-second-eu-referendum-were-held-today-how-would-you-vote/?removed

You may call me defeatist Varian. What shall I call you? I have not changed my opinion since the day I voted. The media hasn't affected me nor have ill-mannered posters on forums. We are, believe it or not, both allowed to see this as we see it.

So, if you still want us to remain in the EU, how do you think that can best be achieved?

I think I have made it clear enough. I was trying to help Varian, not putting myself up for interrogation.

Sorry, not very helpful GGMK3 I have not interrogated you, just asked how you see the way forward.

I agree with you that it is about politics and certainly not about democracy. It always has been. Since politics, specifically Tory Party politics, has caused this mess, we need to find a political solution.

If the majority of the MPs in the House of Commons wish to avoid a no-deal brexit (and I believe is the case) then they have to pull together. However, in the last two days it would seem that the rivalries and divisions that have "dogged" the above position and prevented success have again resurfaced.

In the Labour Party, we have the usual MPs that have never accepted the election of Jeremy Corbyn as leader are once again putting that grievance before the desperate position of the country. Kate Hoey states she no longer accepts the Labour whip and claims she now sits as the Brexit parties first MP.

Margret Hodge has, as far as I am aware, stated nothing, but in that her silence is deafening. There are others who are quite high profile in the party, but I feel the above demonstrates what is happening.

In the Conservative Party, we have a number it would seem who wish to avoid a no-deal Brexit but are stating they will not support a vote of no confidence that then may place Jeremy Corby as leader of a temporary government. So, once again it is Party before country with those MPs.

With the Liberal Democrats as far as I am aware we have Jo Swinson still refusing to support Jeremy Corbyn as prospective leader on a temporary government and in that we have Corbyn supporting MPs stating they would support no other person but Corbyn for such a position.

With the vote of no confidence and temporary government route now seemingly blocked, one Other route to avoid a no-deal brexit is being put forward. That would be for MPs across the House of Commons to take control of the Order Paper and in that the government agenda in the house and force through a motion that would prevent the government allowing Britain to leave the European Union without a withdrawal agreement acceptable to Parliament.

Those promoting the above solution seem to forget that exactly the same tactic and legislation was placed before the House of Commons prior to the summer recess and it failed to gain a majority.

Therefore, we again have a majority in Parliament who wish to prevent the United Kingdom "crashing out" of the EU at the end of October, but within that majority no agreement whatsoever as to how that is to be achieved.

The ERG group and Nigel Farage must be slurping back their champagne with great glee, unable to believe their luck.

I have one word .....,,,,,compromise!!!

If JC puts forward a motion of no confidence and loses - I wonder if he would be prepared to stand aside and let someone else take over as leader of the Labour Party

Jo Swinson merely pointed out that it was obvious that Jeremy Corbyn could never command a majority in the HOC, with or without the support of the LibDems so it would be much better to find another candidate to become a temporary PM such as Harriet Harman or Ken Clarke.

WadesNan Quote [If JC puts forward a motion of no confidence and loses - I wonder if he would be prepared to stand aside and let someone else take over as leader of the Labour Party] End Quote.

If Corbyn puts forward a motion of no confidence and it fails to command a majority, Corbyn will not resign as leader of the Labour Party. The failure of such a motion would be caused by MPs by on all sides of the House voting against that motion, so why should that bring about the resignation of Corbyn.

For those who wish to witness the demise of Jeremy Corbyn I have no doubt that should any leadership challenge come about Corbyn would stand again in any election brought forward and in that again command an overwhelming majority in such a ballot of Labour Party and affiliate members.

Jeremy Corbyn has stated he will stand down prior to the next scheduled Geneal election, but obviously, that will not happen while the present Tory created Brexit crisis is ongoing.

varian, it has been already pointed out that Jeremy Corbyn is the only person in the House of Commons who as leader of Her Majesty's opposition can place a motion of no confidence before Parliament.

Should that be carried by the House of Commons, it will be Jeremy Corbyn as leader of the opposition that the Monarch will call to the palace and requested to try and form a government.

It will then be for Parliament to accept or reject any temporary government that Corbyn puts forward. It may well be by that point in time Britain will have only a few days to prevent this nation from "crashing out" of the EU.

Therefore any further delay while arguments continue in regard to who should lead a temporary government would very much play into the hands of the parliamentary minority who wish to see the catastrophe of no-deal Brexit.

So would it be better to accept or reject any temporary government Corbyn puts forward?