Corbyn as caretaker

How dare you patronise me! So you think it's fine to bring down a government for trying to deliver what people and THEY ( remember article 50) voted for. People may not have voted how to leave one way or the other as people weren't asked, but whipped or no, 80% of MP's voted for article 50 where the default is leaving WITHOUT a deal.

I'm not sure it's true that people vote for the party rather than the leader as was stated earlier.

Corbyn's brand of socialism is SO far to the Left that his policies have alienated many traditional Labour supporters.

Long may he reign !!!

Amen to that JE!

they have every right to fight for what they do believe in

They all, more or less to a wo/man, voted in favour of triggering Article 50. Was that not a belief that we were going to leave the EU?

Brexit: MPs overwhelmingly back Article 50 bill

MPs have voted by a majority of 384 to allow Prime Minister Theresa May to get Brexit negotiations under way

They backed the government's European Union Bill, supported by the Labour leadership, by 498 votes to 114

The SNP, Plaid Cymru and the Liberal Democrats opposed the bill

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38833883

If the EU wants no further negotiation, and they more or less said "take it or leave it"when Theresa May came back from Brussels with the last Withdrawal Agreement - which parliament rejected, and rightly so - what then?

No Deal is our strongest hand.

A CEO of a fairly large manufacturing company I spoke to a few days ago believed we need to take that step and THEN we'd see a deal sorted with the EU in a fairly short space of time, on our terms, not just theirs. He believes that would be the quickest way to break the deadlock and end this awful period of limbo which may well see Farage installed in 10 Downing St otherwise.

How dare you patronise me! So you think it's fine to bring down a government for trying to deliver what people and THEY ( remember article 50) voted for. People may not have voted how to leave one way or the other as people weren't asked, but whipped or no, 80% of MP's voted for article 50 where the default is leaving WITHOUT a deal. Fri 16-Aug-19 16:27:41

I wasn't intending to patronise you and I apologise if you felt it read that way Jabberwok.

It doesn't matter whether I think it's fine or not. Parliament is sovereign (under the crown) not the people. I can't change that just to make you feel better and to be honest, I wouldn't want to. I am happy for someone to show I am wrong but I don't think there is any country where sovereignty is entirely in the hands of the people. That's why people go into politics. They feel strongly about particular things and that is where they can make a difference.

You are rehearsing a very old argument in your post and seem to be getting very angry so I do not expect you to like what I say. Only the MPs know exactly what they expected from Article 50 and they have every right to try and make the outcome the one they intended it to be. I am not sure that shouting WITHOUT a deal at me makes any difference. What Article 50 says now is the same as it said in March and Parliament decided to have an extension. They voted, quite legally and therefore democratically for an extension. The writing of Article 50 does not seem to preclude a change in the date and we know it doesn't preclude revocation. While these are available to Parliament no one is doing anything wrong by using them.

As I said before bringing down the government is the job of the opposition. I rather think if the Labour Party was in power and the Conservatives (if they still exist) were trying to oust them there would be cheers rather than moans on this forum.

It's a ' Coup ' led by parties and supporters who are showing lack of principle and outright hypocrisy!

It is being promoted as a ' Party of Unity' but the truth is it is a ' Party of Disunity '.

The respective parties are not in harmony and hold different opinions as to Remain or Leave, Article 50, and will as stated some will not even abide by another Referendum result ' if it does not go their way, AGAIN ! "

This is not progression, it is holding the UK to months of more indecision and political infighting will still take place.

Who do you favour JE?

Apology accepted GG3. We'll just leave it at that then. I personally would not expect any opposition to behave so dishonourably, however much I wanted a particular result.

Lessismore. You asked who I favour. Well as Boris is our only hope to deliver Brexit then it has to be him for all his faults.

I don't see it as dishonourable behaviour Jabberwok. They are behaving both within the law and within our democratic structure. Not wanting what you want cannot be described as honourable just because that would be your choice. Many of those opposing no-deal know their careers have probably been ended by their decision to do what they believe to be right. I would call that honourable. I imagine there are people trying to behave honourably on both sides. These derogatory adjectives are very overused.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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!!!

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.

Corbyn! This machine has a mind of its ow.

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.

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?!!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.