Topic: Brexit: "Vultus inanis est et mori in fossa ego sum!"

[oldfordie]

Stopping any sort of Brexit is the Lib Dems' priority - not just no deal.

Corbyn's position is still that he opposes a "Tory Brexit", and he and other senior Labour members think they can negotiate a 'better' version. As a Lib Dem, I don't want us to support his position in any way. It is Labour that needs to change its position/give someone like Tom Watson the top job.

Corbyn does not need to stand down as leader, he doesn't have to change any of his stance on brexit, all he has to do is help to bring about the downfall of Johnsons Tory government, he should be willing to do whatever it takes and that means accepting he is placing Tory rebels in a impossible position if he insists on being leader. he represents everything they despise.
Corbyns been gifted with opportunities to show himself in a good light over the last 3 yrs, he's blown the lot, heres another opportunity he will probably blow as well. publicly announce he is putting the countries interest first. he is willing to support any national government leader acceptable to all MPs.  we will see.

[TheShanklyGates]

For clarification since it sounds like I've just been having a pop at the Lib Dems, I genuinely don't care which side backs down or compromises or whatever. All I know is that unless someone does before we know it it will be the the 1st of November, we'll have crashed out of the EU without a deal and the opposition parties will all still be stood around pointing fingers at each other while chaos rages around them.

If Corbyn genuinely cared about stopping no deal as much as he claims, he'd step aside for a compromise candidate for PM if that was what was necessary to bring other parties on board.

Likewise, if backing Corbyn as the leader of a unity government was the only way to guarantee stopping no deal, the Lib Dems, Tory rebels, independents etc. should put their reservations about him to one side and do it.

Everyone, even at this late stage, is still gambling on their perfect outcome being possible rather accepting that some unpalatable solutions may be the only ones available.

[Zeb]

Long background read, from Institute for Government (pdf), on options for MPs to avoid 'no deal' come September and October.

Conclusion is worth quoting I think.

In July, MPs rose for their six-week summer recess. If the September/October conference recess is scheduled as usual that leaves only 22 sitting days between the Commons’ return on 3 September and 31 October. Although a shorter – or cancelled – conference recess is possible, that still leaves less than two months until the deadline.

This means that the government would have little time to renegotiate a deal, secure parliamentary approval for it, and then pass legislation for its implementation through both the Commons and the Lords before 31 October. And at this stage, Johnson does not appear to be meaningfully pursuing this option, which squeezes this timetable further.

The tight timetable also means that if MPs do want to force the PM into a different approach, there will be very little time for them to do so. When MPs tried to take control of the Commons order paper earlier this year, they needed multiple attempts. The first was on 29 January, but they were only successful on 25 March. As the no-deal deadline got closer, MPs were more willing to take more drastic steps. The same may happen again – but given the limited opportunities they now face, a delay of that magnitude would be likely to scupper their efforts.

Crucially, if MPs try and fail to force the government to abandon its no-deal plans, their fall-back option of voting down the government could come too late to make a difference. Unless the UK government requests, and the EU grants, a further extension, the UK automatically leaves on the 31 October.

[ShakaHislop]

Agreed, because stopping no deal to them is not as important as stopping Corbyn. They'd rather risk everything on an election.

Is it fair to say that stopping the Tories was more important to you in 2017 than stopping a no deal outcome?

[filopastry]

Agreed, because stopping no deal to them is not as important as stopping Corbyn. They'd rather risk everything on an election.

Requesting a short extension from the EU and calling a GE is as much as any National Unity Govt could get done with a very fair wind (irrespective of leader), you need to pull far too many MPs with varying goals, to make it a stable form of government.

Basically it would be a government united by nothing apart from an opposition to "No Deal" as an outcome, so basically incapable of passing any other legislation.

[ShakaHislop]

Fuck those Labour "moderates" who have done nothing meaningful to wrestle back control of the party from Corbyn over the past 3 years, and their apologists ("ooh, what can they do?!" *handwring handwring*) which has left us in this nightmare of catch 22s.

A complete abdication of responsibility from them. Don't get me started on the arseholes who nominated him back in 2015, of which there is some crossover with the above group. People talk about the country having been dragged into a Conservative internal argument. Well, it's Labour own internal war that has handicapped the country in its attempts to dig ourselves out of the hole.

[TheShanklyGates]

Is it fair to say that stopping the Tories was more important to you in 2017 than stopping a no deal outcome?

A no deal outcome was not being entertained as a realistic prospect back in 2017 if memory serves me correctly. I don't remember any of the parties, not even UKIP, saying that no deal was their preferred outcome back then. 

Things have changed as well you know.

[Dr. Beaker]

Why can't they all have their conferences in the same week, just for once.

[ShakaHislop]

A no deal outcome was not being entertained as a realistic prospect back in 2017 if memory serves me correctly. I don't remember any of the parties, not even UKIP, saying that no deal was their preferred outcome back then. 

Things have changed as well you know.

So if you didn't believe the Tories would take a majority as a mandate for no deal, would the most pragmatic option not have been to vote Tory and give May that (possibly increased) majority in order to help her get a Brexit deal over the line rather than vote for other parties, risk creating a hung parliament and increase the chances of a no deal happening by accident?

[TheShanklyGates]

So if you didn't believe the Tories would take a majority as a mandate for no deal, would the most pragmatic option not have been to vote Tory and give May that (possibly increased) majority in order to help her get a Brexit deal over the line rather than vote for other parties, risk creating a hung parliament and increase the chances of a no deal happening by accident?

If the article 50 period had been due to end a week after that election then yes, probably. Since it didn't I have no idea what you're blithering on about.

The process has moved on, the choices that lay before us in 2017 are not the same as the ones on offer now.

[Andy]

How does that work in practice then? I'm all ears, honestly.

Maybe the person that is causing the block between the Lib Dems and Tory Remainers working with Labour - Corbyn - should put his country before his career, and step aside.

[Andy]

Corbyn does not need to stand down as leader, he doesn't have to change any of his stance on brexit, all he has to do is help to bring about the downfall of Johnsons Tory government, he should be willing to do whatever it takes and that means accepting he is placing Tory rebels in a impossible position if he insists on being leader. he represents everything they despise.

So you're saying he DOES need to step down?

[Ghost Town]

There seems to be a big misunderstanding here about what a post-VoNC Government of National Unity would be there to do, and how long it would last.  The whole point of a cobbled together GoNU would be to : 1) prevent crashing out on Oct 31 by 2) requesting an extension from the EU and 3) set up a GE to ascertain who would form the next government.

That's it, and so consequently a GoNU would not need to last for very long - a few weeks at most, and would not confer any significant powers on whomever ends up leading it. Letting Corbyn be in charge -  IF that is required - would not be 'giving him the keys'. It would at best be lending him the keys so he can go and do one or two specific things, before handing them back.

The idea that a GoNU would set up a new referendum or revoke A50 is fanciful. I mean I would love either to happen, and particularly the latter, but the chances are minute, so forget it.

It'll purely be about preventing a cynical Johnsonian crash out and instigating a GE. So really it doesn't matter who is 'leader' as long as the bloody thing can be cobbled together against all the odds. Consequently the likelihood is that the other parties, and most here, would be best off biting their tongues and letting Corbyn have the role, if that means bringing the whole Labour Party (absent the handful of usual suspects) to the project and makes a GoNU happen. Any purism from the Lib Dems or whoever that results in a refusal to let Corbyn lead, if that ends up being what is needed, would literally be enabling a NO Deal crash out. In that regard TheShankleyGates is correct.

Don't get me wrong, I really hope a GoNU can be cobbled together with a respected neutral figure, or a Remainer, in charge. But if, as is looking likely, the numbers and intransigence of Labour require Corbyn to lead, then I'd have no hesitation in endorsing that. He'd have no powers anyway, and only be charge for a pre-agreed, limited time.

It would literally be cutting your nose off to spite your face for any Remainer to think otherwise. A no-deal crash out is the only alternative

Of course Tory intransigence as to joining a GoNU led by Corbyn, probably means the numbers won't work for him either, so it is probably a non-issue. But this post is just about the principle.

[TheShanklyGates]

Maybe the person that is causing the block between the Lib Dems and Tory Remainers working with Labour - Corbyn - should put his country before his career, and step aside.

Absolutely.

Or the Lib Dems and Tory remainers put their aversion to Corbyn to one side for the good of the country.

Either is perfectly fine by me.

[Zeb]

Political problem which has to be resolved is that if you've got a government of national unity then at some point after it forms then there's going to be an election. The Lib Dems will not win seats in the south if they've put Corbyn in Downing Street - and in failing to do so that election will return us back to the thing everyone is trying to avoid. Labour can't go into an election with Corbyn still as leader having admitted Corbyn's so toxic that he shouldn't be PM.

It's easier to fix the latter than the former.

[Zeb]

There seems to be a big misunderstanding here about what a post-VoNC Government of National Unity would be there to do, and how long it would last.  The whole point of a cobbled together GoNU would be to : 1) prevent crashing out on Oct 31 by 2) requesting an extension from the EU and 3) set up a GE to ascertain who would form the next government.

No misunderstanding here. Would suggest thinking this leads up to an extension just to hold a general election may be the misapprehension. eg Lucas is talking of referendum and implementing it. A general election straight after balking Johnson, and without preventing 'no deal' being possible if the election is won by him, would be courageous, to borrow from Sir Humphrey.

[TepidT2O]

Bercow has said proroguing parliament won’t be allowed to happen...

Interesting

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-parliaments-48540809/john-bercow-proroguing-parliament-not-going-to-happen

[TheShanklyGates]

There seems to be a big misunderstanding here about what a post-VoNC Government of National Unity would be there to do, and how long it would last.  The whole point of a cobbled together GoNU would be to : 1) prevent crashing out on Oct 31 by 2) requesting an extension from the EU and 3) set up a GE to ascertain who would form the next government.

That's it, and so consequently a GoNU would not need to last for very long - a few weeks at most, and would not confer any significant powers on whomever ends up leading it. Letting Corbyn be in charge -  IF that is required - would not be 'giving him the keys'. It would at best be lending him the keys so he can go and do one or two specific things, before handing them back.

The idea that a GoNU would set up a new referendum or revoke A50 is fanciful. I mean I would love either to happen, and particularly the latter, but the chances are minute, so forget it.

It'll purely be about preventing a cynical Johnsonian crash out and instigating a GE. So really it doesn't matter who is 'leader' as long as the bloody thing can be cobbled together against all the odds. Consequently the likelihood is that the other parties, and most here, would be best off biting their tongues and letting Corbyn have the role, if that means bringing the whole Labour Party (absent the handful of usual suspects) to the project and makes a GoNU happen. Any purism from the Lib Dems or whoever that results in a refusal to let Corbyn lead, if that ends up being what is needed, would literally be enabling a NO Deal crash out. In that regard TheShankleyGates is correct.

Don't get me wrong, I really hope a GoNU can be cobbled together with a respected neutral figure, or a Remainer, in charge. But if, as is looking likely, the numbers and intransigence of Labour require Corbyn to lead, then I'd have no hesitation in endorsing that. He'd have no powers anyway, and only be charge for a pre-agreed, limited time.

It would literally be cutting your nose off to spite your face for any Remainer to think otherwise. A no-deal crash out is the only alternative

Of course Tory intransigence as to joining a GoNU led by Corbyn, probably means the numbers won't work for him either, so it is probably a non-issue. But this post is just about the principle.

Good post.

[Andy]

Absolutely.

Or the Lib Dems and Tory remainers put their aversion to Corbyn to one side for the good of the country.

Either is perfectly fine by me.

You’re still not getting it - backing Corbyn means backing another type of Brexit. Lib Dems don’t want any Brexit.

I can’t make it any more clear than that.

Corbyn needs to go.

[oldfordie]

So you're saying he DOES need to step down?

I assumed people would know the difference, he does not have to stand down as leader of the Labour party but he should allow someone else to be leader of any National government.

[TheShanklyGates]

You’re still not getting it - backing Corbyn means backing another type of Brexit. Lib Dems don’t want any Brexit.

I can’t make it any more clear than that.

Corbyn needs to go.

See Ghost Town's post. It would be a temporary arrangement with a very narrow mandate to stop Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson taking us out on the 31st of October with no deal. I'm not expecting the Lib Dems or the Tories or anyone else to endorse Corbyn's unicorns and rainbows Brexit nonsense. If they can't cobble something together though then we end up with no deal.

[oldfordie]

See Ghost Town's post. It would be a temporary arrangement with a very narrow mandate to stop Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson taking us out on the 31st of October with no deal. I'm not expecting the Lib Dems or the Tories or anyone else to endorse Corbyn's unicorns and rainbows Brexit nonsense. If they can't cobble something together though then we end up with no deal.

Yeah, I think Corbyns already made his bed on this, all we've heard is him demanding the public have a say with another GE so I can't see him having any arguments if he tells the alliance they have to give him a chance to get a new deal and they refuse. they will just tell him to tell it to the voters and not us.
I wish there was a way for the alliance to bring about another referendum, it's not going to happen unless it's Mays deal/no deal v remain. Corbyn won't back this option so it will be a GE.

[Iska]

There seems to be a big misunderstanding here about what a post-VoNC Government of National Unity would be there to do, and how long it would last.  The whole point of a cobbled together GoNU would be to : 1) prevent crashing out on Oct 31 by 2) requesting an extension from the EU and 3) set up a GE to ascertain who would form the next government.

That's it

Precisely (subject to agreeing exactly what 2 and 3 should be).  That’s why I was so upset at Lucas’s intervention yesterday, because she had been one of the ‘neutral’ figures who might have usefully led it.  It’s about one thing only, but she tried to make it about two things, and did it badly to boot.  It doesn’t need special membership and it doesn’t need ‘a different approach’, it just needs to do those three things and then bow out.

[TepidT2O]

Imagine if we didn’t have that useless c*nt as leader of the opposition...

How different might the world look?

[Zeb]

"What did you during the Brexit crisis, daddy?"
"I got myself deselected as an MP when I voted down the government and voted for a general election straight afterwards. We got a few more weeks in the EU, so it wasn't all bad."

[TheShanklyGates]

"What did you during the Brexit crisis, daddy?"
"I got myself deselected as an MP when I voted down the government and voted for a general election straight afterwards. We got a few more weeks in the EU, so it wasn't all bad."

There is a majority (in principle anyway, although whether there is one in practice remains to be seen) in the current House of Commons against no deal. Unless enough MPs suddenly have a drastic change of heart there isn't a majority in favour of anything else though.

This is all heading towards an election one way or another and I personally would rather that election didn't happen after we've already crashed out or with the 31st of October date looming large over the campaign. To avoid that you need an extension from the EU and to get that you probably need to get rid of the current government.

[Zeb]

There is a majority (in principle anyway, although whether there is one in practice remains to be seen) in the current House of Commons against no deal. Unless enough MPs suddenly have a drastic change of heart there isn't a majority in favour of anything else though.

This is all heading towards an election one way or another and I personally would rather that election didn't happen after we've already crashed out or with the 31st of October date looming large over the campaign. To avoid that you need an extension from the EU and to get that you probably need to get rid of the current government.

Doing it straight after the 31st October, having brought the government down after three months of that government building up that date, would be bonkers. To do it when the best possible result looking likely is another hung parliament, only with no Tory 'moderates' to rebel, would make it performance politics rather than actually tackling the problem.

[TheShanklyGates]

Doing it straight after the 31st October, having brought the government down after three months of that government building up that date, would be bonkers. To do it when the best possible result looking likely is another hung parliament, only with no Tory 'moderates' to rebel, would make it performance politics rather than actually tackling the problem.

How do you solve the problem without an election then? Even if the opposition parties can put aside their differences on the Brexit issue, there are far too many differences between them for a unity government to be stable enough to actually govern for any considerable length of time. In an ideal world there'd be a majority for a referendum or revoking article 50 in the current parliament but there isn't.

[Zeb]

How do you solve the problem without an election then? Even if the opposition parties can put aside their differences on the Brexit issue, there are far too many differences between them for a unity government to be stable enough to actually govern for any considerable length of time. In an ideal world there'd be a majority for a referendum or revoking article 50 in the current parliament but there isn't.

I don't know if it can be solved with or without an election. One of my criticisms of Lucas' proposal was her idea that a government would have no other policies. That's disingenuous if you're talking about legislating for a referendum and then implementing its result. If common ground can be found on some issues then it would make sense to 'prep' things before any vote - much as Johnson is doing right now.

My main point about an election though is that holding it immediately afterwards wouldn't be a great idea, to put it mildly, and so then you need a government which can at least perform the rudiments of governing. There is some common ground there on a few things I suspect - housing, prisons/law and order, social security... Personally, I'd prefer the option where someone like Ken Clarke or Stephen Pound (both retiring) take the job for a limited period and revoke Article 50 and get it over with. Don't think that's on the cards either.

[TheShanklyGates]

I don't know if it can be solved with or without an election. One of my criticisms of Lucas' proposal was her idea that a government would have no other policies. That's disingenuous if you're talking about legislating for a referendum and then implementing its result. If common ground can be found on some issues then it would make sense to 'prep' things before any vote - much as Johnson is doing right now.

My main point about an election though is that holding it immediately afterwards wouldn't be a great idea, to put it mildly, and so then you need a government which can at least perform the rudiments of governing. There is some common ground there on a few things I suspect - housing, prisons/law and order, social security... Personally, I'd prefer the option where someone like Ken Clarke or Stephen Pound (both retiring) take the job for a limited period and revoke Article 50 and get it over with. Don't think that's on the cards either.

I don't think it's a great idea, I just think it's the least worst option that is at least somewhat achievable. I think an election held after the 31st of October, or even before then but with an extension beyond that date already secured, would be less likely to give Johnson a majority - he'd lose a lot of votes to Frottage given he's made a big song and dance about definitely coming out on that date no matter what.

Pretty much all the options are now fraught with risk or unrealistic to varying degrees unfortunately. What was it Tusk said in April? 'Do not waste this time'. What a gang of twats our politicians are.

[Zeb]

I don't think it's a great idea, I just think it's the least worst option that is at least somewhat achievable. I think an election held after the 31st of October, or even before then but with an extension beyond that date already secured, would be less likely to give Johnson a majority - he'd lose a lot of votes to Frottage given he's made a big song and dance about definitely coming out on that date no matter what.

Pretty much all the options are now fraught with risk or unrealistic to varying degrees unfortunately. What was it Tusk said in April? 'Do not waste this time'. What a gang of twats our politicians are.

Just seems as unachievable as other options with fewer upsides (or rather none) for a significant number of those needed to back it. "Would you like to be a government minister for a couple of months while we have an election campaign? Try not to do a Chris Grayling while you're there and Parliament's shut."

Although it would be par for the course for another session of can kicking to take place and the election to be in the aftermath of it. Kind of suspect that Johnson is aiming to force that kind of result. 

edit: heh, wrote that, turned on twitter. Channel Four's Paul McNamara:

Sources tell us CCHQ are trying to fill no-hope seats before conference - seats you only bother with just before an election.

Ealing Central advertised today (Labour majority more than 13,000).

Sources also tell us Conservative HQ are currently war gaming 2 scenarios:

1) election imminent

2) election in spring

[filopastry]

I don't think it's a great idea, I just think it's the least worst option that is at least somewhat achievable. I think an election held after the 31st of October, or even before then but with an extension beyond that date already secured, would be less likely to give Johnson a majority - he'd lose a lot of votes to Frottage given he's made a big song and dance about definitely coming out on that date no matter what.

Pretty much all the options are now fraught with risk or unrealistic to varying degrees unfortunately. What was it Tusk said in April? 'Do not waste this time'. What a gang of twats our politicians are.

I totally agree that while we would love to have a caretaker government that could take us through another referendum, it is pretty much impossible to see that happening with the current breakdown of MPs, I think the estimate is that we need at least 22 weeks to arrange and hold a second ref. I don't think the public would be happy to see a govt sitting there twiddling its thumbs for 22 weeks waiting for the ref to happen either.

I'm not even optimstic about getting  the votes to just form govt, ask for extension and call a GE.

You can almost ignore the LibDems in all this, its the Tory Remainers who are the problem, there is no majority for  a govt without a few of them, especially when you consider that the likes of Hoey would probably vote against as well

[Riquende]

A no deal outcome was not being entertained as a realistic prospect back in 2017 if memory serves me correctly. I don't remember any of the parties, not even UKIP, saying that no deal was their preferred outcome back then. 

Things have changed as well you know.

'No deal' wasn't mentioned at the time because there wasn't a deal to unite against I guess. Summer '18 saw 'Chequers' which saw a few resignations before being sidelined, and then 'May's Deal' was... December? She refused to have a vote on it before Christmas.

The ones who were always going to reject any deal in pursuit of a 'clean break' were always going to have to wait until a deal had been agreed before they could angrily reject it.

[Lush is the best medicine...]

Imagine if we didn’t have that useless c*nt as leader of the opposition...

How different might the world look?

go a bit further for the unions to back the non shit Miliband brother like the members did...

[Jiminy Cricket]

See Ghost Town's post. It would be a temporary arrangement with a very narrow mandate to stop Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson taking us out on the 31st of October with no deal. I'm not expecting the Lib Dems or the Tories or anyone else to endorse Corbyn's unicorns and rainbows Brexit nonsense. If they can't cobble something together though then we end up with no deal.

I have no problem with Corbyn being PM in principle (purely as leader of GoNU) to prevent the UK crashing out of Europe. But there is a massive problem with this: Corbyn has proven himself to be totally untrustworthy. Voters, MPs from other parties, even MPs from his own party cannot trust him to do what he is meant to do in that situation.

[Alan_X]

I have no problem with Corbyn being PM in principle (purely as leader of GoNU) to prevent the UK crashing out of Europe. But there is a massive problem with this: Corbyn has proven himself to be totally untrustworthy. Voters, MPs from other parties, even MPs from his own party cannot trust him to do what he is meant to do in that situation.

Untrustworthy and also a mediocre politician.

[Jiminy Cricket]

Untrustworthy and also a mediocre politician.

You are being way too kind.

[TepidT2O]

You are being way too kind.

Way way way too kind.

[Lush is the best medicine...]

Untrustworthy and also a mediocre politician.

so shit a job they’re doing that Chris Williamson is suing them over his suspension, actually want him to win it

[TepidT2O]

so shit a job they’re doing that Chris Williamson is suing them over his suspension, actually want him to win it

Interesting....
Given that it’s taken 18 months to kick out a Holocaust  denier, I could be a long time before he gets anything....

God bless the new speedy process eh?