I must admit to a secret wish that Brexit gets stopped at the last minute because it will royally fuck all those wealthy people hedging against economic chaos, and JRM in particular.
The point is that Sandwich just patiently and in detail explained why this isn’t so.
I’m guessing that he wasn’t named “Johnson”. Where did the Johnson come from? If he was named Johnson- is that unusual?
Thankyou, Dr and Baron, for the ignorance-reduction. That’s so deeply ironic I’m surprised I didn’t see more public hay being made out of it before (though tbf at the time of the original vote I wasn’t paying enough attention because I was sure they’d lose…)
Sandwich showed in great detail how Corbyn is enabling Johnson. If you have a better explanation than mine as to why Corbyn is doing that, please share it.
Osman Kemal used his middle name and grandmother’s maiden name, becoming Wilfred Johnson, according to the Wiki page on Boris’ father Stanley. It’s not something I would consider unusual, especially for the time.
No, Sandwich showed that all the things you keep saying Corbyn should have done would have either led directly the thing they were trying to prevent or to a reduced ability to prevent that thing.
There is also a compelling argument that Corbyn is a terrible and ineffective party and Opposition leader but that doesn’t detract from the point that the approach you have put forth would not remotely have worked as suggested and would have simply made things worse.
The only reason it won’t work is because Corbyn opposes it.
Oh, no, I meant if the Turkish name was Johnson. Lots of people in America changed their last names to sound less ethnic. I once had a girlfriend named Romanowski whose sister just used Roman.
The numbers were there and the only sticking point was Corbyn.
Make of that what you will
This is what the various opposition parties are discussing today. As usual, it appears that Corbyn is the one without a plan.
Boris has a #metoo complaint out apparently.
just the one?
I genuinely don’t understand how you can think that. There are about 650 MPs (not that I bothered to check, so could be a fair bit out). How can the numbers have been there, but the one and only dissenter was Corbyn? Wouldn’t he be outvoted about 650 to one? If instead the numbers were almost in balance but literally one short, then there are about 300 or so other MPs who were exactly the same sticking point as Corbyn. At the risk of appearing sarcastic or insulting, do you understand that the only qualification to lead a government of national unity is to enjoy the confidence of half the House of Commons, plus one?
Perhaps you mean that if Corbyn had supported an alternative then it would have gone through, because he has influence. Perhaps, but that means that not only Corbyn but also hundreds of other Labour MPs would have had to support an alternative. It doesn’t seem accurate to state that it was just Corbyn then? I mean, if the Lib Dems and remainer Tories would only have supported Corbyn, then we would have had a national unity government just as they wanted. So isn’t each of them also the one and only sticking point? Can there really be many “one and only sticking point”?
Perhaps you mean that as Leader of HM Opposition, Corbyn had and has the legal power to single-handedly frustrate this cunning plan? Short answer, since we are discussing by soundbite: he doesn’t.
I mean, it’s nice and all to nitpick other people’s arguments, and it is after all what all of us, inside and outside Parliament have been doing for three years now. But how about addressing the main point? What exactly, was this wonderful hypothetical national unity government going to do, in the short, medium and long terms? What would the outcome we have been cruelly denied by that nasty man have looked like?
I think (but could well be wrong) that Corbyn’s critics think there was and is some way of staying in the EU but not having a Corbyn-led Labour-led government. I don’t think we can remain in the EU without a Labour-led government. There is no feasible way, in my opinion, of getting from here to there.
Clearly, it needn’t be a Corbyn-led Labour Party in government, but I think it is cynically disingenuous in the extreme to say that it is Corbyn who is acting as a hyper-partisan here. If Corbyn’s critics within the Labour Party get a majority for a new leader then that will happen. Lib Dems and Tories do not get a vote in this. If Lib Dems and remainer Tories can’t stomach a Corbyn-led government and would prefer a hard no-deal Brexit, then they have to own that decision and accept it as their own partisan political decision. If that happens, it would not be solely or even jointly Jeremy Corbyn’s fault.
In other words, if the British people wanted a right wing government while staying in the EU, then they should have voted for right wing politicians who were committed to staying in the EU. If people want to stay in the EU, then they have to recognise that an overwhelming majority of the MPs who their fellow remainers voted into Parliament are socialists, and that remaining now must mean a socialist government. Surely, the commentators braying for power to the people, can’t object to that?
Sandwich
Edited to add: I mean I don’t think we can remain in the EU without a general election which returns a Labour-led administration, not that any government of national unity must be a Labour government. Sorry if that wasn’t clear.
I read the article. It seemed to me to state fairly clearly that Corbyn has a plan, and that his plan is exactly what I thought it was. It also seemed fairly clear that Swinson’s plan is that she will back no deal rather than have Corbyn lead any interim government. Which is her right. Personally, I am not seeing the point, since whoever leads an interim government, any decision to stay in the EU will only stick if Labour win the general election held shortly after.
Labour, or at least their leadership, want to leave. They have made this very clear on multiple occasions. The only way we don’t leave is to get rid of Johnson immediately, get an extension, and get a government that wants to stay in - which means one in which the Lib Dems and SNP hold the balance of power.
Corbyn would be a disaster for the country, just as Johnson is. Both will take us out of Europe, and neither have a workable plan for running the country after that. If forced to make a binary choice it would have to be Johnson, as the Tory plans will wreck the country somewhat more slowly, meaning that if common sense eventually prevailed and we went crawling back to the EU, there would be marginally less damage to fix.
Or, common sense could prevail now, and we could actually try not to leave in the first place. Sadly it looks like too many Labour MPs are remaining loyal to Corbyn, putting their careers before the country, for that to happen.
Not at all. Don’t mistake a negotiating position for the final position.
And don’t forget about all the expelled Tories, the Independent group, and Plaid Cymru, who also don’t want Corbyn as PM if it can possibly be avoided. The SNP have already said they are okay with it.
When it comes to the crunch, they will all act together and avoid no-deal whatever it takes. But it hasn’t come to the crunch yet, so they still talking and bargaining. They still have a week or two to see how things play out.
Corbyn is strongly opposed to a no-deal Brexit. He would probably go for a Norway-type deal.
I’m not understanding what you are having trouble with.
There were enough remain and dissenting tories plus labour plus Lib dem plus others to hold the balance in a vote of no confidence and to install a unity government.
However, those numbers only stood a chance of coalescing if the head of that unity governement was someone other than Corbyn. If he insists on leading that governement then the numbers aren’t there.
Considering that the only point of that temporary government would be to gain an extension and a new GE, having a more neutral figure at the helm makes perfect sense. Doing so seems costs him nothing other than his ego or perhaps there are reasons as yet unclear to me.
Corbyn wants to leave the EU. That makes him unacceptable as Prime Minister.
Even as interim PM of a unity government, to request an extension and call a general election?