Read the whole story, and you get 34% leave with no deal, 22% to revoke Article 50, and 20% for another referendum. If that’s a shift of opinion, it’s a firming up of the Brexiteers, in a still split electorate.
Chesterton summed it up nicely a century ago, when you still had people arguing that the rich were the ones who “really” had a stake in the country, so should have more say in governing it than the proles:
Still? 2 American elections ago you had candidates complaining that the proles didn’t have “skin in the game”.
I think that, in a nutshell, that shows Corbyn’s unsuitability for the top job. He has a golden opportunity and by insisting on his own leadership and his lust for glory, he fucks it up completely.
well exactly, a “unity” government needs a unity candidate, something Corbyn could never be (even for his own MP’s) Clarke or Harman are infinitely better and more sensible options and if Corbyn cannot see that then he is an idiot (and I do think he is an idiot)
That was pretty much the position after the EU elections as well. “no deal” ends up as the most popular single, clear course of action. Those not sold on that are fragmented in what they actually do want
Good luck for anyone administration dealing with that.
The only things that could reasonably done before Halloween are a no-deal, revocation, or the previously-denied deal. So while there are weird people who would prefer a revocation but a hard Brexit would be their second-best choice, a three-way ranked choice referendum would not necessarily come out with no deal as the winner.
Reminds me of the Canadian Conservative Reform Alliance Party.
What is the point of UKIP, when there’s also a Brexit Party? Keeping track of Nigel Farage’s resignations is too difficult.
Farage has other fish to fry and bigger ambitions than just Brexit, despite his party’s name. He’s all for “direct democracy” and, among other things, politicising the juridical and para-juridical systems (like the Electoral Commission).
Rump UKIP on the other hand don’t fancy being also-rans in Farage’s one-man band (that’s why he and they kept falling out when he was in UKIP) - they have egos and prejudices of their own.
Yeah, but there’s not a great deal of distance between those who would favor revoking Article 50 and those who favor a second referendum. I would imagine that pretty much everyone who would outright revoke Article 50 would choose a second referendum if that was the only option on the table.
I agree that a unity PM candidate would be best, but if Corbyn puts his foot down, then I think the other Remain parties and factions should acquiesce. A temporary Corbyn-led government for a few weeks or months is surely preferable to the decades-long effects of Brexit. The other Remain parties would need assurances from Corbyn that he wouldn’t push any non-Brexit-related agenda while at the controls.
Is that true? I understand the Catholic birth rate in Northern Ireland is higher (for reasons unknown, I don’t think it’s the “every sperm is sacred thing”) so the territory will eventually be majority Catholic.
Of course, this data is over a decade old. Maybe the Catholic birth rate has dropped.
I don’t think people can trust Corbyn. Would he step down? He’d probably need to be forced out.
He’s Leader of the Opposition. The right to form a government - if Johnson cannot - falls on his shoulders. If he can’t - and I suspect he won’t be able to - then either Clarke or Harman are the obvious choices.
The reason Corbyn is unacceptable as a leader, temporary or otherwise, is that he wants Brexit. Brexit needs to be stopped, it needs to be permanently taken off the table. Not postponed, not renegotiated, but stopped completely. There’s no reason for the Lib Dems, the SNP, or anyone else who agrees with this to support Corbyn as leader.
There’s a good article in the Guardian today about Labour. Corbyn has been constantly demanding a general election for ages, and he wants to hold a general election rather than a referendum. But… Labour is utterly and hopelessly unprepared for a general election, and little can be done about that in the next few months.
Jeremy Corbyn wants a general election, but is his party ready to fight one?
Specifically, Corbyn’s suggestion is to have it badged as a “unity” government. Something other than simply letting the main opposition run things. His attempt to put himself forward as that “unity” figure is laughable.
He is seen (rightly in my opinion) as a non-starter as such a figurehead. If he really is serious about it then there are multiple other candidates who should have been put forward before him.
Pretty much every labour supporter I’ve spoken to on this sees him as a divisive figure who is angling this for his own benefit, not the country’s.
But Jeremy Corbyn is Leader of the Opposition. He’s the only one who can absolutely guarantee a VONC takes place at all.
You seem to be suggesting that it should never be possible, in the future, to leave the E.U. Exactly how is that going to be decided?
And that is utterly irrelevant for this situation. The precedents for a unity government do not require an opposition leader to be the head.
Ok, permanently was perhaps an exaggeration. Replace that with “for the forseeable future”. It’s become extremely clear that we can’t leave the EU without serious harm being done to the country, and unless that changes the idea of leaving should not even come up.
And the best way to guarantee that the VONC will be won by the opposition is for there to be an acceptable alternative to Johnson, which Corbyn is not.