Cont: Brexit: Now What? 9 Below Zero

[Lothian]

Oh. So Corbyn's hands are tied. It has to be him. Nothing to do with weapons-grade pig-headedness and being hell-bent on getting his way. Got it.

'Labour' will not be in Government
They will be part of a coalition government.

 

[SezMe]

Then why not move on? Either it's a waste of time or it's sad.

I suspect retaining royalty and all the fluff that goes with it to be a huge tourist draw and thus a not insignificant boost to the English (and UK?) economy.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

A caretaker PM will need to be a Primus Inter Pares ("first among equals") type of leader. More important than them is the coalition members managing to seat the right people in the right ministry chairs. So they need a PM who can parry and thrust and survive a good while totally alone in the spotlight and when they are finally VONC'd out, hopefully enough good solid work got done in the meantime to make some kind of difference. Shifts in leadership within the coalition could also be pre-arranged not to interfere with the ministry seating (as both important functions not to interrupt and also because that balance will probably be a major binding feature of the coalition).

 

[Samson]

It really starts looking like EU agreeing to an extension giving time to hold a referendum between status quo (equals stay), and a set list of arrangements for leaving.
Thus some semblance of order and reason will return. This would take a year but everyone could plan properly.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

How do you know that? Lots of people can not stand Corbyn

And he is leader of the Labour Party so they should stand behind him and not vote for someone else.

If someone else CAN get the numbers they can try of course.

Its just that idiot Swinson playing silly buggers at the minute.

 

[Mojo]

The thread title will have me dusting off my lime green vinyl copy of Don't Point Your Finger....

Will the next iteration reference Bobo Jenkins?

 

[The Don]

Will the next iteration reference Bobo Jenkins?

Not with a back catalogue which also includes "Democrat Blues", it won't


Though that's a heck of a level of knowledge about Mr Jenkins

 

[Francesca R]

If someone else CAN get the numbers they can try of course.

Yeah didn't think you did.

 

[Francesca R]

I suspect what may stop Corbyn playing self-important silly buggers and stand aside, would be emergence of perception that in the final analysis it was largely his fault the country left with no deal, because there was a clear chance to avert it that was ruined by Corbyn's personal brand of stupid.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Because he is Corbyn...

Exactly. Not because of the Lib Dems. Just like Johnson can't command a majority because he's Johnson, rather than because of the Lib Dems.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

But it's meant to be about national unity...

...which is why you need a leader that a majority can get behind.

I feel like you're deliberately on a wind-up, now.

 

[psionl0]

I think its a crime that the "royals" are enormously wealthy. As if they did anything to earn any of that. I think it's a bigger crime that people, an entire modern nation in the 21st century is willing to carry on such a charade. It's like the Kardashians on steroids. I guess it sells a lot of tabloids.

I understand that the Royal family is a net financial benefit to the UK.

Estimates that I have read suggest that the Sovereign Grant is costing UK taxpayers £82.2m this financial year. However they are said to contribute £1.8 billion to the economy of which £550 million comes from added tourism. These numbers appear to be debatable but it is evident that the Royal family is less costly than a popularly elected (or Parliamentary appointed) head of state.

In any case, there is little popular support for a UK Republic.

 

[Darat]

...which is why you need a leader that a majority can get behind.



I feel like you're deliberately on a wind-up, now.

No I'm not but the issue isn't Corbyn or LibDems it's the fact that no one is willing to let one of their political rivals become PM. The idea of a government national unity sounds good but no one is willing to do what is necessary.

 

[catsmate]

I understand that the Royal family is a net financial benefit to the UK.

Estimates that I have read suggest that the Sovereign Grant is costing UK taxpayers £82.2m this financial year. However they are said to contribute £1.8 billion to the economy of which £550 million comes from added tourism. These numbers appear to be debatable but it is evident that the Royal family is less costly than a popularly elected (or Parliamentary appointed) head of state.

In any case, there is little popular support for a UK Republic.

About 30% isn't "little popular support". It's peaked at over 50% at times, such as in 2009.

 

[Darat]

Off topic post deleted didn't realise what thread I was in!

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I don't think Ken Clarke has the support of Labour does he?

There are rumblings that he'd likely have the support of enough of them. Certainly more than Corbyn does from the Tories.

And not sure the SNP would back him as he wants to leave the EU.

They might back him if they felt he could be trusted not to exploit the system for his own ends and to instead negotiate a reasonable deal in good faith and hold a second referendum.

The thing is that Brexit has mainly been scuppered by May's "red lines". The Brexit that was originally promised by the Leave campaigners included things like staying in the customs union and retaining free movement. It was May who decided that a hardest-of-hard Brexits was the only possible path.

I think, at this stage, that most MPs would back a deal that didn't do too much damage to the UK, regardless of whether or not it's something they actually want - because they understand what the realistic alternatives are.

One way to make it work is to negotiate a Brexit that's more or less a Brexit-in-name-only, leaving us not dissimilar to Norway. Part of this leaving deal includes a timeline stretching over a period of years for slowly pulling out of other aspects of the EU. This reduces the negative impact of Brexit, allows the Brexiteers to claim that they've won (even if they don't feel like they have) and leaves everybody in a situation that they're not entirely happy with but can live with.

It can be sold to the public as something that's over and done with and all the continuing negotiations can go on in the background. More than that, they can be quietly forgotten and life can go on as normal, should that be what a future government wants. We could even re-join the EU at some point in the future relatively easily and perhaps even without much attention being drawn to it. Any further withdrawal or re-joining could even be sold as if it's a different matter entirely.

We'll still be worse off than we currently are, but everybody gets to save face, everybody gets to convince themselves that they've won, the damage is reduced as low as it possibly can be, and everybody can get on with their lives. It's far from ideal, but it's something that I think most MPs and most of the public could live with.

 

[Francesca R]

I understand that the Royal family is a net financial benefit to the UK.

I suspect they would accept a large cut in pay and benefits without resigning (the option to resign could be granted along with the compensation reduction).

Then their profitability would jump. They should welcome that, it being the only ethically defensible justification for their roles.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Labour Party rules, as I'm sure you know, say that the Leader of Party is the PM when the party is in Government.

A GNU would not be a Labour government.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

There is no question in my mind that both countries need a rewrite of their foundational laws. You need to dump the farce of royalties and birth rite titles not to mention the religious requirements. I'm all for checks and balances, but not one that is hereditary.

The royals have pretty much all been dumped as checks and balances. The role is almost entirely ceremonial. If it does come to the Queen exercising her powers it will be after extensive consultation with and on the advice of advisers.

As I say, if you want to have a rant in this direction you'd be better pressed to look to the House of Lords, who exercise their power all the time. There has been some reform there in recent years, but it's still a lot closer to what you're ranting against than the royal family are.

That said, I think there are benefits to people who act as checks and balances being unelected, in theory, at least. It prevents stacking in one direction. Here I'm thinking about the current US Senate, and Supreme Court.

In fact, after their Supreme Court loss one of the first things the current UK government started doing was talking about abolishing the Supreme Court in favour of judges who were politically appointed by the government. This, I think, would unquestionably be a less preferable arrangement.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

And he is leader of the Labour Party so they should stand behind him and not vote for someone else.

That doesn't make sense. If someone else could do a good job, is willing to do it, and will command more respect from their fellow MPs, then why vote for someone that you (for example) don't trust and think is incompetent? The idea that people should vote for him because he's the leader of a different party entirely makes no sense.