Spearthrower wrote:The DUP though have to be eyeing the approaching deadline with trepidation as it will ensure a new border between RoI and the UK which they can't support.

Why can't they support that? It's the strength of the union between NI and UK, and distance from the ROI, that is all important to the DUP.

Let him see her eyeball to eyeball, hear the obduracy for himself: no border of any kind, visible or not, crossing the Irish Sea shall divide Northern Ireland from the rest of the UK. That’s who its MPs are, what they eat and fire-breathe, their only purpose on Earth. Do they care what happens on the Irish border? Not as much as the holy UK bond across the Irish Sea: the DUP was against the Good Friday agreement in the first place.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ene-foster

The DUP want a hard border as they want to destroy the GFA which they have been against.

Spearthrower wrote:
I'm not sure any potential caretaker government could get ERG support as they want out of the EU regardless, so a BoJo no deal is perfect for them. I haven't done the math, but I assume that there's more than ample numbers of other MPs to form a government even in the total absence of ERG support? The DUP though have to be eyeing the approaching deadline with trepidation as it will ensure a new border between RoI and the UK which they can't support.

Maybe there is scope to get support from some brexiteer MPs (we can assume the ERG and DUP will support BJ) if there is prospect of either deal or no Brexit. Any strongly pro EU MP will surely alienate all those MPs who are committed to "respecting the referendum".

I there reason to think that any MP could command enough support to win a VONC and confidenence of the house?

I really doubt it Graham. Corbyn is not the person. I cant see Clark doing it as you would need all of the Labour party MP's behind him.

GrahamH wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:The DUP though have to be eyeing the approaching deadline with trepidation as it will ensure a new border between RoI and the UK which they can't support.

Why can't they support that? It's the strength of the union between NI and UK, and distance from the ROI, that is all important to the DUP.

Because it would be almost inevitably result in more troubled times that no sane person wants. No doubt there are some crackpots in the party, but there's got to be sufficient memory and experience there not to want to return to those days.

GrahamH wrote:
I there reason to think that any MP could command enough support to win a VONC and confidenence of the house?

I am sure there are people doing the math, but we'll only know for sure once the no confidence vote passes.

Spearthrower wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:The DUP though have to be eyeing the approaching deadline with trepidation as it will ensure a new border between RoI and the UK which they can't support.

Why can't they support that? It's the strength of the union between NI and UK, and distance from the ROI, that is all important to the DUP.

Because it would be almost inevitably result in more troubled times that no sane person wants. No doubt there are some crackpots in the party, but there's got to be sufficient memory and experience there not to want to return to those days.

That seems like a big assumption. Have the DUP made clear that the border issue is more important to them than leaving the EU?
Clearly no border in the Irish sea is more important to them than a land border with ROI. They strongly oppose the backstop and call the issue a "con" so they may not be feeling that trepidation. They may be relishing no deal.

Exactly Graham. The mentality of DUP is something else.

GrahamH wrote:
That seems like a big assumption. Have the DUP made clear that the border issue is more important to them than leaving the EU?

Sometime round the end of last year, Foster in a meeting with Barnier and the EU, Foster said that the situation wasn't binary - either a hard border in Ireland or in the Irish sea, and that there were other possibilities that could work for everyone, so I don't think they're seeing it in those either/or terms of leave EU or not have a border. With 56% of Northern Irish voters choosing remain, I would imagine they'd need to consider their own immediate political future too.

GrahamH wrote:Clearly no border in the Irish sea is more important to them than a land border with ROI.

My sense, and I may be wrong hardly having followed every utterance from them, is that they'd prefer neither.

GrahamH wrote:They strongly oppose the backstop and call the issue a "con" so they may not be feeling that trepidation. They may be relishing no deal.

All I can tell from it is that they seem to be as lacking in inspiration as everyone else when it comes to resolving the difficult elements of Brexit to general satisfaction.

GrahamH wrote:

zerne wrote:

Beatsong wrote:You're over-thinking it. Accepted constitutional convention says that when a vote of no confidence succeeds against the government, the leader of the opposition has first crack at forming a government that can command confidence. Pretty obvious really as the opposition is (by definition) the next largest party after the one that has just failed.

In this case, it's even more simple because all an interim government has to DO - and all anyone it talking about it doing - is delay brexit and call an election. Noone is being asked to support Corbyn's economic policy or foreign policy.

So it should be pretty easy, right? cos the Lib Dems, so I hear, are totally, unequivocally committed to stopping Brexit. They'd never let petty political squabbling and point scoring get in the way of doing so, unlike those terrible cynical Labour people...

As a logical beginning point, following convention is fine. I can accept that. Hopefully there is room for negotiation with the Labour Party on this and it develops. Plenty of better candidates.

But why have Labour involved as PM or deputy at all? If they were serious and wanted to do this well, wouldn't it make more sense to have a rebel Conservative PM? It highlights the division there and the split that makes it necessary. Have a Lib Dem deputy. That way Labour can maintain their ambivalence around Brexit and avoid the worst of the backlash of what will undoubtedly be dubbed "THE GREAT BETRAYAL"

There's is surely an very obvious reason why you can't have a LibDem leader of a unity government. They have an extreme position on Brexit that cannot possibly unite the parliament or the country. If the primary objective is to stop a no deal Brexit and it will take the support of moderate MPs to do that you can't start by wearing a "Bollocks to Brexit" T-shirt.


In that sense Corbyn is a better choice as he and the Labour party have until recently tried to take a moderate centrist position on Brexit. Deliver on the referendum but with a deal that protects jobs, rights and economy. In policy terms they have a better chance of drawing moderates from wither side They could work with SNP and Lib Dems and Ken Clarke.

Of course Corbyn phobia and other concerns is likely to override Brexit.

It is laughable to describe the Lib Dem position on Brexit as extreme since it is very similar to Labour's current position. The extreme position is the path that Bojo is taking, one that bypasses Parliament. Since this Unity Government s only to prevent this move by Johnson's cabinet, their overall policy on Brexit for Labour or the Lib Dems is irrelevant and doesn't come into play until the GE.

If the plan is to remove Boris Johnson as PM through a vote of no confidence then you require an MP that CAN command a majority of support in the house. Someone who can win a vote of no confidence. Corbyn is not that person. He is not popular, nor held in high regard and if you plan on taking down a Conservative government you need a candidate that appeals to the Tory rebels that you are relying on to succeed. Corbyn isn't that candidate.

Zerne wrote:If the plan is to remove Boris Johnson as PM through a vote of no confidence then you require an MP that CAN command a majority of support in the house. Someone who can win a vote of no confidence. Corbyn is not that person. He is not popular, nor held in high regard and if you plan on taking down a Conservative government you need a candidate that appeals to the Tory rebels that you are relying on to succeed. Corbyn isn't that candidate.

That I entirely agree with. I doubt that there is an MP that can do that.

GrahamH wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

GrahamH wrote:Who could lead a caretaker government?

Kenneth Clarke seems to fit the bill.

What is the bill?

Mr Clarke, who has drawn up high-profile plans for a softer Brexit, is arguably the most talented Conservative MP in modern history to have never become leader of the party. Critics and fans alike agree the 78-year-old MP for Rushcliffe never quite made it to the top because of his stubborn support for the EU — which at one point included backing UK membership of the euro.

https://www.ft.com/content/42c75142-548 ... e89bedc16e

I can't see him getting support from The ERG, the DUP or most of those who gave their support to BJ in the leadership contest. Are you aware of any stats that indicate he could win the confidence of the house? Is he just too pro EU to do that?

He doesn't need the support of the ERG or DUP, just enough support to oppose what they are doing. Ken Clarke's a good choice for leading a rebellion against the government as he is well respected and unlikely to drive away supporters who are uncomfortable with Bojo. Lib Dems would be fine with him as would rebel Tory MPs.

zerne wrote:He doesn't need the support of the ERG or DUP, just enough support to oppose what they are doing. Ken Clarke's a good choice for leading a rebellion against the government as he is well respected and unlikely to drive away supporters who are uncomfortable with Bojo. Lib Dems would be fine with him as would rebel Tory MPs.

I agree. He's seen as non-partisan on this issue and at this stage of his career, isn't interested in leading the country so would be a safe pair of hands as a caretaker PM on brexit. Basically non-threatening to the other parties electoral ambitions, although I can't see Corbyn personally liking the idea at all.

Sendraks wrote:

zerne wrote:He doesn't need the support of the ERG or DUP, just enough support to oppose what they are doing. Ken Clarke's a good choice for leading a rebellion against the government as he is well respected and unlikely to drive away supporters who are uncomfortable with Bojo. Lib Dems would be fine with him as would rebel Tory MPs.

I agree. He's seen as non-partisan on this issue and at this stage of his career, isn't interested in leading the country so would be a safe pair of hands as a caretaker PM on brexit. Basically non-threatening to the other parties electoral ambitions, although I can't see Corbyn personally liking the idea at all.

Is Ken Clarke seen as non partisan on the EU? I think he is strongly pro-EU and well known for that. I suppose the test is to see if Brexit and "honor the referendum" MPs will support him.

GrahamH wrote:Is Ken Clarke seen as non partisan on the EU? I think he is strongly pro-EU and well known for that. I suppose the test is to see if Brexit and "honor the referendum" MPs will support him.

I didn't say anything about him being non-partisan on the EU.

He's non-partisan in that he will work across parties on the issue and isn't going to push a Tory manifesto on it.

So the question remains could a strongly pro-EU MP gain the confidence of the house and topple BJ?

From earlier this month:

We already know there are enough Conservative rebels to sink any legislation that would propel the UK towards no deal or to pass measures to prevent it from happening or to obstruct the prorogation of parliament.
Before recess, 17 Conservatives voted for Dominic Grieve’s amendment to the Northern Ireland bill, which was aimed at preventing prorogation, including the former ministers Alistair Burt, Sarah Newton, Margot James and Steve Brine.
Byelection defeat highlights Brexit urgency for Johnson
Read more

Newly backbench former cabinet ministers and ministers include the no-deal sceptics Philip Hammond, David Gauke, Greg Clark, David Mundell, Stephen Hammond and Tobias Ellwood.
It remains highly unpredictable what these MPs would do in a confidence vote if that was the only way of preventing no deal. Grieve and Ken Clarke are the only MPs who have said they would be willing to vote down their own government – and that may not be enough if rebels in other parties decide to go another way.
There is also the question of pro-Brexit rebels – the ones who sank Theresa May’s premiership – though many of them such as Priti Patel, Dominic Raab, Esther McVey and Jacob Rees-Mogg are now in Johnson’s cabinet.
There are some hard Eurosceptics such as Steve Baker still out in the cold, however, and one of them, Mark Francois, has suggested there are 60 pro-Brexit rebels willing to torpedo the withdrawal agreement even if the backstop is removed.
That is likely to be an overestimate – only 34 voted against May’s deal at the final vote – but it could be the case that Brexiters scupper any “great deal” that Johnson claims he can bring back.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... ies-labour

I can't help feeling that if a vote of no confidence and caretaker government was going to work it really needed to hit the ground running with broad recognition that no stopping no deal outweighed all other concerns. Corbyn fired the starting gun with his letter and SNP, Plaid, Greens and some Tory rebels have responded positively. But with the Lib Dems going in another direction and time being so short it seems no deal is just about unavoidable unless someone has a completely different cunning plan.

Maybe Rosie Slowe and Gina Miller will ride in at the last minute and save the day in court.

GrahamH wrote:I can't help feeling that if a vote of no confidence and caretaker government was going to work it really needed to hit the ground running with broad recognition that no stopping no deal outweighed all other concerns. Corbyn fired the starting gun with his letter and SNP, Plaid, Greens and some Tory rebels have responded positively. But with the Lib Dems going in another direction and time being so short it seems no deal is just about unavoidable unless someone has a completely different cunning plan.

Maybe Rosie Slowe and Gina Miller will ride in at the last minute and save the day in court.

I thought Corbyn's move offered a clear run, VONC, followed by a temporary govt, focused purely on Brexit. However, the Lib Dems have started the whataboutery, and I think that dooms it.

I think a government of national unity really does rely on ministers acknowledging that there has to be some element of unity somewhere in the process for it to have any chance at all. If all they're going to do is bicker about their differences, they're all contributing to a BoJo no deal.

Spearthrower wrote:I think a government of national unity really does rely on ministers acknowledging that there has to be some element of unity somewhere in the process for it to have any chance at all. If all they're going to do is bicker about their differences, they're all contributing to a BoJo no deal.

Where do you get "government of national unity" from? You're calling it that, suggesting that there's some particular requirement upon it beyond the normal requirement of having 50%+1 of MPs vote for it. There isn't. That requirement is the same whether those MPS are all from one party or from several. That's why there have been minority governments in the past, the coalition government of 2010 and the tories now governing with the help of the DUP.

NOONE is going "unify" the barrel of wrestling monkees that is our current parliament. Any caretaker government to replace BoJo won't have the support of the ERG and committed Brexiteers. Any Tory leader will only get through-gritted-teeth support at best from Labour and vice versa, for obvious reasons. Those who support brexit but not no-deal will be reluctant to support someone who is gung-ho for cancelling article 50 altogether. Those who oppose brexit altogether will be reluctant to support someone who still supports respecting the referendum result.

On that score, as mentioned upthread, Corbyn has actually held - and been vilified precisely for holding - the most undivisive, centrist position vis a vis brexit of anyone in parliament. He campaigned for Remain. When Leave won he acknowledged they had done so and that article 50 must be triggered. He has insisted that those who won the referendum have a right to see the result respected, while also admitting the obvious truth that doing so with no deal would be a catastrophe. He has consistently resisted the pressure from both extremes of his own party to take a more one-sided view. How can he possibly be a more divisive figure on this particular issue than Ken Clarke, who absolutely opposes brexit altogether and just wants it done away with?

The stupid thing is, it doesn't even matter. All the caretaker government has to do is get an extension out the EU and call a general election. Noone's being asked to support them to do anything else. This is just the Lib Dems trying to make political capital out of it. Which is fine, apart from the hypocrisy of them having criticised Labour for doing precisely that and set themselves up as the party of brave principle willing to do whatever's necessary to stop brexit.