Thursday, August 15, 2019

No, Jeremy Corbyn didn't make a strategic mistake with his offer to stop No Deal

I was surprised to see an article on Stormfront Lite by Alastair Meeks today suggesting that Jeremy Corbyn has made a strategic mistake by offering to head a caretaker government to stop No Deal.  To me, it seems pretty obvious that an alternative government of any complexion isn't viable this side of an election - because the likes of Change UK won't back one led by Corbyn, and the vast bulk of Labour MPs will not feel able to back one led by anybody else.  That's exactly why Corbyn's move makes strategic sense.  He has the SNP and Caroline Lucas on side to demonstrate that if anyone is best-placed to form a government, he is, and that the only roadblock to a solution is a small number of dogmatic holdouts like Jo Swinson and Anna Soubry who themselves can't offer a remotely credible alternative.  The fourteen Lib Dem MPs plus Change UK plus Ken Clarke plus Harriet Harman does not exactly equal a majority.

It may be that Corbyn made very sure he had the SNP on side with carefully-choreographed comments from himself and John McDonnell about not blocking a second indyref.  We might have to wait for the memoirs to discover whether there was some sort of informal understanding between the Labour leadership and the SNP that brought us to this point.

So if a pre-election change of government isn't a runner, how can No Deal on 31st October be averted?  If MPs can't seize control of the process directly, I think what we might end up with is a successful vote of no confidence, followed up immediately by legislation to amend the Fixed Term Parliaments Act and prevent Boris Johnson delaying the general election until November.  It would be an awful lot easier for a majority of MPs to reach an agreement on that sort of legislation than on the identity of an alternative Prime Minister.


  1. Big error from Jo Swinson. She can hardly position herself as the leader of the #FBPE movement now: she won't even countenance a temporary Corbyn government purely to ask for an extension, meaning she thinks no deal would be a better outcome....

    People are entitled to ask: you won't go into coalition with Corbyn for five weeks, but you spent five years in bed with the Tories...???? I can't imagine that will be an easy position to defend in East Dunbartonshire.

    As for point 2, as a point of parliamentary procedure, could MPs seize control of the parliamentary timetable in the 14 days following a no-confidence vote to repeal the FTPA? I would have thought no new legislation could be introduced in that time.

    1. The Liberals made a massive error is choosing Tory Jo Swinson to lead them. They'd have been as well/badly off if they'd chosen Jeremy Hunt. They'll realise their mistake soon, if they haven't already.

  2. When I heard this on the radio news at around 7.00am this morning, I wondered who the very angry man was who was ranting about Mr Corbyn's letter and his endorsement of Mr McDonnell's statement that Labour would not block any second referendum on Scottish independence.

    When the interview - bilious howl - was over, it turned out that this had been the BBC Scotland's Westminster correspondent, Mr Nick Eardley.

    Did anyone else hear the interview and get a similar impression?

    1. I haven't watched or listened to BBC News since about 1999, so, No.

  3. Corbyn would bin Northern Ireland if he obtained power. He does not consider the loyalist working people in NI as working class but only the class enemy. He supports all sorts of onerous organisation and one in particular who want to wipe the Jews of the planet. Anyone who
    aligns themselves with Corbyn could pay the penalty and be deselected. Most of them will consider their wallet first.

    1. Most brexiters would bin N. Ireland and Scotland to achieve brexit, so this is hardly new from someone who's been a brexiter since day 1.

      I suspect Corbyn is hoping to get a majority in England so he can continue brexit sans the above two.

      I have no idea why you see brexiters in England as your brothers in arms, when poll after poll + their actions scream otherwise.

    2. The British Army are the only Brothers in Arms.

    3. You can't "bin" the Good Friday agreement. Any new trade treaty has to thru U S House. It's in our constitution, which we actually write down ( good idea if you've seen what is happening to yours). No way u s. House under Dems is gonna support a Drumph/ Boris agreement without support if Good Friday Agreement. Lots of Republicans will not in election year.

  4. "He does not consider the loyalist working people in NI as working class but only the class enemy."

    Marx would have called them the lumpenproletariat. If you were really working class, you'd know the difference.

    1. Marx would call people who sell their labour working class. The non Catholic workers in NI are working class. You should not presume what Marx would think.

  5. The problem with Corbyn is he doesn't care about Scotland or northern Ireland. He'd rather get rid of them to have a Brexit. He also wants to get rid of Kashmir which is currently split between the pakis and given it to the pakis. We don't like those bad ideas as we think they are not very nice. Greer. So we want a no Brexit deal with Boris.

  6. The Peterloo Massacre is being commemorated. The people wanted a democratic vote. We now have a democratic vote and the same old neo Liberal elite want to ignore the EU referendum result ignoring the people. Where is Oliver Cromwell, stand up Sir.

  7. If ye ken yer history. Cromwell was a war criminal.
    From a non English point of view anyway.

    1. What is the definition of a War Criminal? Ye Ken!

  8. As noted previously, drug control is a Westminster reserved matter.

    Drug deaths soar to highest level on record

    Drug deaths rose sharply in England and Wales to reach record numbers last year, official figures show.

    There were 2,917 deaths from illicit drugs in 2018, the Office of National Statistics said, a rise of 17%.

    Most deaths were due to opiates such as heroin, but cocaine deaths doubled in three years.

    Double the number of deaths of the EU average.

    1. This is happenng to Scotland and it's terrifying, and weirdly at the same time as UKgovs' refusal to allow Scotgov to make safe places for addicts. It's horrendous.

    2. link, if it works

  9. So, Scotland may stop England's brexit in the end. If this SNP-Corbyn pact thing works out that is. Scotland will even then go for independence while the UK remains in the EU, making it all much smoother.

    I'm sure that would go down really well in England, giving UK unionism a big boost.

    Question is, will Boris go for it or prefer English indy, which gives him a majority straight away? And solves the backstop.

    1. There's no chance the SNP will go for a ref in this parliament if Brexit is cancelled.

    2. Brexit isn't being cancelled though. The plan is to merely delay it, then hold a GE where some parties may offer a referendum on the agreed brexit deal, seeking public approval for it (which polling suggests they'll get).

      That might result in temporary 'cancellation' if it actually happens, and England votes for the greatest national humiliation in its entire history. Even that still doesn't stop brexit though, as the Tories/Brexit could then stand on a ticket for a different brexit (e.g. no deal) again at the next GE, once again threatening Scotland's place in the EU.

      The only way to ensure Scots get what they desire in terms of being in the EU is independence. That much is obvious to everyone. England is just too anti-Europe to risk staying in the UK.

      As it stands the latest polls suggest 52% back independence 'tomorrow' while the UK is still in the EU. So even if it remains, independence is seemingly in majority anyway. Hardly a surprise given 45% voted Yes when the UK was 'firmly' in the EU and the risk to a European Scotland was apparently independence.

      I think the SNP should offer a referendum between indy and staying in a brexited UK. This referendum could be held on the same day as one in England on cancelling brexit vs leaving with the deal/no deal. That would make sense.

      Obviously, if Lab/Lib/Con want to hold some other type of referendum in Scotland, they need to get a majority at Holyrood.

    3. Obviously, if Lab/Lib/Con want to hold some other type of referendum in Scotland, they need to get a majority at Holyrood.

      Err no. Just like the 1st EU ref any 2nd ref act would come from Westminster and cover the whole of the UK (and Gibraltar).

    4. So be forced on Scotland with no democratic mandate again? Doing that for brexit in Scotland and N. Irelend has really done wonders for UK unity. Let's save the UK by having the English force another unwanted referendum on Scotland! This time if the English vote to leave with the deal (or maybe no deal?), the Scots will be totally ignored again and just have to suck that up too? Is that the plan?

      Why isn't it EVEL? Scotland doesn't force its indyrefs on England. It's pure racism that it happens the other way. I mean what is the point of elections if it doesn't matter what the hell Scots vote?

      In a union of equals, at a 3/4 majority of nations should at least vote for such things before they can be UK wide.

      And what would be the fucking point exactly? Scotland voted to Remain. Only a total dumb fuck would waste millions asking Scots if they want to remain in the EU or not again.

    5. Hmmm, You don't seem to have accepted the 2014 referendum mandate nor the 2016 referendum mandate.

      I wonder why people don't offer Scots a mandate when they continually ignore referendum results.

    6. By "people", do you mean the Tory government in London? If so, the answer is simple: they don't offer Scotland a choice on its own future because they're imperialist autocrats.

      Do get back to us when you're ready to accept Scotland's overwhelming democratic decision in 2016 to remain in the European Union.

  10. Its not EVEL because its not a EVEL issue the UK is is the member state not England, Wales, Scotland, NI therefore its a UK wide issue.

    Can't see what the issue is, any second ref would be backed my the majority of UK parliament Sottish MPs (the SNP has already said they would back one), so there is the mandate.

    I think polling shows that the majority of people in Scotland want a second ref so cant see it being classed as unwanted.

    As for if the result went leave again I thought Scotland was on the cusp of Independence so that would not really matter would it?

    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    2. A moment ago you were saying a referendum pushed by 'Lab/Con/Lib'. Now it's the SNP.

      If it has the backing of a majority of Scots MPs it actually has a mandate like you say. They need to agree the question though, or there is no democratic mandate.

      The EUref was forced on Scotland and the EVEL route is completely possible.

      While the 'UK' is a member, the UK does not equal England as you so fervently point out. So, the brexit referendum could have been simply held in England and, if English folks had voted leave, England could have left the UK and the EU.

      Have you forgotten 2014? Was that not exactly what the case would have been for a Yes in Scotland?

      This is still perfectly possible. Wales and England can leave the UK and the EU, allowing the rUK of Scotland + N. Ireland to remain. Just needs article 50 withdrawn and EW to go for independence.

      Unless England = the UK (in England's eyes) and you are wrong?

    3. What a strange statement why would England & Wales want to leave the UK. The UK (as thing stands) is leaving the UK. If Scotland does not like the direction that the UK is taken then its the own that needs to leave to tread its own path. Labour will probably be in power (maybe with the SNP propping them up) so there will be no problem getting a section 30.

    4. *leaving the EU

    5. Why would England + Wales not want to leave the UK if Scotland and N. Ireland voted remain and England + wales voted Leave? It's the obvious, friendly solution to the problem where everyone gets what they want. Scotland and N. Ireland surely have the right to the UK's place in the EU if England + Wales don't want it?

      This is exactly what Scotland was doing in 2014. Why on earth could England + Wales not do the same?

      Polling even shows people who voted brexit down south are happy to wave goodbye to Scotland + N. Ireland to achieve brexit if needs be. So it's not a case of 'Why would they want it!' but they actually are happy with the idea.

      Unless you are suggesting England thinks the UK - and so the UK's place in the EU - belongs to it? That the other nations are it's colonies?

      England and Wales voted to 'leave' both Scotland and N. Ireland who vote to 'Remain'. The leavers should leave the UK and it's place in the EU to those that didn't vote for change. This is, as noted, exactly what was the case in 2014. Why should England + Wales be able to get things a different way?

    6. They don't need to leave the UK becasue the (currently) the UK is leaving the EU. Scotland does not want to follow that path so it has a choice stick with the UK out of the EU, or go for Indy.

      People 'down south' don't need to get rid of Scotland & NI to get Brexit yes, but as we are leaving anyhow there is no need.

      Anyhow as i said soon you will have Corbyn probably backed by the SNP so a speedy indy ref. I'm assuming you think that yes will win and there will be a speedy entry to the EU for an indy Scotland; no need to worry about England /Wales do then.

    7. I notice you just cannot find a way around what I have stated. There is absolutely no reason why England can’t stop article 50 then go for independence (along with wales) outside the EU, letting Scotland + N. Ireland stay in as the rUK. Scotland 2014 exactly, but for England +/- Wales. This could have been done from the start.

      If England was a good neighbour and friend to Scotland + N. Ireland, that is exactly what it would do / would have done.

      But as you are making very clear, England not a friend of Scotland; it thinks it owns the UK and can cancel EU membership for all home nations even if half of them still want it. What kind of friend is one that when they no longer want something shared, would rather smash it to bits in front of everyone than give it to those friends that still do? Not a friend, but an enemy.

      But then polls suggest that many in England are the friends of Scots and would be ok with the UK coming to an end so that Scotland + N. Ireland can remain in the EU. These people are the true friends of Scotland. Maybe Corbyn and McDonnell are examples if they will not try to stand in the way of Scots freely making that decision. We shall see.

    8. The UK as a whole (it was a UK wide referendum) voted to leave the EU. Currently the UK is therefore leaving the EU. It's not a case of being friendly its a case of the UK is leaving if you want to remain part of the UK then you are leaving the EU as per the referendum result. If not then you need to make the case for Independence and leave the UK (as you say Corbyn etc will not stand in your way).

      Honestly cant see your problem, yes is on 52 going to 60% if its a hard exit. Once you leave the you can join the EU. Seems perfectly easy.

    9. The EU referendum was not UK-wide. It was UK+Gibraltar wide; the latter is not part of the UK.

      It was held in 4 different legal jurisdictions so was legally 4 referendums held simultaneously. If you wanted to dispute the Scottish result, you'd do so in Scotland.

      The original referendum should have been EVEL as only a majority there voted for it. The UK government was under absolutely no obligation to hold it UK-wide. After failing to get mandates for it in all but England, they chose to force it on 4/5 of the nations. It was entirely a choice.

      Secondly, the result was only advisory. There was absolutely no legal obligation to go ahead with brexit at all, never mind forcing it to be UK + Gibraltar wide. There was a democratic obligation, but only for England and Wales. 3/5 nations and 3/4 legal jurisdictions opposed brexit; a massive landslide majorities.

      So again, it was simple choice by England to force brexit on Scotland, N. Ireland and Gibraltar. There was no law requiring this nor democratic mandate.

      If England was a friend, it would have moved to independence +/- Wales just as Scotland would have done in 2014.

      It is not brexit which is breaking the UK, but this action by England, or, specifically, the current EVEL English government, which is acting like it owns the UK union and Gibraltar.

      An overwhelming majority of Scots agreed that it is a democratic outrage, with 62% ex DK saying so. These are the 6/10 that will vote Yes as per the BBC projections for a no deal.

      Anyway, I rest my case, which according to recent polling, won.

  11. I still expect an October election so that Johnson can consolidate his position as the English Fuhrer, assuming he has an electoral agreement with Farage in place already that is. What Corbyn does or doesn't do is irrelevant in my view.

  12. Hilarious, you won't get ANY Tories putting Corbyn in no 10 for a minute.

    It shows how thick the remoaners are that they can't even see that a unity candidate is there only chance.

    Even grieve won't back that, so keep going with Corbyn and I get a no deal Brexit.

    1. Senna is as good a cure for constipation as any other remedy on the market.

  13. If what you say is true, it's utter genius of the SNP to support Corbyn. They are seen to be doing everything to prevent brexit and so potentially saving the UK (for the benefit of soft Nos), but all the time are guaranteeing Scottish indy.

    As the BBC say, up to 60% back it in the even of no deal!

  14. I can agree with this Machiavellian thinking it is boxing in the change mob and the LibDems.

  15. What's the point of swapping one govt headed by someone with an ambiguous position on brexit for another?

    It's a pity corbyn doesn't put as much though into thwarting the conservatives and brexit rather than the lib dems and remain.

  16. Young James Scotland did not have referendum during 2016 it was the UK.
    Scotland is part of the UK. The English, Welsh and NI did not get a vote in the Scottish 2014 referendum. If they did your Nat sis would have won. Your lot read it wrong. How to win is more important than losing.

    1. Scotland is different legal jurisdiction to the rUK, so in eyes of the law, it was a separate referendum held at the same time. This is how UK-wide elections etc work. It's why when e.g. changes are made to electoral laws, these need to be separately incorporated into Scots law (and N. Irish law) as appropriate.

    2. Next you will be telling me that Gibraltar is part of this 'mythical' UK one nation rather than say a yet further different legal jurisdiction that also held a referendum at the same time.

    3. Err no it was a UK referendum covered by one act. The fact that the Scottish parliament did not need to pass any legislation for it to be held in Scotland shows this, . Gibraltar passed its own act for the referendum to be held with the results from that referendum added in the south west England figures. If it was a separate referendum in Scotland then Scotland would of had to passed its own legislation in the same way that Gibraltar did.

      Anyhow can't see what your getting so worked up about - as i keep saying indy is a stones throw away for Scotland with the EU waiting in the wings with open arms to embrace Scotland as it sails off to to its new golden age. Why are you worrying about what happened three years ago?

    4. Gibralter was once part of the North African Continent then it broke away. There was no referendum! However in modern Gibralter the people voted to remain as British territory and it does sit in a strategic shipping lane for trade. The Royal Navy has a refuelling port in Gibralter which could be denied if the Spanish took over.

    5. Sorry, but you but you don't seem to understand the UK. Westminster passes acts applicable to Scotland, Wales, N. Ireland and England.

      It doesn't pass acts of 'UK law' as no such thing exits. So it cannot legislate to hold a 'UK referendum', only for referendums to be held at the same time in all UK legal jurisdictions / nations.

      After it has passed an act applicable to all 3-4 legal jurisdictions, this is then incorporated as required separately into local laws, just as EU law is dealt with by member states.

      If we all voted in legally the same referendum, the ballot papers would be identical (they were not as the Welsh had a different one), the courts overseeing the referendum would be the same (which is not the case), the law jurisdiction governing the referendum would be the same (mythical 'British law')... the police force ensuring the law was upheld would be the same... Registered campaigns would be the same ('Scotland stronger in Europe' was the official Remain campaign for the Scottish EUref) etc.

      I voted for 'Scotland to be Stronger in Europe'; Britain wasn't mentioned. If I had broken electoral law, the punishment would be different for me than for someone in England (as the bill discusses in detail) as we voted in different votes.

      In Scotland, we have separate political parties for all the same reasons; both Scotland and N. Ireland are legally separate nations. If English Labour want to stand in Scotland, they need to register themselves here as an accounting unit. The SNP would need to register themselves in England to stand in elections there. This is because UK general elections are not a single election. If they were, a single registration would suffice.

      Electors in Scotland separately elect MPs to represent them. It's just all done on the same day UK-wide. It's why there is a Scottish Grand Committee...separate advocate Generals for each nation etc.

      Sorry, but if you want it to be the 'same' referendum officially, you need a single legal system. Otherwise it is the home nations holding votes all at the same time. If you take time to read the act, you would find it littered with references to Scotland, Wales etc dealing with these all individually as they were all distinct votes by the very definition of the word.

      And, as noted, the result was entirely advisory. It was not legally binding for any UK home nation. For that simple reason it never ever had to apply 'UK-wide'. That was a choice. Folks saying 'It was a UK-wide vote so the whole UK has (legally) to leave' is just purile bullshit with no basis in law or democratic principle.

      I think we've exhausted this one.

    6. It was in welsh becasue there was a provision in the westminister act for it to be in Welsh
      In Wales, there must also appear on the ballot papers—
      2 European Union Referendum Act 2015 (c. 36)
      (a) the following Welsh version of the question—
      “A ddylai’r Deyrnas Unedig aros yn aelod o’r Undeb Ewropeaidd neu
      adael yr Undeb Ewropeaidd?”, and
      (b) the following Welsh versions of the alternative answers—
      “Aros yn aelod o’r Undeb Ewropeaidd
      Gadael yr Undeb Ewropeaidd”.

      For the purpose of the Act Scotland was considered a voting area (exactly as it is in EU elections)
      Each of the following, as it exists on the day of the referendum, is a “voting
      area” for the purposes of this Act—
      (a) a district in England for which there is a district council;
      (b) a county in England in which there are no districts with councils;
      (c) a London borough;
      (d) the City of London (including the Inner and Middle Temples);
      (e) the Isles of Scilly;
      (f) a county or county borough in Wales;
      (g) a local government area in Scotland;
      (h) Northern Ireland;
      (i) Gibraltar

      So one act, one referendum one question (in two languages) covering the whole of the UK.
      After it has passed an act applicable to all 3-4 legal jurisdictions, this is then incorporated as required separately into local laws, just as EU law is dealt with by member states.

      if this was true then obviously there would be a record of this happening in Scotland which as I have peviously said is not the case. Evidence here:

      Yup think we have pretty much proved conclusively that there was only one ref, so as you said its done :)

    7. The referendum was not a devolved matter and did not affect devolved areas so it would not need to go through Holyrood to obtain legislative consent. This is primary school level stuff.

      Westminster can legislate for one or all home nations at a time. The referendum act legislates for four simultaneous referendums, each having slightly different rules and regulations due to them being held in different countries in the eyes of the law. These would then be combined to give a notional overall result for the UK. Notional only as the UK is not a single legal jurisdiction.
      Each country had it’s own count.

      The results of are given here by country:

      The result was not legally binding meaning it did not carry any legal weight in Scotland or any of the home nations. It likewise carried no democratic mandate in Scotland or N. Ireland. Ergo, it cannot be used to justify brexit, at least for these two.

      The actual EU exit bill, which does force Scotland out of the EU, carries legal weight. However, Westminster didn’t have the power for this as the UK isn’t a single country with a single parliament. Scotland refused legislative consent, which, under the UK constitution, should have stopped its passage and kept Scotland in the EU.

      However, English MPs, having lost democratically, simply overruled the will of the people of Scotland and forced the legislation through, cancelling devolution.

      So the reason Scotland is leaving the EU is nothing to do with 2016 being ‘UK-wide’, but due to English MPs overruling democracy and taking control of Scottish law to force it out of the EU.

      If any referendum is involved, it's the 1997 result being binned by England as it doesn't suit them.

    8. Anyway, to save us going around in circles I agree that the EUref was organised by a single act and held on the same day with aim of obtaining a notional 'UK + Gibraltar wide' result. So in that sense it was one vote.

      However, it was legally a number of separate votes held in different countries with their own laws, languages, rules and regulations, police, courts, election organisers....

      And of course, it can't be used to justify taking Scotland out of the EU because it had no legal weight in Scotland or 'UK-wide'.

      Only the EU exit bill does that and it was refused legislative consent in Scotland by both pro-indy and unionist parties. So again it cannot be used to justify taking Scotland of the EU.

      Scotland is being taken out of the EU against its express will; a will expressed by a Scotland only vote refusing legislative consent in fully devolved areas.

      Which was overruled by fascists.

    9. Scotland refused legislative consent, which, under the UK constitution, should have stopped its passage and kept Scotland in the EU.

      Nope this has been argued already and the Supreme court ruled that legislative consent was not required by the devolved assembly's. Again I would of through this would be pretty obvious; if the Scot Gov could of blocked Scotland leaving the EU through an legal don't you think they would of done it by now.

    10. Scotland is being taken out of the EU against its express will; a will expressed by a Scotland only vote refusing legislative consent in fully devolved areas.

      Which was overruled by fascists.

      Cool, well soon you won't have to worry about English fascists anymore right. So everyone gets what they want, ENG & Wales get Brexit, Scotland gets Indy and NI probably rejoins Ireland in a year all so. The other alternative is that the UK does not leave the EU in which case Scotland gets to stay in the EU. Its a win win whatever happens if you are an indy/EU supporting Scot.

  17. Nicola is playing a stormer.
    Brit nats and Scottish unionists are spitting feathers. Sand shifting beneath their feet.
    Slowly slowly catchee monkey.
    Our day is coming.

    1. I assume by that comment you have pre arranged your own funeral.

  18. Wonder when MI5 will reveal the EU collaborator names. The smell of fish will no doubt be prominent.

    1. I think they will name people like Ernestine Gash-Wylie and the group around her who eat Italian and French food.

  19. My dung hole has been rammed by my own fist. I'm a star in the LGBT community and share my feces with like mined perverts. I love SKAT and can devour the biggest poops around.