EU referendum are you in or out

[(o)(o)]

At some point you just have to look at the polls and say.

If they are to be believed.

The electorate are fuckwits.

[zip accident]

At some point you just have to look at the polls and say.

If they are to be believed.

The electorate are fuckwits.

That point was Brexit. MInd you, they were fooled again that time.

[tufty]

Corbyn is not the problem.

I beg to differ.

I've got a lot of respect for Corbyn on almost every point of policy *except* for Brexit, and don't consider him particularly hard-line, let alone "extremist". If the rabid right wing press would stop labelling him a traitorous commie, and the party apparatus wasn't against him, he might even manage to make PM under universal suffrage, and the country would probably be a better place for it.

Unfortunately, a caretaker PM running a Government of National Unity doesn't happen via universal suffrage. It happens via the support of a majority of parliament. That means not only the support of the proposed PM's MPs (and Corbyn can't even command 100% of that) and other opposition parties, but also a significant proportion of those on the other side of the chamber. The Conservatives see him as a maniac lefty, prepared to line them up against the wall at the first opportunity, they'll let their own party drive the country over a cliff rather than let him in. And the other parties see, like pretty much everyone else, his stance on Brexit as being no better than Boris'.

Frankly, I don't see why he's so keen on the job. Being caretaker means a government contingent on one issue, and one issue only. Brexit, and to hell with the rest. Once Brexit's "resolved", the caretaker is going to be unceremoniously turfed out, there's not going to be a chance to get any of his other policies enacted. Regardless of what the caretaker does with Brexit, in or out, he's gonna be hated by ~50% of the population, probably more - getting in via universal suffrage and getting any actual policies enacted go straight out the window. Corbyn's a lot of things, but he's no idiot - he has to see this, which implies he absolutely wants *his* hand on Brexit rather than letting anyone else deal with it. That makes me suspect that he is afraid that anyone else will scupper Brexit, and that he still believes leaving Europe will see him equipped with a laurel wreath and carried on the shoulders of the cheering populace.

What's needed is someone pretty much universally respected. Ken Clarke springs to mind - a moderate tory, at the end of his commons career. Only the rabid brexiturds wouldn't support him. Or Sir Nicholas Soames. Churchill's fucking grandson. Because, realistically, any caretaker has to come from the moderate side of the Conservative ranks rather than anywhere on the Labour benches. Nobody else is getting cross-party support.

Corbyn should let someone else take the helm, and the flak, WRT Brexit, and work on getting in, and getting his important policies enacted, via the inevitable upcoming General Election.

[/KlaxonCow]

[zip accident]

Corbyn is not the problem.

I beg to differ.

...

Corbyn should let someone else take the helm, and the flak, WRT Brexit, and work on getting in, and getting his important policies enacted, via the inevitable upcoming General Election.

[/KlaxonCow]

The thing is, Brexit is a minor poison chalice, the big poison chalice is being in power after Brexit, because then for five years the country will go to hell, and if you are in charge, you will get the blame, never mind who actually pushed Brexit through. There will be no election immediately after Brexit, because nobody will want the job then, it will all be a disaster and the government will take the blame. That's why Corbyn backs it, he thinks it will be good for Labour if the Tories are unelectable for twenty years or so.

Brexit will be bad, but if it happens the resulting chaos in the five years following will be horrendous.

[skab]

That's why Corbyn backs it, he thinks it will be good for Labour if the Tories are unelectable for twenty years or so.

Brexit will be bad, but if it happens the resulting chaos in the five years following will be horrendous.

And Corbyn doesn't care how deep the country gets fucked, as long as it's bad for the Tories. How can anyone support this behaviour?

[zip accident]

That's why Corbyn backs it, he thinks it will be good for Labour if the Tories are unelectable for twenty years or so.

Brexit will be bad, but if it happens the resulting chaos in the five years following will be horrendous.

And Corbyn doesn't care how deep the country gets fucked, as long as it's bad for the Tories. How can anyone support this behaviour?

The Tories are as bad.

People are really strange when they lock onto an ideal. Politics or religion, it's all more than a bit mad, but once people take it on, they lose all sense of what's real and what's not. We as a species are adapted to living in small groups, and we're really quite good ar that, but mass politics with millions of voters we really don't do very well at all.

[Barney]

I suppose that what with our history of tribal leaders, kings, governments etc, what we're really quite good at is allowing a small group to determine what's best for us. After all, we've been refining that system for a long time now.

So it's no surprise when we decided that it was a good idea to allow every single member of the public to contribute to making an important decision, it all went tits up. It's almost like we had this "contract" with some people - "we think you're ok, go run the country for us" and they came back with "no, you".

[KlaxonCow]

I suppose that what with our history of tribal leaders, kings, governments etc, what we're really quite good at is allowing a small group to determine what's best for us.

[PFVA]

I hear rumours of another Brexit extension.

[(o)(o)]

I hear rumours of another Brexit extension.

[Absolute_Zero]

I hear rumours of another Brexit extension.

Speaking of rumours:

Hungary’s foreign minister Peter Szijjarto told the BBC there had been “rumours” his country may have been asked to veto another extension, “but no such request has been received.” It came after a video posted to social media appeared to show Mr Szijjarto and Hungary’s ambassador to Britain leaving the Cabinet Office building in Whitehall earlier this week.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49936218

[(o)(o)]

Speaking of rumours:

[zip accident]

I just had a thought, what if the government wanted an election, but the opposition voted no and won? can that happen? would it happen now?

On another tack entirely: if you were dressing up for Halloween, as Brexit, what would the costume look like?

[skab]

I just had a thought, what if the government wanted an election, but the opposition voted no and won? can that happen? would it happen now?

It did happen, didn't it?

*confused*

[Harlequin]

Speaking of rumours:
Hungary’s foreign minister Peter Szijjarto told the BBC there had been “rumours” his country may have been asked to veto another extension, “but no such request has been received.” It came after a video posted to social media appeared to show Mr Szijjarto and Hungary’s ambassador to Britain leaving the Cabinet Office building in Whitehall earlier this week.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49936218

One possible way for the prime minister to square the circle – to write the letter yet avoid a delay in the event of no deal – would be to persuade one or more EU leaders to veto an extension, once a letter had been sent. The Hungarian prime minister, Viktor Orbán, a rightwing eurosceptic, is the name most often mentioned. But few in the EU think even Orbán would risk helping out Johnson in this way. A senior Tory minister remarked: “There are EU budget negotiations coming up and Hungary needs funding. Orbán would be putting all that at risk.”