Should Corbyn be national unity government pm | Page 5 | Vital Football

Should Corbyn be national unity government pm

LSB2 said:
No point me saying anything to them on here. I'll wait for a farmer to post. In the meantime, I'll just listen to my local farmer. I don't want a Tory government, but I'll just have to accept the majority...
Click to expand...
What majority? The majority of three years ago is meaningless if Brexiteers can't agree on the way forward.
 
LSB2 said:
Neither can the remainers. Desperately trying to change a government, in the hope of overturning a vote. Laughable lol
Click to expand...
Maybe but leavers had in their grasp but couldn't agree. Leavers are made up of Tory, Labour and DUP MPs representing hard, soft and no-deal Brexit; they are in a majority can't reach a consensus on the way forward. As regards those trying to change the Govt., you seem to have overlooked the fact that it's not just Remainers but anti no-deal Leavers also; so, please get your facts right.
 
Wayne.Kerr said:
Maybe but leavers had in their grasp but couldn't agree. Leavers are made up of Tory, Labour and DUP MPs representing hard, soft and no-deal Brexit; they are in a majority can't reach a consensus on the way forward. As regards those trying to change the Govt., you seem to have overlooked the fact that it's not just Remainers but anti no-deal Leavers also; so, please get your facts right.
Click to expand...

Popcorn kettle black...
I'm sure in the planet's 4.6B year history, what you are saying is very important...
 
Wayne.Kerr said:
What will you tell British farmers when WTO rules kill many off. What will you tell Spanish farmers whose goods will be hit with a 40% tariff when entering the UK?
Click to expand...

I would tell the Spanish farmers to remember the EU's attitude now (as in not having the strength to open a document), Then perhaps storm the Brussels parliament building and insert their size 12s in a bit of elitist groin. Metaphorically speaking, of course.
 
Wayne.Kerr said:
As regards those trying to change the Govt., you seem to have overlooked the fact that it's not just Remainers but anti no-deal Leavers also; so, please get your facts right.
Click to expand...
Only if you believe that is Corbyn's incentive. I suspect it is an opportunist way to get a GE.

The others that are pushing for it, like the LibDems and the SNP, have given themselves away on many occasions, They don't just want a second referendum. They want to cancel Brexit, regardless of the views of the majority of the populace.
 
GillsBluenose said:
I would tell the Spanish farmers to remember the EU's attitude now (as in not having the strength to open a document), Then perhaps storm the Brussels parliament building and insert their size 12s in a bit of elitist groin. Metaphorically speaking, of course.
Click to expand...
More utter tosh - you forget that we're trying to leave the EU. Your sentiments echo the famous Times headline of many years ago "Fog in Channel Europe cut off". I'd be worrying about the 70/80 trade deals we've got to negotiate, including one with the EU in order to avoid the impact of WTO tariffs.
 
Nobby_66 said:
A cynic would say that that just splits the Brexit vote in two. If you allow the third option (revoke article 50) it doesn't need a rocket scientist to work out which would win. The stitch up would be complete and democracy would be dead.
So, why add the third option? The country voted leave so a new referendum should just have "leave" options surely.
"We may just as well add a third" (option) doesn't feel like sound democracy to me.
Click to expand...

That's a fair point Nobby and I suspect you would be correct in that remain would win. I could argue that the total remain vote would need to be higher, say 10% higher than the combined leave options for it to be valid. That might show that the country has significantly changed its mind or lost confidence in our political leaders to deliver. Perhaps significantly enough to over rule the original slim majority.

The point I am really making is that two years down the road are we still sure we want to leave. We know a lot more about it now and we know that the risk of a no deal crash out is increasingly likely. Are we sure want that ?

I am a remainer, always will be, but I would have no issue with us leaving the EU with a negotiated, managed exit. We will have to deal with the consequences of that. The thing is we haven't got one and we have little chance of getting one.

This is a critical point our countries future. Most of us who are 50+ will survive the bumps in the road that a no deal brexit will bring, its the next few generations who I am worried about. The "grey" vote backed Brexit massively (while singing Vera Lynn songs) but they won't really be impacted too much by this.

I am all for following the peoples vote, despite the fact it was based on misinformation written on a bus, but before we all jump off a cliff into the unknown shall we just check we all still want to jump ? Nothing undemocratic about that in my view. The leave vote could even increase which to be fair would also put an end to all the arguments.

Like most I just want this to end and for us to move on. I just don't trust the politicians to look after this countries best interests, especially in any trade negotiations with the US. If people want the UK to look like the US in terms of healthcare (as one example) then they want a different UK to me.

In a negotiation both parties want something. What does the UK have to offer the US ? I think the 139 Billion NHS budget is very attractive to the US health insurance companies.

Back to the original post - I wouldn't want Corbyn in charge of our future either.

That's the rub of it - who do we trust to chart our countries future ? No one springs to mind and we want have any of the EU regulations to protect us either. A lot of those regulations actually benefited joe public but in the EU / UK debate we just focus on the bad things of the EU and not the good. Its not perfect and never will be but I think I'd rather live in the EU than the US.
 
Last edited:
markinkent said:
I am a remainer, always will be, but I would have no issue with us leaving the EU with a negotiated, managed exit. We will have to deal with the consequences of that. The thing is we haven't got one and we have little chance of getting one.

This is a critical point our countries future. Most of us who are 50+ will survive the bumps in the road that a no deal brexit will bring, its the next few generations who I am worried about. The "grey" vote backed Brexit massively (while singing Vera Lynn songs) but they won't really be impacted too much by this.
Click to expand...

I love it when remainers come out with the "think of the children" line and at the same time say that Brexit will probably be all right but it will take x amount of years to agree alternative trade deals.

Isn't that a bit of a contradiction? Surely that would suggest that the negative aspects would affect us coffin dodgers as much as the younger generation. In fact, as we understand medicines will become rarer than hens teeth it should affect us more than the young.

As for still whining about the Bus, I posted a link a while ago that listed about a dozen porkies spun by the remain Project Fear team in the run up to the referendum. Also, nobody has even spoken about suing the Leave team for the bus slogan because the two separate statements are not actually untrue. The contribution is the correct, albeit gross, figure and there is talk of putting more money in to the NHS after Brexit.
 
markinkent said:
In a negotiation both parties want something. What does the UK have to offer the US ? I think the 139 Billion NHS budget is very attractive to the US health insurance companies.
Click to expand...
What does the UK have to offer the US ? The fact that we have a balance of trade surplus with the US suggests that we have been offering them quite a lot already.

"In a negotiation both parties want something.". Very true, and that is why it is normally agreed to meet somewhere in the middle. Not surrender to the other side's terms because "that's how they work" and voluntarily become a vassal state.
 
GillsBluenose said:
What does the UK have to offer the US ? The fact that we have a balance of trade surplus with the US suggests that we have been offering them quite a lot already.
Click to expand...
The first thing is that the US will want that deficit eliminated or even turned into a surplus on their side. Second, the US has indicated that it will only trade if we adopt various US regulatory standards, which will put us at loggerheads with the EU, our biggest market. Third, as any US trade deal has to pass both legislative houses in Washington, a hard Irish border will not be tolerated by either side.
 
GillsBluenose said:
"In a negotiation both parties want something.". Very true, and that is why it is normally agreed to meet somewhere in the middle. Not surrender to the other side's terms because "that's how they work" and voluntarily become a vassal state.
Click to expand...
Indeed but it's not surrendering to the other side's needs. The US has a regulatory framework in which industry and commerce operates; imagine how the apple cart would be upset with differing standards; it would affect food labelling, plant and machinery specifications and health products. It's nowhere near as simple as you make out. Another example, a plant in the UK makes widgets that are sold to both the EU and US; if the US business is new, it might mean different ingredients, tooling, testing and quality assurance concerns.
 
I wouldn't worry about what was written on the bus; we've lost a lot more as the Pound has devalued in the last three years.
 
jokerman said:
Diasporacily speaking, if I may, I can understand why politicians are reluctant to let Corbyn, Clarke or anyone else get the top job, even temporarily. Chap gets their hands on the steering wheel and that gives power, the toiling masses see the person in the job and the sky not falling, and Lord knows what happens next.

What are the mechanics? I'd have thought the government falls on a confidence vote. Then the next obvious person -Corbyn as leader of the opposition- puts forward a resolution. If he demonstrates he enjoys the confidence of the House, he's in until he loses a similar vote. If he fails to get a vote, then someone else has a crack. The proof of the pudding for anyone is can they secure a vote, not is it right or wrong for them to try.

I wished you weren't all so pissed at each other. The stakes are just not that high.
Click to expand...

Bullseye jokerman. It seems the view from afar is clearer, a bit like Evans in the main stand.
 
GillsBluenose said:
I love it when remainers come out with the "think of the children" line and at the same time say that Brexit will probably be all right but it will take x amount of years to agree alternative trade deals.

.
Click to expand...


"probably be alright" is a bit of a gamble eh?

I will explain the children bit a little further.

Many of us have taken advantage of the freedom to travel, work, live, study, etc. that the EU offers. We are unilaterally denying them that right unless its included in a negotiated deal.

Many of us have been protected by EU regulations on what we consume and our rights at work as examples. We are withdrawing from those unless we choose to transfer them to UK law.

So whilst everyone focusses on the bureaucracy and the waste in the EU (and there is loads) we don't consider the benefits in the debate.

All in all it comes down to what sort of future you want the UK to look like, part of the EU for better or worse, looking more like the US for better or worse or this wonderful best of all worlds that David Davies and Boris have promised all along. That's so easy to do though isn't it ? !!!

It all comes down to whether you trust Bojo and his team to make the UK better outside the EU that it was in it. I do not believe that he is capable of that and neither is Corbyn or indeed anyone else in my view.

I also think Trump will screw us over to ensure the US gets the best deal (and so he should) but I don't think BoJo will stand up to him either to ensure the UK does as well.
 
So Most Brexiteers want Brexit regardless of the damage to the country.We voted for it .What if that vote was for say Nuclear war and we had a similar situation in parliament and the country? Do you not think it is legitimate for parliament to try to stop a nuclear war that the majority of parliament believe it will be disastrous for this country? Some even threaten us with violence if Brexit doesn't happen.Because of the parliament that the people voted for did not press the self destruct button.That's a laugh because if they do and it brings on the end to the years of prosperity we have seen in this country there will be people on the streets too.
 
Brexiteers wanted Brexit. Remainers created all the delays, creating terms such as 'soft Brexit', 'hard Brexit', this way, that way which has resulted now in a no-deal exit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.