WHO could lead a Government of National Unity (if you leave aside that the very idea is fatuous when the nation is so divided)? Prince Harry? David Attenborough? Mary Berry? Ovie off Love Island? Or Jeremy Corbyn, who has an approval rating of -40 per cent or worse in every poll conducted in the past four months?
You don’t – whether you think Parliament is ignoring the original vote, or failing to stop an impending catastrophe – get a say. But Mr Corbyn, the keenest subscriber to the view that he’s best suited to the job, was yesterday sounding out other Westminster opposition leaders. Alas, since they’d settle for anyone, except Mr Corbyn, they united instead on seeking a legislative route to rule out a no-deal Brexit.
READ MORE: Iain Macwhirter: Gordon Brown's caring sharing Union is dead. Brexit has killed it
Unsurprisingly, because they paint an exit with no deal as a national disaster along the lines of the Black Death or Scotland’s 1978 World Cup campaign. Yet even those people, who previously promised to implement the referendum result, then (mostly) stood on a manifesto promising to implement the result, then, by one of the biggest Commons vote ever, voted to implement Article 50, specifying “no deal” as the default, balked at putting Mr Corbyn in power as the price of stopping any hard exit.
It’s difficult to see how legislation guarantees the prevention of no deal, though. It’s an illogical position, when no deal is the default, and when any restrictions wouldn’t be binding on the PM, nor even necessarily within his gift (the EU could refuse any change or extension, for example).
It is, however, no more bonkers than the Brexit Party’s insistence that only a no deal Brexit is real Brexit – a stance no doubt inspired by government failure to deliver, but one that no one was advocating three years ago.
Mr Corbyn, unlike the other party leaders, mentioned the continued possibility of a vote of no confidence. As Leader of the Opposition, he’s best-placed to table one, but that is the extent of his advantage. Assuming (a huge assumption) it were won, the Labour leader would then have to demonstrate he had the necessary support to form a government, which means about 326 votes: ie, persuading some 80 non-Labour MPs to vote for him.
The prospect of Tories, even those practically demented by the idea of no deal, backing that is nil. The Lib Dems have ruled it out. It would be a huge strategic error for the SNP. And that’s before you take into consideration the fact that there could well be about 80 of Mr Corbyn’s own MPs who wouldn’t vote for it.
Mr Corbyn, despite not banging on about it in his meeting, is still apparently insisting that a vote would mean him becoming prime minister (he seems under the impression that this is a constitutional necessity, which is drivel).
I think a GNU would be undemocratic, undesirable and unlikely. But in a fantasy world where the proposed interim PM were Ken Clarke, or Harriet Harman, it’s just about possible. But you would need a vote of no confidence first. So the person best placed to bring it about is Jeremy Corbyn, and the biggest obstacle to it happening is Jeremy Corbyn.
Small wonder the other leaders preferred to make it a last resort, trying instead to rule out no deal by legislation. The problem is that you can’t, with absolute certainty, for both practical and political reasons. Practically, because MPs have to vote for something, anything else to avoid what is otherwise the default position, and so far they can’t agree on what that would be. Even if they could, there’s no guarantee it’s anything that’s on offer.
READ MORE: Will SNP efforts to unseat Lib Dems be enough for Shetland by-election victory
And while the no deal absolutists are as deluded as the revoke extremists, there are potential deals – and the one negotiated by Theresa May is one – clearly even worse than no deal. That’s why MPs voted it down three times.
Politically, this approach is tricky because, while Boris Johnson says he would still rather have a deal, he is totally committed to exit by October 31. Just as his mind won’t be changed by a vote saying MPs won’t accept no deal, nor will such a vote magic away the fact that it’s the legal default. His opponents would also have to commit to some positive course of action to replace it: either the blatantly anti-democratic nuclear option of outright revocation, or acceptance of some deal that is actually on offer at the time. Or an election.
By contrast, the PM has nothing to lose by calling an election. There’s a sporting chance he could win it if we’ve left the EU, or would do so during the campaign, or at once if he won. There’s the near-certainty that the Brexit Party would prevent him winning if he were to show the slightest sign of backing down on the date.
This is now a game of chicken where everyone – Johnson, Corbyn, Remainers, Brexit absolutists, and the EU – believes that their only chance of getting what they want is not to blink. The rest of us can only close our eyes and cross our fingers
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel