A few points but most importantly: How would Clarke and Harman (or anyone for that matter) disenfranchise 17.4 million voters by taking us out of the EU with a deal? Leaving the EU is what they voted for. Leading up to the referendum just about everyone said we would get a deal, and even currently Johnson says he wants a deal.Colburn_Claret wrote:The number of remainers on here that complained Boris was PM by default, he hadn't been chosen by the country, are now espousing the same manoeuvre to put Clarke and Harman in charge. Its hilarious. You then say the unelected duo should make a deal with the EU, in order to disenfranchise 17.4 million voters. AND that is going to unite a divided country.
Every subsequent poll shows we are split down the middle. How many MEPs did Brexit gain and even if we are split down the middle, why should the remain half prevail.
Even on this thread leavers are saying that we have to make the "threat" of no deal in order to get a deal, so how can you claim that getting a deal and leaving the EU is anything other than what the 17.4 voted for?
{I think you've got carried away and have confused leaving with revoking.}
The only possible way to work towards uniting the country is to leave with a deal - as was always promised by the "leave"campign.
Secondly: Johnson doesn't have a working majority in the Commons, but at the moment is trying to usurp power. Clarke and Harman are just as much elected as Johnson is, and so it's odd that you chose to describe them as "unelected". If they led a government that broadly represented the Parliamentary arithmetic, then it would be far more democratic than anything in recent times. (Far more democratic in fact than having a small group of odd Irish extremists holding the govt. to ransom as was the case with May after 2017 GE)
Having a Conservative PM would reflect that they have the most seats, and the rest of the cabinet would, (as in wartime coalitions) represent a wide spectrum of views.