Has Boris been outmanoevered? Will someone please tell me who is in charge?

[RedToothBrush]

Thread two from

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/eu_referendum_2016_/2670552-Has-Boris-been-outmanoeuvred?pg=1

None of the other mainstream parties in Europe want to become the slaves to their own local versions of UKIP in the same way that the Conservatives have. That's what they're going to want to be keeping in check.

I cannot believe that anyone would think Jeremy Hunt suitable, given the lack of negotiating skills he's already displayed. (repeatedly)

There's always the possibility that if we leave, other countries will also leave, the EU will crumble, and everyone will have new opportunities for trade. I know, trying to be optimistic.

and that's why I think they'll ultimately agree to an EEA-type agreement with the UK, I forgot to add.

Boris's column yesterday (disgraceful by the way that he makes that statement but doesn't appear for the Commons debate) announced that we will have our cake and eat it, with all the good bits of EU membership, and 'the only change' being freedom from the pesky legislation. He must know that simply won't fly, so I am guessing he wants to brazen it out, look shocked when he is turned down and say 'the big old meanies, they just don't want to be fair to us'. Then possibly talk of a second referendum on whatever crappy deal is actually on offer.

For someone who was supposed to be Cameron's good pal, Osborne is showing very little loyalty (like Gove: Dave really does pick 'em) to be considering endorsing Boris instead of May. Foreign sec is not a demotion: historically, haven't PM, chancellor and foreign sec been the 'three great offices of state'? It was a point of pride with John Major that he'd held them all.

They might well ultimately agree to an EEA deal.

But it is not going to be a simple matter of quickly and easily moving from one to the other.

Unless they out in a seriously skilled negotiator who really gets the EU and won't engage in the usual UK posturing in the press, they'll struggle not to end uo on WTO rules and negotiating EEA membership as a new member.

Which could take a long time.

The UK need to stop thinking they can buy their way in here with all their supposed money and influence. Both are steadily decreasing and will continue to as negotiations proceed.

Interesting Italian perspective:
www.facebook.com/DemocraziaVerde/videos/275977272757274/

Just to go back to the European Communities Act 1972 - this is the Act which gives EU law supremacy over UK law. So it would need to be repealed to start disentangling the UK from the EU.

I've been trying to wrap my head around this article - is it saying that even if we repeal the ECA and leave the EU, that EU law may still apply?

It might actually be best for the UK, if they are going to invoke article 50, to just go for WTO rules and bilateral agreements.

EEA really is the worst of all worlds.

Also, if they were clear that they were aiming for that and not heading into negotiations as supplicants, they can have more control over the type of certainty, the lack of which is hammering us at the moment.

I have to agree re WTO rules. Wouldn't you think Gisela Stuart must be part of those negotiations? She has more experience with the EU, does she not? Surely that's valuable.

Both the FTSE 250 and the 100 have risen sharply on opening.

But Fitch has downgraded our credit rating to AA negative.

Dear Lord, Jeremy Hunt on the morning news, describing the corking deal he would negotiate if elected party leader. Because it all went so well with the doctors, didn't it...

MrsLupo Exactly. Only a fool believes his own PR. Jeremy Hunt is a fool.

It might actually be best for the UK, if they are going to invoke article 50, to just go for WTO rules and bilateral agreements.

EEA really is the worst of all worlds.

I'm not sure the EU will agree to bilateral agreements on the Swiss model, from what I understand it's a right pain to constantly update the agreements to keep up with EU changes and they're not keen to replicate it.

The other problem with not going the EEA route is that the UK would lose all the preexisting trade deals, and would have to negotiate new ones with everyone from a huge position of weakness.

Well we still have doctors don't we? Rah rah rah raging success.

I'd be amazed if a left wing labour Brexiter was let anywhere near these negotiations.

The Tories will want to press home their advantage and make a good deal for businesd owners.

We're definitely not all in this together.

Without a GE this will be negotiated by the rabid right wing for their own ends.

A shame they couldn't put that aside and use her experience with the EU to their advantage.

I note that Osborne has just stated that a Remain person could lead the conservatives. If there is a GE, and all the parties except UKIP have a Remain person, it could get very ugly, could it not?

I'm actually torn whether I think a GE is a good thing or not. On one hand, no GE freezes out UKIP from gaining power, but on the other hand, we've be at the mercy of whoever the Tories pick, and with our luck, it'd be Nicky Morgan or Jeremy Hunt and the whole country would implode.

we'd be. Sorry, that'll teach me to try to multitask when I've not had at least two coffees.

In order to not give the toxic press and populists any more wind in their sales, there is a very fine line to tread now.

None of the other mainstream parties in Europe want to become the slaves to their own local versions of UKIP in the same way that the Conservatives have. That's what they're going to want to be keeping in check.

But you need to distinguish between UK opinion/press, and continental opinion/press. From now on, it's only the latter that matters to the EU, Britain's far right is Britain's problem only. And there is very little sympathy for the UK position right now on the continent - the mood is very much "bye bye, more fool you".

If the EU drives a hard bargain, no one is going to feel sorry for the UK. Everyone understands that EU countries have to protect their interests, and the "evil EU monolith" narrative doesn't hold nearly as much sway as it does in the UK either.

the only thing weighing in the UK's favour right now is the sheer weight of economics. It would be better for the EU to keep the UK in as part of the EEA, that would clearly be the least disruptive option economically.

But you need to distinguish between UK opinion/press, and continental opinion/press. From now on, it's only the latter that matters to the EU, Britain's far right is Britain's problem only. And there is very little sympathy for the UK position right now on the continent - the mood is very much "bye bye, more fool you".

This ^

Admittedly, a small part of me would love to see the UK bounce back in a big way and be able to thumb our noses at the EU. (come on, secretly wouldn't you like that?) I'm not saying it's logically going to happen or even reasonable, but I still can't help it.

It would be better for the EU to keep the UK in as part of the EEA

But there are lots of reasons not to, including practical ones of time.

We will need a shit hot EU negotiator at the top table if that's what we want.

And I don't think the Tories have one.

Hill??

How can you seem "too punitive" in acceding to the wishes of people who have just told you to go fuck yourself

I think this is a very valid point - just marking my place really.