Boris outmaneovered. Et tu Gove & Corbyn? The Westministenders Hunger Games Continues

[RedToothBrush]

Following the Machiavellian Govian shambles? Utterly gobsmacked at the Labour clusterfuck?

Who will strike next?

Who will the shadowy hand of Osborne back?
Can Gove be launched back into space and back to the planet he came from?
Can May save the country from almost certain doom?
Will Leadsom patronise us all to death (whilst silently stabbing people in the back with a sweet smile)?
Can Johnson make a decision he can stick to, and can we persuade him to give up being a politician?
Will Steven Crabb get rid of that god awful beard?

Will Corbyn shoot himself in the other foot?
Will Angela Eagle get a spine and just stand?
Who the fuck is Owen Smith?
Will the Blairites be foiled and damned?
Are momentum a bunch of thugs or a force for a better, for the people?

Will Farage disappear back under his rock?
Will people wake up to Arron Banks?
What will Dominic Cummings destroy next?

Have we seen a coup d'état?
How do we improve democracy and representation?

All these questions and more.
Sense of humour compulsory. No experience necessary though

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

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/eu_referendum_2016_/2672388-Has-Boris-been-outmanoevered-Will-someone-please-tell-me-who-is-in-charge Previous thread 2

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/eu_referendum_2016_/a2673982-Have-Boris-and-Jeremy-been-stabbed-in-the-back-Please-can-we-have-some-leaders Previous thread 3

www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/feb/03/can-theresa-may-make-it-to-the-top

This is a interesting article about Theresa May from February 2015.

God, Arron Wanks is vile - trying to control 2 parties

Does it not worry you that leaving the Single Market is the preferred option of the worst (in my view) Tories, though?

No.

I don't make political or ethical decisions based on what other people think.

I think that kind of passivity is part if what got us into this mess.

The "worst" Tories might be right. Sometimes they are.

I think if we are locked into an EEA, or EEA-style agreement negotiated by the Tory press's preferred candidate, it is likely to be the worst outcome for UK workers.

All the focus on "free movement" bothers me, becauase the other massive element of the free market is the social chapter, and no fucker is insisting we hold onto those.

So potentially we still have a massive reservoir of immigrants to exploit, but the protections offered to all workers aee destroyed.

Our economy is fucked snd totally unbalanced even before this. I am heartened by Brexit forcing Osborne into abandoning elective austerity.

Sometimes you need to recognise your opportunity and grasp it.

I didn't seek this. I think it is massively undemocratic and unconstitutional.

But if the Englush are going to impose a new border on Ireland that we get no say in, then let's ficking do this.

We'recall in nothing to lose territory now.

Swedish wow that article is very revealing and interesting.

I think I'm quietly impressed by that, even if I don't agree with her ideology. I'm not such how much I can say that about any of the other candidates.

I like the idea that she looked out for the other women when none of the men wanted to know. If she did get in, the cabinet could be a surprise by the sound of it. I can't see her suffering some of those who are currently in it.

I think it's quite telling that it's looking like the two front runners will be women. This could be cheery news for feminists but I am reminded of the research that shows Fortune 500 companies are more likely to hire women and minorities as CEO when the company is in crisis. Marisa Meyer at Yahoo is one example.

So if we have a woman as a shoe-in for the job, it means the country is really screwed.

www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2014/aug/05/fortune-500-companies-crisis-woman-ceo-yahoo-xerox-jc-penny-economy

or the men think they are throwing the women to the wolves as they would rather the women get the blame for any problems.

All the focus on "free movement" bothers me, becauase the other massive element of the free market is the social chapter, and no fucker is insisting we hold onto those.

I was assuming it was the other way round - all of Britain's negotiating firepower would be focused on securing immigration controls, and they'd have no chips left to negotiate exemptions to the social chapter

(mixing my metaphors here slightly )

Yes, I am very far from buying into the idea that tbis is a great feminist moment.

It's women being expected to do the tidying up.

Agree, Red, she at least takes being a politician seriously.

Had lots of "Can't believe I'm saying I want Teresa May" conversations this week.

*Theresa

If Britain secure immigration controls, they won't be in the EEA.

It will be a different deal.

Nobody is saying "no, you will still need to stick to the temporary agency workers directive, and working time"

That is as much a part of the supposed market as free movement.

But I doubt the Commission's commitment to that side of the deal.

The only "positive" the WTO offers is that it is only way that the UK can stop EU immigration.
Hence that is the the hardline wingnuts' preferred option

Negatives:

• The City of London loses it financial passporting and hence its status as a preeminent financial services centre. So we lose a major

• The EU’s Common External Tariffs would apply to our exports to it. For some products that's 2.5%, but it's 10% on cars, much higher for agricultural products.

• The UK could set our own tariffs for the EU, but are then legally required to apply exactly the same ones to all the 160 or so WTO members unless we have a PTA (Preferential Trade Agreement) with them.
  So they would apply tariffs to us in turn.

• It usually takes 5-10 years to negotiate a trade deal with another country or trade bloc. So we would have years of 


• The UK and EU would be obliged to apply to each other the same tariffs and other trade restrictions they apply to the rest of the world.
  That is because the WTO rules only allow countries to discriminate in favour of certain countries if they have a trade deal.

oops, sorry, ipad posted itself

Another advantage for WTO option if you are a Tory:

The EU is almost certain to reject TTIP, but for the UK TTIP looks like our only way to trade quickly with North America. The Tories love TTIP.

TTIP - to help the Tories privatise the NHS, yes?

Well, yes, that's why I think it's can't be the EEA, a full free movement deal is politically unthinkable for the UK

But I really hope that on the spectrum, it's closer to the EEA than it is to the WTO option. It's definitely sub-optimal, but it minimizes the risks.

GingerIvy I read this a while back and I found it really helpful to understand the (economic)) pros and cons of each model

www.cer.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/attachments/pdf/2014/pb_britishtrade_16jan14-8285.pdf

My understanding is that no one is thinking seriously of a WTO model for the long term, only as a stop gap until a series of FTAs can be agreed with Britain's trading partners. One of the biggest problems with the WTO rules is that they're really bad for services, which are the bulk of Britain's GDP.

Oops sorry posted before I saw BigChocFrenzy's clearly much better informed posts!

Gingeryivy -
TTIP (which most of the EU wants) would help the Tories privatise the NHS, that's one of the reasons that Cameron was campaigning for "Remain".

The city might well lose passporting regardless.

The position of the city in our economy is not good for most of us.

That's the main ways it's unbalanced.

I abhor the idea that even having made such a potentially massive change to a shitty situation, we are going to still cringe before the City's might.

Don't force the poor into losing everything that protects them and still maintain they City's advantages thst hobble the rest of the economy.

If cavalier is good enough for ordinary workers, it's good enough for banks.

LOL at the Tories needing help to privatise the NHS.

Europe can't save us from that.

Only we could.

If we stopped voting for a party committed to destroying it.

DoingItFine
The problem is that there is no other electable party. Corbyn has destroyed Labour.

So basically we're paying now for the government prioritising London businesses and not developing things in other areas (both other areas of business and other areas of the country) which might have been better overall financially?

TTIP (which most of the EU wants)

I have to stand up for my countrymen's good name here. This was the French PM less than a week ago:

"No free trade agreement should be concluded if it does not respect EU interests. Europe should be firm. France will be vigilant about this ...
I can tell you frankly, there cannot be a transatlantic treaty agreement. This agreement is not on track
[TTIP] would impose a viewpoint which would not only be a breeding ground for populism, but also quite simply be a viewpoint that would be bad for our economy.”

That's the advantage of the WTO option.

It leaves open the option that our trade negotiations with the rest of the world might not be done by the Tories.

The way things stand, there will be no GE and no new mandate, but the Tories can go for broke (for most of us), which they will.

We need time for Labour to remember it does not exist to massage the frustrates SWP penis and start being an actual political party.

Yes re TTIP have been reading a lot lately that it's basically dead with the water as far as the EU is concerned, but very much alive and kicking for the UK now we're Brexiting (in order to trade quickly with the US as BigChocFrenzy says). Apparently it was our negotiators who were trying to push it through in the first place as the Tories want it so they can privatise that pesky NHS

TTIP is not wanted by the EU, as Chalala has mentioned most countries are resisting it. TTIP is a Tory ideal.