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

I think Obama's changing opinion is irrelevant at the moment. By next year, the landscape could be drastically different. But any mileage we can get from the US in negotiations with the EU is obviously helpful. We're going to have to use whatever leverage we have.

Oh it absolutely is not irrelevant.

Despite all the protestations about no negotiation before notification, they're all throwing shapes at the moment.

A strong signal that the US will continue to deal with you on EU terms and prioritise a new bilateral deal, and that WTO ules will never apply changes the picture significantly.

The EU want us going in as desperate supplicants. Obama clearly does not.

Watching Andrew Marr completely unpick Gove's credibility. Top entertainment

I also think Len McClusky did a brilliant job defending JC and the legitimacy of his mandate and also rubishing the narrative on Labour party members vs union members vs the electorate. Constructed a pretty powerful argument that it is only the PLP out of step.

My conclusion on Boris is that he will definitely be back. It was a master stroke to go through the motions and then not stand, completely outflanking Gove. The irony is that Gove suggested that he thought Boris was doing a great job and would build a great team around him (much as he did with the Olympics) right up until he realised that Boris had no intention of being manipulated by him. Boris comes out of this with a newfound integrity and I reckon he could probably be accommodated by AL or even TM, if she is wise .

Not utterly irrelevant, but I wouldn't want us to hang our hat on a tentative agreement from Obama, as things can change dramatically by next year. I kind of take what Obama is saying as hopeful, but holding out to see what develops in the next 6 months, and what will be their position once we invoke A50.

The EU want us going in as desperate supplicants. Obama clearly does not.

I agree with that, definitely.

howabout Agreed. About time someone called the PLP out for their behaviour. I think Boris will be avoided until after elections for leadership are done, then will be eased back in.

A strong signal that the US will continue to deal with the UK on EU terms and prioritise a new bilateral deal, and that WTO unless will never apply changes the picture significantly

I read somewhere on Friday that the US congress /senate (?) were already debating a motion to this effect. It is not just Obama saying it.

Anyone else got views on whether Clinton will survive her 3 hour FBI grilling? Any chance for Sanders to win yet?

So TM wants to build on DC's record for social justice - not looking promising.

Sorry I'll shut up and stop spamming in a minute but TM can be v annoying. She has just linked the position of EU nationals in the UK to a negotiation about UK nationals in EU countries. I don't think it is in the interests of anyone to link their fortunes in this way. UK can surely take the moral high ground on this and invite the EU to follow. I don't think using EU nationals in the UK as a bargaining chip helps the cause of UK nationals in the EU.

I'm not keen on Grayling either but that is more gut than reasoned analysis. I may be way off but I am still giving IDS the benefit of the doubt but assume TM would not deal with him.

A bill has been brought to the Senate to that effect.

But I'd need someone more au fait with American politics to say how significant that is.

So TM wants to build on DC's record for social justice

I don't know if I can cope with a PM with such a lack of awareness or irony.

Hahahaha RedToothBrush This gave me a giggle.

The EU want us going in as desperate supplicants. Obama clearly does not.

Dealing with buffons with bad blonde hair is 2016 biggest political issue.
The EU got rid of theirs. Obama has not.

There's your difference in agenda priorities.

On Paul McKenna, the Daily Mail website is currently running the 'were we hypnotised into Brexit?' article, and another article plugging McKenna's 'I can make you thin' programme.

So perhaps both articles are adverts for Paul McKenna.

Depends who brought the bill to the Senate? It's controlled by the republicans, as is Congress, so Obama and the Democrats have very little real power right now.

That being said I don't see why this couldn't be a cross-party move, I would assume the Republicans would be all for the Special Relationship and supporting Britain. Including Trump.

A sped-up bilateral deal with the US would be bad news for EU negotiators, but would it be good news for British people?.. it would be TTIP by another name.

Gove suggested serving the notice on Jan 2018 and that seemed wise to me as once we serve it we have no choice but to leave in 2 years.

So we are have 18 months of uncertainty where we can not negotiate on what our post EU relationship will be?

That's nuts!

We will lose so much economically in the meantime. It would DESTORY us.

Take science for example. The EU are not going to fund UK projects in the interim, but neither is the UK because they can't afford to because they are still playing their EU subs....

We also have to go through both French and German elections prior to negotiation. Making us even more at the mercy of changing politics we have control over in the interim.

And to cap it off, we would be leave the EU in Jan 2020, when we have an election due in May 2020. Making the whole thing fresh in everyone's minds and ripe for opening any still raw wounds at election time when we be subjected to weapons grade propaganda again.

What a fucknugget.

Depends who brought the bill to the Senate?

I believe it was two democrats.

Could be wrong.

Gove is, I think, still wedded to the pre-referendum Leave thinking where we negotiate then invoke article 50 (or perhaps never invoke it at all). Johnson was the same with his Telegraph column.

Neither of them expected the EU to refuse to play ball.

What a fucknugget.

Completely agree Red DD3 is now telling her big sister what a clown I am for smudging her nail polish. Desperately hoping the term "fucknugget" hasn't entered the conversation.

Neither of them expected the EU to refuse to play ball

Doesn't say much about their negotiating acumen - I could have told them that would be the EU's strategy. In fact I did, so clearly they need to spend more time on MN.

I do wonder if the EU are going to give us a 'shit or get off the pot' deadline, for a firm commitment either way.

I've had a look at the US trade bill story, it's pretty meaningless as far as I can tell.

It's actually two Republican senators, the same guys who criticised Obama for his "back of the line" comment. That makes a lot more sense - the Republicans are much more likely to support Britain (special relationship and all), and it would have been surprising if Democrat senators had gone against Obama's stated policy, especially since it's also been endorsed by Clinton.

The bill will not happen unless the President signs it, so if Obama says no then it's no. It's just a symbolic gesture by his opposition.

To sum up: Obama hasn't changed his stance, the Republicans still disagree. Nothing to see here, move along.

(Unless Trump is elected, then everything changes)

(if anyone wonders why I said the Democrats had little power, then said that the Republicans can't do anything without Obama... both are true. Republicans propose the bills, Obama signs them into law. Which means that nothing happens without cross-party support these days. Which means that... nothing happens.)

Have they done any polls in the last week to see who people voted for in the last election compared to now? I just wonder if this whole situation had changed voting patterns. Though after ConDem I swore I never would vote Lib Dems again but that view has softened.

I do wonder if the EU are going to give us a 'shit or get off the pot' deadline, for a firm commitment either way.

Expect strong rumbling on that between the US election result and before the new President is inaugurated, if we haven't set a timetable out ourselves.

If Trump is elected, any possible trade deal with the UK is probably going to fall quite a way down on the agenda, while they deal with the chaos Trump will unleash.