The Westministenders / Media Baron Hunger Games continues. Who is trying to outmanoeuvre who?

[RedToothBrush]

Don't worry we've all lost track.

In the Blue Corner
It started out with Cameron and Osborne trying to win the battle of the Tories, but they got stung in a UK wide vote. Some of us thought it was about the 'EU'. Instead it has turned out it was an internal Tory Bitch fight between some old Oxford and Eton mates, whilst for others a protest vote at being disenfranchised.
Gove and Johnson stabbed Cameron & Osborne in the back to run for Team Leave. Then they won when they didn't expect to. And there was no Plan. Uh Oh. Then it all started to go really wrong.
Cameron quit in disgust. Johnson went all President Churchill, before he also got stabbed by Gove (possibly with the assistance of the dark influence of Osborne).
We now have a Tory Smackdown with the shadowy influence of the Media Barons in the background.

#Team Gove has been doing their best with the knives. This is a mission to stab as many Tory MPs in the back as possible in order to become PM. Sponsored and supported by Murdoch

#Team Leadsom has been selling more unicorns and trying to pretend her CV and tax return are completely transparent. Think positive and the economy will be just fine. She is the homeopathy of politics. Sponsored and supported by Arron Banks, Leave.eu, UKIP and Britain First.

#Team May has been threatening to deport everyone if the EU don't play nice. Sponsored and supported by The Daily Mail's Dacre

In The Purple Corner
Tragically, it appears that not only do UKIP have a Plan A, they also have outwitted everyone by having Plan B. Yes that’s right TWO plans.
Farage has swanned off –sacked—for a life on CBB so they are looking for a new leader.
The potential candidates are all equally loathsome. They include Arron Banks himself, a suspended member of the party and several other people with an uncanny ability to put their foot in their mouths.
If this wasn't horrible enough, Team Leadsom is increasingly starting to look like a UKIP take over bid of the Conservative Party, which might be a neat way of avoiding a leadership battle of their own considering the quality of the candidates on offer.

In short, its a bit like a Bad Dystopian Movie that invokes Godwin, set in 2016 Westminster. Except its real.
In the Red Corner
Meanwhile the WMD has finally gone off in the Labour Camp, as Chilcot has been published. However the Chicken Coup rattles on regardless.

Corbyn is STILL clinging on, putting in a good claim for the Westminster 'Charlie off Casualty' Award. He has however had his Big Moment in the Commons. Which was a bit of a let down really. ...

The Unions have been trying to talk some sense into everyone. Meanwhile everyone else is has given up and are now just praying for a ruddy miracle to end this torture and give the country an opposition party.

Angela Eagle is still outside for the 5th day in a row, going "I will stand. Soon. If he doesn't quit" The BBC now qualify for a discount deal at the local Travel Lodge.

We FINALLY know who the fuck Owen Smith is! He's a Welsh MP and sounds like he's not completely away with the political fairies.

George Galloway appears to be trying to make a late bid to be included on the ballot paper for any leadership election.
Bliar's cried. We didn't. Chilcot took over 2 million words to tell us everything we already knew. As well as the fact that Mi6 like Nicholas Cage a lot.

The Cult of Momentum are still worshiping their Dear Leader by sending death threats to PR companies they suspect of disloyalty. Somehow they still manage not to get the title of the most vile pressure group in the UK.

And I suppose I should ask, when will a50 be triggered....? And by whom?

All these questions and more.
Tin foil hats now available upon request

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.mumsnet.com/Talk/eu_referendum_2016_/2675432-Boris-outmaneovered-Et-tu-Gove-Corbyn-The-Westministenders-Hunger-Games-Continues? Previous thread 4

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/eu_referendum_2016_/2678198-The-Westministenders-Hunger-Games-continues-Boris-still-trying-not-to-be-outmanoeuvred Previous thread 5

How about calling AE the Beagle - thinking sad eyes....

Evening all.

Just hearing on C4 news that there will be a big meeting at Brighton Grand on Sunday afternoon to decide the way forward for Labour. AE expected to declare a challenge Monday if that doesn't work out. (Though I'll believe it when I see it.)

I'm not far from Brighton. Shall I go and hang out there as official Mumsnet Correspondent?

I'll double check that nauticant

Yes! Though be prepared to be called 'funny looking' by Momentum if you express any reservations about Corbyn.

It's not the official campaign. My bad. The page it's from declares itself "a grassroots campaign to get Andrea Leadsom elected". Here's more campaign material, taken from their FB page.

Yes, the dear leader (JC) must not be questioned.

The Daily Mash put something up on FB along the lines of, if AL is elected both parties will be lead by dangerous fanatics.

The response from the JC fan club was hilariously po-faced (how dare you, unsubscribing, totally unfunny etc).

That sounds an exciting afternoon, mrslupo but you are attending for Mumsnet a Higher Purpose.

I suspect Loathsome would soon arrange an alliance with UKIP, if she became Tory Leader.

That's why it is clever (although possibly unintentionally so). Posters like that can do two things simultaneously:
persuade some people because it appeals to their inner xenophobe (I'm being generous); and
be used as an instant riposte declaring "smear" if moderate elements express their disgust.

I agree with what others have said: May will need to tread carefully during this campaign being generally positive while resisting the many opportunities that exist to go in hard against Leadsom.

Evening friends. Hope the day has brought you happiness in some form or other.

I am going to offer you this. The article was linked to on Twitter by a friend, so I can't take credit for it.

It's an analysis of the referendum results, done by experts (yes, those much maligned experts) and it's interesting.

Firstly, its analysis takes us away from that tiresome (and I think ultimately unhelpful) discourse about elites. Secondly, because it analyses the results from an economic perspective with a slightly sharper instrument than the (equally tiresome and useless) discourse that it was simply the depressed North, or people without 'A' levels that voted 'Leave'.

Instead, it looks at the results in the light of the impact of Chinese trade (imports), particularly on local manufacturing/industry ... and finds a correlation.

For me, that is particularly important because it suggests something we should be bearing in mind when wishing for thinking about any future trade deals. Basically, the closer we come to a WTO model, the higher the pain that produced the 'Leave' vote is likely to be.

In short, the economy in the face of globalisation should probably be the discourse we're pushing for, rather than insubstantial stuff about elites.

That said, I don't think I've seen one person on these threads saying anything different!

But ... it's a reminder of what is at stake with the terrible Loathsome and her alarming following of the rabid Right, chaos-libertarians, and neo-ultraliberals. Which is ironic, given that a good wodge of those who find Loathsome's arguments/vision attractive are going to vote for more of what made them unhappy in the first place.

On which note Torygraph article that brought me out in a cold sweat (it asserts many of the lowly party members are seeing her as a 'breath of fresh air' and a break from the elite.

Yes, I agree with that nauticant. I don't think AL should be underestimated.

There's a deeply sinister undertone to the material on that page. I think AL has some very unpleasant people behind her, who are very keen to get her elected.

A good follow in the legal challenges to A50 - ‏@DavidAllenGreen (I know he has been mentioned on another thread somewhere) He is a lawyer and also writes for the New Statesman.

According to him there are two maybe three legal challenges in progress.
Legally details here of the first two - Mishcon de Reya and 'Dos Santos'

The 'Dos Santos' claim is in court on July 19th.

On this he says the following:
The important thing here is not so much the prospect of any court hearing but the government's defence. That is the thing to watch.
The government's lawyers will need to do a formal response to the claims.
The government's lawyers will want to defend not only this claim but also protect the scope of the royal prerogative generally.
The last thing government lawyers will want is a firm judgement limiting the scope of the royal prerogative. It is far too useful.
So expect the government to respond offering a bit of a fudge - this was also hinted at by Letwin earlier this week.
The government may say there will a parliamentary vote (on EC legislation) before any A50 notification.
The government really will not want this point litigated if it can be avoided. It does not want to risk an adverse judgment.
So keep watching these cases: the government may be forced into declaring its hand on how A50 will be decided, so to head off a case.
FWIW I believe A50 decision can be made under prerogative or by statute. Either / or. Other pundits differ. Nobody is certain.

The third possible challenge is described by @JolyonMaugham (who is doing a crowd funded legal challenge) on 7/7/2016 and in a blog post waitingfortax.com/2016/07/07/referendum-untruths-and-overspending/ here.

The blog looks at the possibly of challenging on the basis of untruths and overspending.

It rules out the lies option. There is a certain irony here. It points out that The European Convention on Human Rights provides no help either. Free and fair elections are guaranteed, not so free and fair referenda.!!!
However there seems there is a possibly that there is a case for overspending. The problem being that the deadline for reporting expenditure is Dec (so potentially after it will be any bloody use). The blog says that at present there was no 'smoking gun' on that to explore though as yet.

However they think they may now have might something. There is an email from Steve Baker MP from the Vote Leave Campaign which outlines the plan for spending. Extract of the email in question:
As the article indicates, the designated campaign will be permitted to spend £7m and UKIP £4m plus £700k by other participants. This is regardless of who is the designated campaign. It is open to the Vote Leave family to create separate legal entities each of which could spend £700k: Vote Leave will be able to spend as much money as is necessary to win the referendum.

Not every colleague may know that designation is a competitive process. Unideal as it may be, colleagues should choose to support only one campaign for designation. 'Conservatives for Britain' is part of the "for Britain" family from which Vote Leave has been created.

If they did do it like this, it would have likely have committed a criminal offence in line with the linked www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/41/section/118
(No I don't fully understand this either - too legally for me)

A fourth possible option is that they are also looking into the legalities of anyone born in the UK after the EU membership of 1972 as you would have been born a European citizen and as such you might not be allowed to have your European citizenship stripped. This is an interesting idea. I suppose they could say they can't do that and in theory mean that anyone born whilst we were in the EU retained the right to EU citizen rights (Two fingers to the Rights Bonfire. I guess this would include the right to freedom of movement too).

AND finally they have written letter the government asking for clarification over a50. waitingfortax.com/2016/07/08/article-50-our-letter-to-the-government/ This seems to tie in with David Alan Green said about trying to get the government to 'show their hand' re: a50 and Dos Santos from what I can tell.

Having looked at all that I have a feeling that one of the reasons Leadsom in particular will want to hit a50 as quick as possible as if they have time to look into the expense angle or get caught up in legal matters over royal prerogative / parliamentary vote they could delay being able to do anything in the courts.

Given that the expenses challenge for the 2015 GE and how far that's so far progressed, then it could get lengthy.

My gut feeling is that the race to hit a50, could be more about beating the legal blocks rather than damage to the economy and/or doing what is in the best interest of the country - which in itself is depressing.

Whether bogging down Brexit in legal stuff, is in the end, in the best interest of the country remains to be seen. It could be more harmful than good even for those who do want to stay in and retain their EU status.

I'll be willing to bet that a couple of other possible legal blocks will crop up yet too. Possibly something in relation to NI or Scotland I would guess.

That globalisation article does not surprise me in the slightest. This is what I could never get my head round. You can't avoid globalisation. If you are opening up to the rest of the world more, your wages have to be low to be competitive or you have to be producing a particularly high quality product. The pound tanking might help that, but then you have to export more than previously anyway to cover the cost of imports.

Plus we are so heavily dependant on services - which is the pattern of advance western economies - they have all moved away from manufacturing. Going back to that goes back to the cost of wages.

So you have to sacrifice something somewhere to reduce costs. The most obvious answer is workers rights. And that doesn't improve things for those who voted Leave because they felt they were being exploited or simply unable to find work!

Sigh...

Now HOW do I get to Germany?

This made me smile

Great article CatfromJapan.

They might not realize it, but voters may actually want to leave the World Trade Organization or the global economy more than they want to leave the E.U.

I definitely think people want to be "protected" from globalisation.

Very worrying about AL, I don't think she is at all qualified.

Too early to say what situation the new PM will face - maybe nothing much, or maybe pound / dollar nearing parity, major firms quitting the UK, the merged London Stock Exchange /Deutsche Boerse moving to Frankfurt ....

What we do know is that she won't have time to get used to high office and learn on the job.
No time to find that the Unicorn Has NOT Landed and then to hunt for plan B
She has to get a grip immediately, restore business and City confidence, show she actually knows what the hell she is doing.
May could take over from Cameron seamlessly and get stuck right into the job

My hope is that May gets in and says she will work with the all-party HoC Remainer majority to get EEA through asap, the soft touch Brexit with least pain.

I know only one party can organise negotiations, but I'd really like the PM to keep the HoC or at least the Labour and Liberal Party leaders informed and make it more of an all-party effort to push for a good deal.
A competent Labour Leader with a PLP fully behind them would have a far better claim to be kept in the loop and to contribute. Currently, May or Loathsome can just leave them squabbling offstage.

WTO boss Roberto Azevedo, said Britain would have to renegotiate trade deals with all 161 members, basically joining from scratch.
The WTO would cost UK consumers £9bn per year and cost UK businesses another £5.5bn p.a.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/may/25/wto-eu-uk-consumers-trade-dealss_

I've never understood why anyone thinks the WTO option would help those struggling in the UK.

The EU / EEA protects - although not enough - against the worst competition from slave labour and indentured labour, the lack of environmental safeguards that caused the Bhopal Union Carbide disaster which killed about 15,000 and exposed half a million to the poisonous effects.

The WTO is pure unfettered capitalism - look at the photos in that Bhopal link to understand what sweeping away pesky rules can do.

That is funny Red.

I agree with you about globalisation. I tend to think that globalisation just is. For now, the best we can do is a 'managed relationship with globalisation' (using what Gordon Brown says in the article buried within the one I linked to) - and, as a social democrat, I'd like that management to have an element of social justice about it.

Having said that, I have friends on the Left who argue that a. globalisation is not a foregone conclusion and a 'managed relationship' is actually only an act of production and reproduction and/or b. 'se' must unilaterally resist globalisation by opting out of it.

I'm not an idiot, I realise that a 'managed relationship' which is socially just within one economic area (say, the UK, or the EU) means, in some sense, displacing global equality and injustice elsewhere, which means purchasing UK people's rights and comfort at the cost of those of people outside those privileged zones.

However, I really don't see that the UK, by itself, is in any way powerful enough to make much of a dent in the globalisation juggernaut when it is going to be perpetuated, regardless, by other economic power blocs.

I worry that 'opting out' is a fantasy that will end up placing a considerable slice of our population at the rather sharp end of globalisation.

But perhaps I'm wrong ... (am really happy to hear positive narratives ...)

Didn't read your last two posts, BigChoc. Am in agreement with both.

Sadiq Khan is trying to get a place for London on the 'Brexit Negotiation Team'. Totally agree that it should be cross-party. And that there is a pressing need for coherence from all non-Conservative parties in Parliament to be exerting pressure for that. And pressure from outside Parliament, too.

The problem with trying to opt out of globalisation is that few people are prepared to give up the benefits of globalisation.

Also, how do you restrict access to global markets when we have instant access to the world on our phones?

There is a major difference between watching the news of a disaster on the TV / phone / tablet and choosing to participate in such a disaster.

If you mean we can order stuff from around the world via online shopping, yes but we then have to pay custom duties if that country doesn't have an agreement with the EU, or later with us.

I agree with the Washington Post analysis that globalisation played its part. However, if they're saying that anti-immigration did not play a part that's plain wrong. If they think the Tees Valley voted solely on an anti-globalisation motivation without an anti-immigration component I suggest they visit Hartlepool.

The first thing to realise about the piece is that whoever did the analysis had seemed content to settle solely on Chinese imports. It seems a bit odd to equate globalisation with imports from only one country until you realise that imports from China vs domestic industry is an absolute fixation in the US (with good reason).

Therefore, although there's truth in the article its focus was on looking in a mirror rather than analysing what was actually happening on the ground in the UK. A bit too much confirmation bias for me.

I think immigration is part of globalisation. It's harder to understand trade flows and easier to look around and blame immigrants, but they are all part of the world becoming smaller and more integrated.

Also, as globalisation hits people economically, they tend to want to fall back on tradition, identity and belonging more than ever. A globalised world is washing these things away quickly. A large influx of immigrants with different languages, food shops, etc. suddenly looks scary rather than benign or even enriching, when people are under pressure.

I am not excusing xenophobia, but I am interested in trying to understand what drives it. To say whole communities are simply bad people doesn't make sense to me. There is something affecting that whole community, and finding acceptable ways to address it seems worth doing.

That's interesting, nauticant. Thank you for that insight/analysis.

I assumed a more 'innocent' reason (possibly because I am less informed about popular economic discourses in the USA): a lot of the proponents of 'Leave' keep telling us all our problems are going to be solved once we leave the 'restrictions' of the EU. Focusing on Chinese imports gives the lie to the brave new world outside the EU, sailing on the happy waters of the WTO.

I have to say, the narrative proposed in that article does not look at the issue of racism, xenophobia, etc. - and I think that lies behind the role of 'immigration' in Brexit. The article points out that there is no link between rates of immigration and a 'Leave' vote. However, that leaves unexplored the role played by the fear of immigration/the other. How on earth will that ever be explored when it is something that people are notoriously cagey about disclosing? Just look at mn: apparently, nobody voted for those reasons, or knows anyone who did. Despite mn having been infested by some quite extraordinary threads (which now seem to have dried up - strange to say).

I do think that the 'Remain' vote, in London, was in part a protest against what was perceived as a racist dimension in strands of the 'Leave' campaign. That's certainly what I heard from many people.

(I notice how careful I have to be as I type the above ...)

Totally weird how all this anxiety was displaced onto a vote about staying in or out of the EU.)

How joyful to think we can look forward to an airing of lots of this, all over again, with the Conservative leadership contest. And this time, most of us won't even get to vote! Just be joyful observers - and possibly on the receiving end of hateful feelings that are stirred up further.