Who's the Nasty Party now?

After hours of waiting, the Labour NEC has voted so that leader Jeremy Corbyn will be automatically included on any upcoming leadership ballot.

The Labour Party's very existence is at stake, this week. After hours of speculation from the rebels and the Corbynistas, the party's national executive committee finally decided to vote in favour of Mr Corbyn, with 18 votes to 14.

Some had believed the vote being a secret ballot might indicate a possible anti-Corbyn mood in the meeting, but as it turned out, the NEC were satisfied that  Mr Corbyn wasn't compelled to find 51 MPs and MEPs, in order to run for his own job again.

As indicated in the previous post, Labour's rules regarding a leadership challenge when there is no vacancy for the job make no mention of the leader themselves, instead choosing to say "challenger". Angela Eagle has already acquired the 51 nominations to ensure her own spot on the ballot, but it remains unclear what Owen Smith is deciding to do.

It all seemed set. Or was it? Once Mr Corbyn had left the meeting, reports emerged that a new vote had been made by the NEC, concerning the grounds on which members would be able to vote. 

It is now the rule that any members who joined after mid-January are deemed ineligible to vote,  and any members who signed up by paying £3 last summer will need to pay a heftier £25 fee. It's a move that will effectively whittle the eligible voter base down to the core pre-2015 members, if the new intake prove unable to sign up again or lose enthusiasm to do so.

Having apparently got what he wanted out of the day, Mr Corbyn left the NEC meeting in a chirpy mood, and later in the evening, Guardian journalist Benn Quinn filmed John McDonnell and Diane Abbott addressing a rally in Camden (view here). Mr McDonnell was filmed by Quinn saying the following:

"They have been plotting and conniving...the only good thing about it...as plotters, they're fucking useless..."

Diane Abbott, who was onstage with Mr McDonnell, is shown grinning, as she looks out at the crowd watching them. It feels like the "kind and gentle politics" motto that the Corbynites wanted to strive for has run out of legs to stand on. There's just no way the party can heal from such a toxic show of disapproval, when the upper echelons show such contempt for the democratically elected members.

Angela Eagle woke up on the morning of 12th July, to find her constituency office had been vandalised; a mystery assailant had thrown a brick through a window, and she has reportedly been offered police protection. Just let that sink in for a moment. You read that correctly: A British Member of Parliament is being offered police protection, simply for deciding to run against the opposition party leader. It's a phrase that feels unsettling to have to write, but that's how bad things have become.

In a Newsnight interview broadcast just a matter of minutes ago, Angela Eagle reiterated that she has been a Labour member for 40 years, and slammed Mr Corbyn over of bullying in the party, especially through social media, saying he has not shown leadership. She also added that:

"He is a protester; he's not a persuader of people"

As Labour continues to devour itself on the altar of post-Brexit mayhem, the Conservative government has got its act together, and is preparing to welcome our second female Prime Minister, Theresa May, into No. 10 in just a few hours time.

In an infamous 2002 Tory Party conference speech, Theresa May spoke of the perception of the Tory Party being the "Nasty Party". After a day like today, starting with a window shattered by a brick, most of the PLP being branded "fucking useless" and Twitter being fit to burst with vitriol yet again, it might be easy to dub Labour the recipient of such a mantle.

The Eighties strike back

A female Prime Minister, the Pound tumbling against the Dollar, a Labour Party riven with divisions and Rick Astley in the UK top 40 chart. The 1980s have come back, with a bang.

Theresa May is set to become our new Prime Minister on Wednesday evening, following the sudden departure of Andrea Leadsom from the Tory leadership contest.

The day was due to be dominated by the turmoil bubbling inside the Labour Party, with Angela Eagle launching a bid for the leadership at a press conference earlier today.

However, all this was blown out of the water, when whispers began to swirl about the fate of Andrea Leadsom's campaign to become Tory leader around midday today. 

An article published in the Times on 9th July appears to have been the catalyst for today's sudden turn of events: Times journalist Rachel Sylvester conducted an interview with Leadsom a few days ago, where she made the claim that "being a mum means having a very real stake in the future of our country".

Those words proved fatal, given that Theresa May had revealed in an interview with the Mail on Sunday over a week before that she and her husband wanted children but she was unable to. An article written following the Leadsom story, Rachel Sylvester commented that Leadsom's "suggestion that motherhood gave her a 'stake' in the future of the country was crashingly naive than calculatingly cruel".

Whatever Leadsom's reasoning was, it quite likely cost the Brexit faction its remaining shot at clinching No. 10, having lost first Boris Johnson, and then Michael Gove, following his so-called "knifing-in-the-front".

For the Tories, the future is clear; Theresa May will move into No. 10 by Wednesday, and markets are likely to cheer up, now that there won't be a seemingly endless leadership race for an entire summer. Today alone, the domestic-orientated FTSE 250 index rallied 3.3%, bolstered by Andrea Leadsom dropping out it seems.

Mr Cameron will likely visit the Queen after a last hurrah at PMQs, over 6 years after he started his job. Theresa May intends to respect the wishes of the 52% by delivering Brexit, perhaps by 2019-20. A whole new government department will be established especially to facilitate Brexit, headed by a pro-Brexit government minister.

The future for the Labour Party is a whole other kettle of fish. Differing legal advice has left some in a state of confusion over whether Jeremy Corbyn will be included on any leadership ballot or not.

The party's rule-book unhelpfully makes the matter open to interpretation:

"Where there is no vacancy, nominations may be sought by potential challengers each year prior to the annual session of party conference..."

"In this case any nomination must be supported by 20% of the combined Commons members of the [parliamentary Labour party] and members of the [European parliamentary Labour party]. Nominations not attaining this threshold shall be null and void"

What is significant is the use of the word "may" rather than "shall" in the first sentence. It makes the 20% of MPs/MEPs bit seem optional, at a time when the party needs a more concrete idea of what constitutes a legitimate leadership bid. Mr Corbyn's allies could read this to mean he doesn't need nominations, and could just run again, by virtue of being leader.

What we know for sure is as follows: Angela Eagle is openly challenging Mr Corbyn for the leadership, and it's being reported that she received enough nominations, according to Iain McNicol, Labour's General Secretary. Owen Smith, who has had 2 shadow ministerial posts since 2012, is reportedly mulling over launching a bid of his own.

Such a move could be risky for the anti-Corbyn faction; it may split the vote and score a spectacular own goal. Of course, it might all be for nought, whatever machinations are put in Jeremy Corbyn's path; there's been another surge in Labour Party membership, taking it to about 515k people.

This new post-referendum surge may well be just more Corbynistas, joining to protect their leading light. If they give Mr Corbyn a resounding victory, the PLP is highly-likely to split. Owen Smith got into a high-profile Twitter spat with John McDonnell over a potential split, as evidenced below:

Len McCluskey, head of the massive Unite union insists Jeremy Corbyn is going nowhere and Unison's Dave Prentis seconds that. However, according to a fresh YouGov poll of Labour-affiliated trade union members, 58% believe he should quit before the next election. 63% claim he is doing his job poorly, and out of those who want him to quit, 45% think he should leave as soon as possible.

In case Corbynistas were holding onto the belief that affiliates think Mr Corbyn has what it takes to become Prime Minister, they will be disappointed. 76% of respondents from this new YouGov poll also claim they don't believe Mr Corbyn will ever grace the threshold of No. 10, just as Theresa May is due to, come Wednesday evening.

More data on the YouGov poll is available here.

The Brexit Bloodbath

It's approaching two weeks since the most contentious vote in generations, and the leadership of the main political parties has been thrown up in the air like confetti.

Nigel Farage held a press conference this morning, in which he announced his decision to step down as leader of UKIP; in his most recent 6-year stint, he's revitalised the party, from the electoral despair of 2010, to the Brexit outcome he desired for years.

Cue thousands of Britons hoping the door doesn't hit him on the way out. Just another pain in the neck, who launched an escape pod from Terra Firma, after pressing the scorched-Earth button, like Boris.

Boris met his Waterloo last week at the hands of fellow Vote Leave ally Michael Gove; if there's one thing top-class political thrillers leave you asking, it's "who needs enemies, when the friends are like this?"

Loyalty on the battlefield has been no guarantee, in the final climb to the top here. The Prime Minister will soon be gone, and in his wake, he leaves the Tories divided among the Brexiteers and the modern-day wets. At present, Theresa May appears to be rallying more MPs behind her cause.

Michael Gove's treachery has done him no favours; so far, it's estimated he's only got the backing of 20 MPs or thereabouts; Theresa May has over 100. Her nearest rival is likely to be Andrea Leadsom, darling of the Leave campaign. 

Leadsom was elected to the HoC in 2010, and despite claims she's too inexperienced, she's actually been in Parliament longer than David Cameron was when he made a bid for the leadership. The likes of Nigel Farage are hoping for a Brexiter to lead the Tories from here, so it will be interesting to see what lengths her rivals go to, to poison members against her.

Labour would have the right to gloat, if it wasn't for the fact that most of the shadow cabinet seats are vacant. After last week's no-confidence vote, where 172 MPs voted against Mr Corbyn, there's been signs of necrosis setting into the party's high command.

Moderate MPs want Corbyn out. Corbyn reportedly considered going, after a humiliating PMQs last week, but now it appears his inner circle have encouraged him to live and fight another day. It's simply unsustainable for a potential party of government to be so disunited. It's all just a question of who goes first: the PLP rebels or the man at the top. Things could be messy.

The outcome that MPs are really not wanting to have to consider is a split, the thermonuclear option. It would be an admission that Labour has failed to come back from the abyss this time, after flirting with the militant tendency in the 1980s. We're likely to see the birth of a new centrist political project, if rebels decide their efforts are in vain. They might form an SDP/Liberal-style alliance with the Lib Dems, or even join them outright.

It would be a traumatic political event, but would be a step towards reflecting the political fault lines of the country more accurately. If the Tories choose a Brexiter to lead them into the autumn conference and beyond, UKIP will start to feel the pinch, despite having got the Brexit it always wanted. 

A more moderate leader would face sniping over not doing enough for Brexit. UKIP might pose a serious challenge, and risk unseating if they remain gridlocked for a long time.

Update

The following bit is a new development that came to light, just as this article was being polished off for publishing.

Andrea Leadsom reportedly gave a disappointing performance at the first Tory party hustings, in preparation for the leadership election. BuzzFeed's political correspondent Emily Ashton has just reported that an MP leaving the room after the hustings called her performance a "f***ing shambles".

All the leadership contenders were allotted 15 mins to address MPs, and Leadsom reportedly started to lose her audience 3 minutes into her speech. There was allegedly trouble concerning Leadsom and UKIP. BuzzFeed reports she was asked about links to the party 3 times.

The troubles may have arisen, when she reportedly spoke about emotional development and the frontal lobe of the brain, as well as claiming she would activate Article 50 immediately, only to go and say she'd delay it minutes later. These claims are made here.

The Brexit Vacuum

In all of recorded human history, only one person is known to have been exposed to the power of a vacuum and lived to tell the tale.

Jim LeBlanc was working for NASA in the mid-1960s, hired to test one of their prototype lunar spacesuits. Locked into a triple-door chamber, and wearing the suit, LeBlanc seemed to be doing just fine, when disaster struck.

A pressure hose came loose, and LeBlanc was essentially exposed to near-vacuum conditions, albeit briefly. Thankfully, LeBlanc survived the ordeal. Before blacking out due to oxygen deprivation, he distinctly recalls the sensation of saliva evaporating off his tongue.

The political situation, following last Thursday's vote has led to what many call a power vacuum, on both the government's benches, as well as the opposition's side. The Prime Minister, having failed to convince the country to support his plans, intends to resign and a new one will be in place by 9th September 2016, at the last reckoning.

The terrifying ordeal of Jim LeBlanc is a warning from history of what happens in a vacuum. The laws of nature go out the window, and the very things that offer hope and joy boil off into the ether helplessly.

At the time of writing, the government is effectively a zombie administration. The Prime Minister is leaving far sooner than he likely expected to go, and it's unlikely we can expect him to rattle off some revolutionary policies in the remaining 2 months of his premiership.

His successor is an unknown element in all this, and the first of two vacuums emerges for a very good reason. Based off a highly-rated comment on a Guardian website article, it has been suggested that Boris Johnson and Michael Gove never truly wanted a Brexit to be the outcome on June 23rd.

It sounds ridiculous, I know. But when you examine just how fantastically unprepared the Brexit camp have been, you start to realise why. Scotland voted overwhelmingly in favour of remaining in the EU, along with Northern Ireland, but England and Wales went the other way.

The rules of engagement, concerning the Scottish independence issue have changed dramatically, and the same goes for Northern Ireland, but it doesn't seem to grab the headlines as much. Scotland will fight to retain its status as part of the EU, and in a possible re-run of the so-called indy ref of 2014, Nicola Sturgeon would deliver on the pledge to make Scotland a country in its own right.

Does anybody truly think a potential break-up of the United Kingdom was what Boris Johnson and Michael Gove actually prepared for, when they campaigned for Vote Leave? If the thought had never crossed their minds, they are guilty of making one of the gravest miscalculations in recent political history.

Whoever succeeds Cameron faces the bleak choice: leave the EU, but lose Scotland and Northern Ireland, to the dismay of millions, or abandon invoking Article 50 in a desperate bid to save the UK, but go down in history as the Premier who ignored the will of 17.5m people. Catch 22 on Article 50, it seems.

Now we get to the second vacuum, that is equally as deadly in its ferocity; the gaping black hole of a vacuum at the heart of the Labour Party. It's been just over a year since Jeremy Corbyn rushed to get his name on the 2015 leadership ballot, and he's become one of the most divisive leaders of the Parliamentary Labour Party's 103-year history.

It all began with Hilary Benn being sacked for calling on Mr Corbyn to resign, having failed to convince enough of Labour's support base to back the Remain campaign. 

A cascade of shadow cabinet resignations followed, and now we're at the unprecedented point where all living former Labour leaders, 2 former deputy leaders, the current deputy AND the Prime Minister have called on the leader of the opposition to go. But he refuses to budge, citing the mandate he received from the unions, affiliates and paid-up members, in September 2015.

Mr Corbyn's divisiveness as leader the PLP stems from his refusal to adjust to the gravity of the situation that has gripped the British political system. Mr Cameron's successor is likely to take advantage of Mr Corbyn's crisis of confidence, to call a general election, to shore up Tory dominance in a post-Brexit era.

Mr Corbyn's response has been to refuse responsibility for the vote to Brexit, and Chris Byrant MP (part of the aforementioned cascade of resignations) has been reported to have received no answer, regarding whether Mr Corbyn voted to remain or leave on June 23rd.

A leadership battle is highly likely to emerge, given his recalcitrance to move from his diminishing position of power. Angela Eagle is a potential rival, but anything can happen in the next 24hrs.

Momentum, the group that evolved out of the campaign to help Mr Corbyn into power, has shown repeated contempt for the PLP, and whispers of possible deselection were occasionally seen, when MPs behaved in a way that Momentum didn't like, even before Brexit.

It all becomes an awkward question: who really runs the Labour Party? An outside organisation based around one man, and an army of party members who brand MPs "traitors" when they don't toe the line, or the democratically-elected MPs?

Since the events that unfolded on June 16th, the vitriolic language directed at Labour MPs by sections of the Corbynista movement should make us be as ashamed to be British, just as we are, when we hear stories about anyone who seems remotely foreign being told to go home.

How much longer will our two main parties survive in this vacuum, before someone restores the atmosphere? And if they fail to do so quickly, which party will evaporate into the ether first? The clock is ticking.

UK votes for Brexit

There you have it - the UK has voted in favour of Brexit, after a four-month campaign.

Prime Minister David Cameron announced his intention to resign by early October, to allow a new leader to steer the party and the country through the Conservative Party conference and beyond, to the many months of negotiations to come.

The markets had expected the whole thing to be in the bag for Remain, but by midnight, as results began to come in, that certainty began to diminish. By early morning, panic had set in, and the Pound was down 7% against the Dollar.

Share prices opened sharply lower, as financial institutions took fright. It has been estimated that $2trn has evaporated as a result of the market turbulence of the past day or so. Rating agencies have swooped in, and downgraded their assessments of the UK's creditworthiness, following the vote for Brexit.

As Mr Cameron wrapped up his address outside No10, his voice notably cracked. It was a speech brimming with emotion. Just over 6 years after he walked gleefully into No10, at the helm of a coalition government, Mr Cameron is now facing up to the final days of his stint in office.

Turnout was a respectable 72% up and down the country; turnout of this magnitude hasn't been seen at a general election since the 1990s.

72% turnout equates to about 33m people voting. The Leave option received 17.4m votes, a 51.9% vote share, against Remain, which garnered 16.1m votes or 48.1% of votes.

To put this into perspective, the figures are record-breaking; before June 23rd, the highest number of votes for any one party in UK history had been the shock 14m who voted to keep John Major in No10, during the tumultuous election of 1992.

Fact checking time. Here's a quick run-down of some points:

1.) Claim: the UK has left the EU (FALSE)

The country voted for Brexit, but it's important to remember, the UK is still a member of the EU right at this moment, and will remain so, until the next Prime Minister invokes Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, and the UK completes negotiations. The actual Brexit itself could take a minimum of 2 years.

2.) Claim: the referendum was legally binding (FALSE)

The referendum brought millions out to vote, but it's still not actually legally binding. The AV referendum in 2011 was legally binding, but this was because it concerned a massive overhaul of the UK's voting system. The people have had their say, but ultimate sovereignty remains with the UK Parliament that the people elect to represent them. What happens if Parliament votes to reject leaving the EU?

3.) Claim: £350m a year will now be available for the NHS (UNLIKELY)

Vote Leave repeatedly faced criticism for running with a punchline: £50m per day or £350m per week is sent to the EU, and if we leave, the government can keep the cash, and spend it on the NHS. Adjusting for rebates and EU spending on subsidies and so on, the figure is likely half that at best.

Nigel Farage himself has admitted the pledge is a "mistake", despite having claimed on Question Time that the money would be better spent "helping the communities of Britain".

4.) Claim: Brexit could result in the UK breaking apart (TRUE)

Scotland and Northern Ireland voted overwhelmingly in favour of staying, and Nicola Sturgeon has stated that a second independence referendum is "on the table". In the event of one, Scotland is highly likely to be granted its independence, overturning the outcome almost 2 years ago. Northern Ireland's Deputy First Minister has called for a border poll, reflecting the fact that NI is the only part of the UK that shares a border with another EU member state.

The story is simple: Brexit isn't quite the sunlit upland people were told it was going to be, and significant numbers of voters are now starting to question whether the Leave campaign's pledges can be upheld. Then there's the question about whether the UK will come out of this whole ordeal intact.

Looking ahead, here are two intrigiuing theories to consider:

Our next PM might just proceed to invoke Article 50, and the Brexit goes ahead, resulting in the break-up of the UK. 300 years of union will go up in a puff of smoke, just like that. England and Wales plod on, and that's that.

The other theory is not immediately apparent, but worth bearing in mind. Our next PM might just reject the idea of Brexit altogether for the sake of keeping the UK intact. In doing so, they would be sacrificing themselves and the Conservatives, going against the wishes of the 52%.

Whether it's Boris Johnson, Theresa May or Francis Urqhart, Mr Cameron's successor will have a massive in-tray on day one.

Market panic, as Brexit takes lead in handful of polls

£80bn wiped off London stock markets in four days, as odds on Brexit jump.

Photo by Images Money (Flickr) / CC BY

Nine days out from one of the most anticipated votes in post-war British history, markets are in a state of fear, as a flurry of opinion polls indicated that the UK might exit the European Union on June 23rd.

Today alone, pension pots will have felt a pinch, as the FTSE 100 shed 2% of its value. Betting markets have been fairly relaxed about the likelihood of a Brexit, having claimed just over the weekend that it was only a 25% possibility.

The price of Gold in GBP has jumped to £900 per ounce in recent days, as a reflection of investors seeking hard assets, during a period of economic uncertainty. To compound all this, Rupert Murdoch's best-selling newspaper the Sun has come out in favour of Brexit.

Mr Murdoch's editorial decision is intriguing, given that the Sun has the habit of coming out in support of the party that would go to win every election since 1979.

Where did this sudden tumble in markets begin? Cue an avalanche of statistics from multiple polling agencies over the weekend. They were enough for some to consider that the calculus has shifted. Now betting odds on a Brexit have risen to roughly 40%. 

However, Number Cruncher Politics, an independent psephology stats site claims the gap is just a bit wider.

NCP has seen the likelihood of a Brexit rise in recent days, but it estimates that there's actually a 33% likelihood of a Brexit. It is important to note that NCP was hailed for foreseeing the controversy over inaccurate polling in the run-up to the May 2015 general election.

So where does this leave us? The most important things to consider, when reading an opinion poll on the EU referendum are the following: 

1.) Does the poll include or exclude voters from Northern Ireland? 

If NI voters are excluded, there's a chance the poll is skewed somewhat. Polls carried out exclusively inside Northern Ireland find support for remaining in the EU far exceeding support for a Brexit.

2.) Polls are the political equivalent of breath on a pane of glass; things happen and views change

Peter Kellner, former President of YouGov writes in the Staggers that past referendums in the UK have tended to see a last-minute boost in support towards the status quo, whatever that may be.

The headlines are filled with a curious paradox; on one hand, people are confident a Brexit is so unlikely, that they're willing to bet money on Britain staying, and yet on the other, the markets are so jittery.

Only nine days to go, till the biggest poll of them all comes to town.

Brexit: The Movie (Review)

Six weeks to go, and this will all be over (I promise!)

From the film-maker who told you that breast implant concerns were overstated and, on repeated ocassions tried to prove that climate change is a myth, Martin Durkin presents "Brexit: The Movie".

The film, which runs for about 70mins, was funded by £100k worth of contributions through crowd-funding. The film features the darlings of British Euroscepticism, who join forces for an hour-and-a-bit campaign of disinformation about the European Union.

Here are some of the big guns that were asked to give a penny for their thoughts, and ended up giving a bucket load of pennies worth: Nigel Farage, Melanie Phillips, Kelvin MacKenzie, Nigel Lawson, James Delingpole and Janet Daley, to name a few.

Let's look at some of the zingers and bones of contention.

1.) The film uses ignorance as an excuse

Photo by Mats Halldin / CC BY

The film makes its first error, showing Martin Durkin stepping into a Brussels taxi. In his best French, he makes the most cringe-worthy request imaginable: "The EU...s'il vous plait".

The driver looks back at him, as if he's just insulted his whole family. No surprise really. It's a bit like hopping into a black cab after landing in the UK, and asking the driver to take you to the Anglosphere.

The segment then wastes a few seconds making a point about the seemingly endless number of fancy buildings and important-sounding jobs held by people in Brussels and elsewhere.

Vox pops then get sprung upon us. UK and Brussels residents are shown an array of faces (e.g. Martin Schultz) and have no idea who the people are. The scenes are supposed to leave us with the impression that, if we don't know who our MEPs are, it's not worth looking them up, because they're either powerless, suspicious, or shouldn't be trusted.

Ask any Brit if they recognised an array of pictures of current MPs in the UK Parliament, and they probably wouldn't have a clue either. You don't see people suggesting we abolish parliamentary democracy as a result though. In the Internet age, there's far less of an excuse for people to be clueless, you could argue. If you feel so frustrated about not knowing who your MEP is, it's fair to say, just Google it, instead of getting all hot and bothered.

In a previous post on this site, a vox pop was used to write an article, but if you know anything about sample sizes, vox pops aren't actually useful gauges of public opinion as you might think. If you only chat to less than 50 people, it's estimated the margin of error can be as high as 15% or more. Not the kind of margin you'd want, for an issue like the referendum.

2.) The Sun has epically fallen out of love with David Cameron

Photo by Duncan Hull / CC BY

The Sun basks in the privilege of being one of the most-read papers in the country. Physical sales have collapsed, but it still finds its ways to lure readers in.

Liverpool has boycotted the Sun, ever since its shameful coverage of the Hillsborough disaster of 1989. In some circles, the paper is political radioactive waste. One of Ed Miliband's biggest gaffes as Labour leader was to hold up a copy of the paper for a photo-shoot, grinning ear to ear.

The paper has gained the reputation of picking sides in the run-up to general elections. This started in earnest with Mrs Thatcher in the 1970s, and the paper remained loyal to the Conservatives...until it wasn't. It performed a switcheroo in the 1990s to New Labour under Tony Blair, but then did an about turn, back to David Cameron's supposed de-toxified Conservative Party.

However, it seems that the Sun's editor, Kelvin MacKenzie has fallen out of love with the Prime Minister, big time. In a segment for the film, he tears into Mr Cameron:

"Toff...tries to hide it, probably quite a nasty piece of work"

Tell us how you really feel, Mr MacKenzie!

3.) The film goes all Tea Party, and brings up the Magna Carta

Photo by Jappalang / CC BY

The film helpfully points out a game-changing moment in English history: last year was the 800th anniversary of the signing of the Magna Carta, or Great Charter.

The film paints it as a triumpant moment, where the English people managed to rise up and demand the right to demand how much they should be taxed, and how it should be spent. The whole issue is then spun, in a way that makes it seem as if the EU is corrupt, because we supposedly have no say over the money.

First, it's important to point out that, for all the glitz of name dropping the document, the Magna Carta still failed to end the system of serfdom, one of the most egregious abuses of working people in Medieval England. It was only following the Black Death, where half the population perished, that labourers began to wield more power over their labour, and even dared to withdraw it and take it elsewhere, in the search for a better standard of living.

Labour following the Black Death was so scarce, and because wages were more closely based on the supply of labour, a huge drop in the workforce corresponded to a huge rise in wage growth, more than serfdom would have ever hoped to achieve. Second, not to belittle the document, but writings by JC Holt point to the fact that, by 1350, about half the clauses in the Magna Carta had been succeeded by more relevant laws of the day. That stems from the fact that times changed. The document became inflexible in various ways.

It's easy to see why Martin Durkin brought it up. Tea Party-types in the US use the US constitution as the totem of their faith, but Britain doesn't have a codified constitution. The Magna Carta serves as a romantic, sweet little reminder of Medieval English history. The problem is just that, though: it's Medieval.

4.) The film skims through the post-war era, when the European Project began

The European Coal and Steel Community, omitted from "Brexit: The Movie"

Photo by JLogan / CC BY

About a quarter of the way through, the film looks back at Britain at the height of the Industrial Revolution, exporting its way to prosperity. Then it takes a darker turn, with the two world wars. The state imposing itself over the course of this period becomes the next big issue.

A contrast is made with post-war Germany, which was used to show how less regulation helped it outpace Britain, and enjoy a post-war boom. The film makes the mistake of not reminding viewers about the birth of the European project, namely the European Steel and Coal Community, which Germany and other countries were part of, but not Britain.

Instead, the film skims through from 1945 straight to 1973, when Britain joined the EEC. In doing so, the film has conveniently avoided having to include the fact that the European Project was instrumental in ensuring a lasting economic recovery on the continent. The film treats Germany's boom as if it was caused by a sprinkle of deregulation and little else.

5.) The European Project is dismissed as a snobbish, artsy fad

Photo by Spicymystery / CC BY

Noted climate change sceptic and conservative writer James Delingpole sneers at the idea of the EU, saying:

"There's a tremendous snobbery built into the whole project, the idea that you are part of the elite, which should decide how the little people live their lives"

James Delingpole, it should be noted, is guilty of preaching to the masses, having authored a book titled "Watermelons: How Environmentalists are Killing the Planet, Destroying the Economy and Stealing Your Childrens' Future". For such a dramatic title, you'd expect anyone who tries to write about climate change to have at least some understanding of the science backing it up.

However, Mr Delingpole openly admitted:

“I feel a bit of an imposter talking about the science. I'm not a scientist, you may be aware"

Kelvin MacKenzie is then shown, and heard saying:

"These people up here, the intellectuals...are looking down on the plebs, and saying, 'you're not bright enough to decide the future of your country'"

This quote is frankly astonishing, coming from the editor of a newspaper, which has a column called "The Sun Says", where the reader is practically told what to think.

6.) The film depicts lazy and racist stereotypes

Photo by Lobo / CC BY

The film continues to go on about regulation in present day. One scene depicts two alpha male European men in a factory wearing vests. Instead of working, one of them is flirting with a woman, and the other is getting all vexed. Europe is being depicted as work-shy and uncompetitive.

Then the scene shifts to an Asian factory somewhere. Two oriental men are shown with clipboards, looking studiously at a childishly easy maths sum. Durkin exclaims about one of them:

"Look how good he is at maths!"

(Bangs head repeatedly against a wall)

For good measure, the film even depicts a Frenchman, complete with stripy shirt, beret, a ring of garlic round his neck, a baguette and a bottle of wine nearby.

7.) Switzerland is shown as a model for a post-Brexit scenario

Photo by Mei Burgin / CC BY

Towards the end of the film, Martin Durkin travels to Switzerland, and gets told by all his interviewees how free the Swiss feel with trade deals, despite not being in the EU.

It's just a shame Martin Durkin forgot to mention that Roberto Balzaretti the Swiss ambassador to the EU was quoted back in March as having said:

“What they should know is the situation of Switzerland. Being a member state is much more comfortable"

So there you have it; a run-down of some of the clangers in Martin Durkin's "Brexit: The Movie". Somehow, you get the feeling there won't be a sequel.