We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

Why should she care?

Mike Smithson of politicalbetting.com says that:

The Telegraph is reporting details of at telephone conference call earlier this evening by about a dozen ministers who are pro-European. They include Amber Rudd and Greg Clarke the Business Secretary.

Basically they want the PM to commit to securing her Brussels deal within just two weeks. If that doesn’t happen then they will resign.The paper’s Steven Swinford notes:

“Ms Rudd and other Cabinet ministers have previously warned that as many as 20 ministers could quit so they can support the amendment tabled on Tuesday by Yvette Cooper, a senior Labour MP.

In the old days a Prime Minister who had ten ministers quit on them would have resigned out of sheer embarrassment, but given that Corbyn remained as leader of his party despite at least twenty of his Shadow ministers resigning the day after the referendum, why should Theresa May care about the loss of a mere ten?

It will save her the trouble of trying to keep sweet those foot-stampers who issue such meaningless demands as wanting “the PM to commit to securing her Brussels deal within two weeks”. If she were capable of securing a deal just by “committing” to it she would have done so by now. Unfortunately for her, deals involve two sides, and she has even less power over the EU side than she does over the side jokingly referred to as “hers”.

I am sure Mrs May will find ten up-and-coming MPs willing to take up the vacated positions.

While on the subject of deals with two sides, another politicalbetting.com article well worth a read is this one from Alastair Meeks: “Disastrously successful. The EU’s Brexit negotiation”. It starts with an apology for “going all Godwin on you” and then launches into a discussion of the Treaty of Sèvres after WWI. Never heard of it? You’re not alone; it was so harsh to the Turks that Atatürk and the Turkish nationalists rose up in outrage and overthrew those who had signed it. It was never implemented. As Meeks said,

The best outcome is one that will actually stick, not the one with nominally the most favourable terms.

11 comments to Why should she care?

  • James Strong

    The Leave side have been losing the presentational war since June 24th 2016.

    There should be no such thing as Remainers now – there should only be former Remainers, and that, or similar, should have been the term used by the Leave side.

    The term ‘crashing out’ should never have been allowed to gain traction- it should be, and should have been ‘breaking free’.

    The Leave side is still losing the presentational war because Remainers have now got the idea into the public consciousness that the only problem with the Withdrawal Agreement is the ‘backstop’. The Withdrawl Agreement is much worse than that.

    And now the ridiculous idea of taking ‘No Deal off the table’.
    What that means is being willing to accept anything that comes from the EU side.

    I have written to my MP many times exhorting him and the Leave side to be much more robust in their public statements. Why has no-one even said that the idea of Remain must be taken off the table?

  • James Strong

    It was, and still is legitimate to advocate remaining in the EU. The LibDems had that policy in their 2017 manifesto and suffered a huge drubbing at the polls.

    What is not legitimate is to campaign on one promise or set of ideas and then, after being elected, pursue the opposite course.

    Anna Soubry,Nicky Morgan, Yvette Cooper, Hilay Benn and many more are following that dishonest course. I don’t know what can or should be done when this happens. What do readers here think?

  • Stonyground

    Is there any kind of legal action that can be brought against them? Possibly some really old law that possibly dates back to Tudor times or something?

  • Eric

    Stonyground, you mean something with a three part punishment?

  • Mr Ecks

    James Strong–It is Leave’s fault that the country is full of middle class proggie Marxian venomous shite?

    Read some of the FBPE cocksuckers and tell me about mental cases. And NO the lying sons of bitches only appear to have put all the shit out there because they are in a bubble which most folk don’t believe in or accept. The remainiacs are talking to themselves via their MSM buddies.

    As for the “backstop” this is worked between Treason May and her BRINO and her–and ZaNU turd MPs who want Brexit gone altogether. As they will find out THEY are the only folk who want that shit–with perhaps 3 or 4 million London Bubble scumbags in agreement. The 16 million remain support stage has long gone–thanks to the EU/remainiacs/Treason May and her band. Jizza has shown himself a fool by also trying to betray. Had he stuck with a proper Brexit he might have had a chance. No t now after pissing off millions of his own potential voters.

  • Tim the Coder

    They stood for election on the Conservative (and Labour) manifestos.
    They have drawn their MP salaries while acting opposed to those pledges.
    “Obtaining Money by Deception” ?
    or just go for “Treason”?

  • Mr Ecks

    The Meeks article is bullshit. He wants Camoron to come back? Another remainiac puke from the sound of him–or just an idiot and mug punter.

  • TomJ

    @Stoneyground: A case brought against Brown’s govt about the Lisbon Treaty set the precedent that a manifesto promise affecting a broad swathe of people can’t constitute a legitimate expectation: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/politics-blog/11541708/The-court-case-that-proves-you-cant-sue-politicians-for-breaking-their-election-promises.html

  • Stonyground

    I suppose it will have to be torches and pitchforks then.

  • Johnathan Pearce

    James Strong makes a good point about the LibDems. The party did at least have the guts to campaign against the Ref. result and was hammered in the election.

  • James Strong makes a good point about the LibDems. The party did at least have the guts to campaign against the Ref. result and was hammered in the election.

    Not sure I buy that. The LibDems support base hasn’t really changed in decades and they were always pro-EU. What has changed is that the Coalition government of 2010-2015 showed what LibDem government would really mean, plus the shafting of students over student loans means that their support base has been eroded.

    Sure, there will be some that aren’t voting LibDem because of the referendum and their subsequent behavior, but it won’t be many.