I agree but would go further.
You see the party got behind the 2017 manifesto and May's set piece speeches at Lancaster House and Florence.
Much is discussed of May's red lines, but she didn't really have any. As far back as Dec 2017 it was said that her red lines needed a new coat of paint as they were looking a bit pink.
It was May that moved away from her own commitments on the Single Market by offering very close alignment and then came up with the facilitated customs arrangement at Chequers.
It was May who came up with a 2 year transition, extendable to 4 years, and then the backstop which we couldn't leave without EU permission.
These were all new, and not party or manifesto commitments.
It was up to May if she withdrew the whip, but we did have numerous ministerial resignations over these creeping move from what most would call a clean Brexit, to a half-in Brexit.
Varoufakis on Question Time described it as an agreement only a country defeated in war would consider.
It polled at one point as only 12% approval by the public and of those supporting it in the Commons, most were on the Government's vast payroll.
More should have resigned, particularly Fox, Leadsom and Mordaunt. However, they will claim it was a deal that was a compromise and they were reluctantly willing to accept.
What is different now is that:
1. The Tory leadership contest gave a clear direction for the party. The lead 4 contenders supported by 92% of MPs on practically the same policy.
2. The Vote before them was not a vote against a Govt policy, it was a vote for an opposition policy - that is a huge difference.







Reply With Quote