In light of the recent controversy surrounding Prime Minister Theresa May’s Brexit deal that has seen multiple members of her cabinet resign and a potential no confidence vote in her coming around the corner, one question has become more prevalent: should Theresa May go?
Now there are two strands to this that I shall discuss. Firstly, there are advantages if she does go. It allows the deal currently being put on the table at Brussels to be potentially scrapped and replaced with something else a little more quid pro quo if you shall.
Currently, the most recent negotiation has numerous concessions to the European Union, of which while one could argue sounds like a reasonable compromise, it does seem like May is deliberately trying to please the EU and the various Europhiles among her own party, cabinet, Parliament and society at large, at the expense of the 17.4 million people who voted to leave the political bloc in the first place.
Allowing in a new face shall give this hypothetical new leader time to renegotiate Brexit to actually benefit Great Britain and not make her pander to the bureaucrats in Brussels, and reunite the Conservative Party. Because, let’s face it, the Conservative Party is one of deep division right now, between those hardcore Brexiteer types and the staunch Remoaner types of who are not particularly fussed about giving any leeway to their side.
These divisions have been a constant thorn in the side of the Tory Party for arguably the last 25 years, and such division can be dangerous. As political commentator Nick Robinson pointed out, the Conservative Party’s division can be exploited by the Labour Party to push their side as more united and knowing what they are talking about, and put them ‘back in business’, leading to a Corbyn government.
It is arguably what enabled Corbyn to do as well as he did in last year’s general election; his Labour Party were seen as a unified force under a strong leader as opposed to the Conservative Party under May of which has been seen as divided and May’s leadership as weak.
Getting rid of her not only allows the Tory party a fresh start to heal these divisions, but allows it to become a strong force against the Corbynista left and his Labour Party, of which can only end in disaster for our country, as former UKIP Economics spokeswoman Catherine Blaiklock explains.
Finally though, it may allow the Conservative Party to embrace true conservative values once again. If the victory for the Leave side back in the 2016 EU referendum proved anything at all, it was that there was a feeling of frustration at the current system. A desire for change, a desire for something new.
This ironically enough has led the true conservative politicians to rise as subsequent victories in this Democratic Revolution (from Trump to Bolsonaro) have shown, with Brexit being seen as a major victory for the British right, given that many of the biggest advocates for Brexit were on the right of the political scale.
From this, Great Britain needs this new wave of conservatism to head its Conservative Party as opposed to the centrist and leftie nonsense that has unfortunately hijacked much of its best and brightest over the past 50 years or so, starting from the Suez Crisis whereby Prime Minister Anthony Eden had truly embarrassed Great Britain and his party, of which allowed his successor Harold Macmillan to make it more centrist, something he had been calling for since the 1930s.
If the likes of Donald Trump can be really successful by becoming the head of a mainstream right-wing party, we should have similar success. After all, as journalist Peter Hitchens points out, only half of the revolution that is needed to transform Great Britain into a powerhouse again is done through Brexit.
Now while I shall disagree with his assessment that the major parties need to collapse to make this happen (as a member of the Tory party, that is clearly not viable), both of them need a shakeup of some kind to make them more relevant in the 21st century that goes beyond adapting to new technologies or banging on about issues only millionaires at cocktail parties and award shows care about. Putting a true conservative in charge of the Conservative Party would be a step in the right direction in that regard.
Secondly however, there is a downside about May being removed, not to mention basic problems too. For the latter, we are very nearly done with our negotiations with the EU, and are leaving in March 2019. Causing more potential delays to the discussions and eventually getting the deal agreed and ratified by both us and the guys over at Brussels is not going to be a good look at all.
After all, it would put us at a worse disadvantage than we are already. We would look in their eyes weak and easy to push around, given that we cannot seem to negotiate with the EU without ourselves imploding from the inside.
If we have any leverage at all, it should be that as a country, we are a united force in agreement with what deal we would like. While politicians disagreeing with one another is fine, leading it to undermine the negotiations and play into the EU’s hands isn’t.
It could lead to the EU being able to excuse themselves by offering us a really rubbish deal on the grounds that as we haven’t got our act together, we aren’t able to strongly negotiate our own position, as it doesn’t seem that we have one. It would embarrass us on the world stage if such infighting leads to a bad deal, something that especially shall not be good if we plan to trade with the rest of the world.
What makes this worse however is that the potential replacement for May could be someone even more of a Europhile. This is because for the longest time, the Conservative Party has been pushed and manipulated by people more fussed about forcing onto the British people a globalist agenda that benefits them and not the British people.
Hence why for the longest time, these people (both in terms of aristocrats of who fund the party and the leftist media who set the agenda on what the party should be) have been determined to make sure any leader of the Tory party has adopted this view, while anyone else who was more conservative was weeded out.
This was most notable with the removal of former leader Iain Duncan Smith back in 2003. While popular with both the party members (of who enabled him to win the 2001 Conservative Party leadership contest), former leader Margaret Thatcher (of who had unexpectedly backed him in the contest) and seemingly the public (whereby the Conservative Party under Duncan Smith managed to fare well at local elections, of which they would win), the elites of the party were not his fans.
Beyond some of the more legitimate problems with his leadership (that many saw him as uncharismatic – something Labour MPs frequently mocked him for – and scandals such as Betsygate), he was also not popular among the party’s elites of whose members hadn’t voted for him in the previous rounds of said leadership contest (with his competitor Ken Clarke beating him) and were eager to get rid of him.
They eventually did, and after subsequent leader Michael Howard resigned after losing the 2005 general election, David Cameron became the head who took the party in a more liberal direction.
One could argue that Margaret Thatcher had a similar downfall, whereby her becoming more Eurosceptic led more of her fellow MPs to turn on her like a pack of wolves, leading her to resign in 1990.
If May is removed, there is no guarantee her replacement shall be any better in terms of Brexit or anything else.
So while personally, I do have mixed feelings about the subject, hopefully such issues can be resolved in a peaceful manner. Because if not, Brexit could be ultimately betrayed, of which would be a very bad sign for British democracy indeed.
(Articles reflect the views of the author, and not necessarily those of Luke Nash-Jones, The Red Pill Factory, or Make Britain Great Again.)