Gisela Stuart was very active in the referendum campaign, almost as prominent as Boris Johnson on our television screens. What a jolly couple they made, like Billy Bunter in a double act with Mrs Gamp. How they laughed as they urged us on to Brexit. All that scaremongering was nonsense. Everything would be so easy. Relax.
Now the dogs breakfast is before us, she writes in Conservative Home HERE by way of excusing her part in the Brexit folly. It's all the fault of the "political class" apparently (remind me again who and what Gisela Stuart is). Decrying the deal - even before it was reached, because her article is dated yesterday well before news broke - she still thinks we can reset the clock and start again with 135 days to go!:
"It’s not too late. There is still time for a change in policy, for adoption of a comprehensive free trade deal on offer from the EU and applied to the entire UK, which even now could provide a way forward. Faster and more comprehensive preparation for departure on WTO terms would both strengthen the UK’s negotiating position and give us another way out as an independent and self-governing country.
"Such a change, however, requires a grasp of statecraft we have so far found lacking. It is what the people voted for – but we may find our political class are found wanting".
Of course as a Brexiteer and supposed democrat, she is implacably opposed to a second vote and her argument is this:
"Whilst politicians in Westminster have argued with themselves, there is no evidence that the public has changed its mind. Another vote would undermine the validity of the first, but probably produce the same result".
And helpfully she herself provides a hyperlink to a piece by our leading psephologist, Professor Sir John Curtice dated November 6th, just a few days ago. But stunningly, rather than supporting her argument it totally and utterly contradicts it! Didn't she think we would check it? This is actually what he said as opposed to what Gisela Stuart reported he said:
"This, of course, still leaves the issue of whether the UK should be leaving the EU at all. Here the findings were broadly in line with those of other recent polling, with a headline figure of 54% Remain, 46% Leave. This, incidentally, is the figure that was reached after the data had been analysed by Chris Hanretty using multilevel regression and post-stratification to estimate how each local authority area would have voted, and the results for the 380 counting units aggregated back up to produce a Britain-wide figure".
Earlier in her piece she says the referendum was won "with a clear majority of 3.8 per cent" for leave, but now the polls indicate a clear majority of 8% for remain she says there is "no evidence that the public has changed it's mind". Remember, she is providing a link to evidence that it HAS changed it's mind.
With Brexiteers ignorance and mendacity go hand in hand don't they? BoJo was ignorant and she mendacious. Old habits are so hard to break.
She reminds me of part of an Oscar Wilde essay: The Decay of Lying, where Vivian tells Cyril he is writing an article:
"This, of course, still leaves the issue of whether the UK should be leaving the EU at all. Here the findings were broadly in line with those of other recent polling, with a headline figure of 54% Remain, 46% Leave. This, incidentally, is the figure that was reached after the data had been analysed by Chris Hanretty using multilevel regression and post-stratification to estimate how each local authority area would have voted, and the results for the 380 counting units aggregated back up to produce a Britain-wide figure".
Earlier in her piece she says the referendum was won "with a clear majority of 3.8 per cent" for leave, but now the polls indicate a clear majority of 8% for remain she says there is "no evidence that the public has changed it's mind". Remember, she is providing a link to evidence that it HAS changed it's mind.
With Brexiteers ignorance and mendacity go hand in hand don't they? BoJo was ignorant and she mendacious. Old habits are so hard to break.
She reminds me of part of an Oscar Wilde essay: The Decay of Lying, where Vivian tells Cyril he is writing an article:
VIVIAN. I intend to call it “The Decay of Lying: A Protest.”
CYRIL. Lying! I should have thought that our politicians kept up that habit.
VIVIAN. I assure you that they do not. They never rise beyond the level of misrepresentation, and actually condescend to prove, to discuss to argue. How different from the temper of the true liar, with his frank, fearless statements, his superb irresponsibility, his healthy, natural disdain of proof of any kind! After all, what is a fine lie? Simply that which is its own evidence. If a man [or woman] is sufficiently unimaginative to produce evidence in support of a lie, he might just as well speak the truth at once.
By this measure, Stuart is still a politician sufficiently unimaginative to produce evidence in support of a lie and has not yet achieved BoJo's status (although she probably practices in private and will get there eventually) as the kind of true liar that Wilde had in mind, with his frank, fearless statements, superb irresponsibility and healthy disdain of proof of any kind.
But look where it has got us. God help us all.
But look where it has got us. God help us all.
