The Cabinet crisis comes into stasis

The warning was intriguing, as if President Trump had realized that he was about to go too far. The United Kingdom, he said, was "in some confusion"

Not at all, a particularly helpful comment from an ally. More precisely, not useful for the political direction of the United Kingdom.

Boris Johnson, the former Secretary of Foreign Affairs, appointed by Mr. Trump as a "chum", would find no difficulty in reaching agreement. Although he can remove the warning, relying on the exuberant certainty that has become his oratorical mark.

Yet even Dr. Johnson used nuanced language, albeit for a very different purpose. By resigning, he declared that Theresa May was now leading Britain to a "half Brexit".

Specifically, he says that Downing Street pre-empted his official resignation letter and told the mean media that he had resigned

So where are we now? And, to continue the theme of modulated language, was it a half-coup d'etat?

Perhaps – although, in practice, it does not move much beyond the initial gambit. It has been alleged that a series of resignations would follow those of David Davis and Boris J.

Up to now, this has not proven substantially true – even though we now have the departure of two conservative vice-presidents.

] It is, for the moment, all reminiscent of 2009 when James Purnell left Gordon Brown's cabinet. It was expected that others would follow. They do not have – and Mr. Brown has survived in the office (until the next general election, that is to say).

million. Did Davis and Mr. Johnson coordinate their resignation? It would seem likely that they were in contact with each other. But Davis categorically denies having made an attempt to oust the prime minister and another scenario presents himself

M. Davis was about to go there for months. As secretary of Brexit, charged with negotiating the terms of departure, he thought that he could not continue to perform his duties in a credible manner when he did not agree with the Checkers Agreement, which would henceforth form the basis of its mission

. He suggested that his presence in the firm was no longer tenable now that Mr. Davis had put forward the question of principle.

It was possible at any time that others leave the cabinet. They did not do it. Perhaps, as in 2009, it was a case of "after you, Claude – no, after you Cecil" (from the ITMA, ask your grandparents or look online).

Confidence Calculations

More likely, they concluded that the resignation would accomplish little. Theresa May had stated that she would not resign, even though 48 MPs had signed a letter demanding a vote to see if she kept the confidence of the parliamentary party.

Moreover, she was convinced that she would win such a trust vote. The question would then be whether the count against it consisted only of the most obvious Brexit lovers – or whether it extended beyond them.

We would have been nuanced again, this time by arithmetic. Remember what happened when Margaret Thatcher was forced to leave her job. She won the first round of deputies – but not enough to avoid a second contest. In short, she won but she lost – and resigned.

The Prime Minister's relatives say that she is remarkably resilient, despite her sometimes uncertain caricature. They say that she manages to sound optimistic even when the events would have others "crawling into a dark closet".

Thus, the half-coup d'etat, if it were so, was mostly thwarted. source. Until now. However, there were other calculations. Frankly, there are few pure May's admirers. There is no "Mayites" – although this may be partly because the word itself is clumsy.

Many respect it. Many admire his stamina and determination. Few like it like Mrs Thatcher

. Their support is calculated. The former party chairman, Grant Shapps, well said when he noted that it would take three months to hold a leadership contest – a quarter of a year that could be better spent to negotiate the terms of Brexit.

criticism. And he drew another specific lesson. You can move to make me fall, she noted. But if you do, could there be a general election? If so, are you sure the Conservatives would win?

I know, I know, that the chief of the executive made an unusual decision that provoked an entirely useless electoral contest in 2017, losing the majority of his parties in the process. But the needs must …

Some say, behind their hands, that the hard Brexiters have bottled it. That they have dodged the opportunity to force a vote of confidence.

Well, maybe. But I think that they looked at the climate of uncertainty in Britain. Real uncertainty, real anguish, in real people, worried about the economy and their jobs, worried about the future.

And they calculated that any organization, any group, any individual that added to this anxiety by further destabilizing the political body, would, quite rightly, pay a political price. From where the relative – I emphasize, relative – stasis after the crisis of a double departure from the cabinet

What about the Checkers plan? He's going from the front. Will he win the support of the EU? The team can obviously hope – and believe that there will be support once there will be a political accession of European ministers rather than the public service to the Commission.

They argue that the Commission, perhaps understandably, regards the EU rules and the acquis communautaire as equivalent to sacred writings, incapable of being soiled or denigrated.

They say however that the EU is looking forward to the Brexit problem, to address issues such as immigration and economic growth. That said, they believe – they hope – that EU ministers will eventually overcome the objections of purists to reach an agreement. If only to get Brexit books.

Constructive Ambiguity

And for Scotland? Again, we have a substantial argument that is a proxy for the debate on independence.

Ruth Davidson told me today in an interview that the SNP would finally have to choose between the Checkers agreement – which she described as advantageous for the company. Scotland – and no market at all.

It will not surprise you to learn that Nicola Sturgeon reads things differently. She says that there is no majority of Commons for the Brexit agreement, but that one could build to stay in the single market and the customs union .

In the end, the nuance must stop. But not, I suppose, for the moment. After all, the EU itself has long been the product of constructive ambiguity.