• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics

Hotshot-Tottenham said:
Because it was a sop by Cameron to disaffected Tories whom he feared would defect to UKIP.

He was trying to protect his own position and that of his party in power.

He never expected to lose.
Click to expand...

You are right he did not expect to lose ( and now he has and done a runner and left it for others to sort out his mess), but there were many who thought the remain vote would be the winner and now some are having a rough time accepting it was a democratic decision.
 
parklane1 said:
Believe it or not mate i think he has got a good point, however i am sure he does not include asking for another ref ( like several were after losing) among those he is defending. And as for runners away who was the first one to do that? of course it was flip flop David.
Click to expand...


Could Cameron conceivably have stayed on as leader of the Tories (never mind as PM) having take the country into a referendum of such importance and lost? I think his position would have become untenable very, very quickly if he hadn't resigned first.
 
Glenda's Legs said:

Could Cameron conceivably have stayed on as leader of the Tories (never mind as PM) having take the country into a referendum of such importance and lost? I think his position would have become untenable very, very quickly if he hadn't resigned first.
Click to expand...

Yes he could and should.
 
parklane1 said:
Yes he could and should.
Click to expand...

Remainers would blame him for taking the country into a referendum in the first place - he would have lost the support of much of his party and possibly his cabinet, maybe ultimately leading to a vote of no confidence.
Leavers would not trust him to have their interests at heart when negotiating the terms of Brexit, as clearly he did not feel this was the right way for the country to go.
He could not position himself as a 'unity' option having been so pro-EU.
I really don't see how he could have stayed on even if he had wanted to.
But maybe I am missing something?

Edit : just to add I am not a Cameron fan, nor a Tory, by any stretch, in case it seems like I am defending him due to any political leaning.
 
In reply to Stephens ridiculous posts are all remainers far lefties who welcome foreigners and want to make peace not war? Seeing as you're quick to brand all leavers in one bracket?
 
All this "Will of the people" rhetoric makes me chuckle, 4% is hardly the "Will", in the cold light of day after the vote I think there are many Leavers beginning to think that they were sold false promises and that their vote would have been better served on the side of remain.

Now all we have is all this fallout for leaderships in the main two parties, thankfully fudgeface left ukip too although I doubt its the last we have seen of him, which is only causing more uncertainty in markets and the like. The next PM will have a tough role for sure, if I am right in thinking that once they invoke article 50 then they need to negotiate with the 27 separate members of the EU for the trade deals n so forth?

I always thought that UK had a pretty decent economic deal where we paid less per head to them than the other large countries, and in return we were granted lots of opt-outs (e.g. Euro, working time directive) which allowed us to position ourselves as an attractive economy for foreign investments - indeed allowed us to build a very attractive economy tbh. The EU has given some good legislation already over the years, just because legislation will now come from Westminster does not make it any better.

Maybe leaving is the best thing for the UK, maybe all it will do is unite the EU minds to make more progress together.. Who knows? We can all judge it in 8-10 years.

Perhaps we will think of it like Top Gear - Chris Evans, hmm, it seemed a good idea when we made it.

On a serious note, Scotland voted ¬60% to ¬20% to remain in the EU (The will of the people ^^) so how serious a threat is a breakup of the UK too in all this?
They for sure will campaign for another vote to leave, not sure about NI.
 
Trixster said:
All this "Will of the people" rhetoric makes me chuckle, 4% is hardly the "Will"
Click to expand...
Yes it is, that's how referenda work. Anything over 50% is the will of the people. On a turn out that size, 4% is a massive number.

Trixster said:
in the cold light of day after the vote I think there are many Leavers beginning to think that they were sold false promises and that their vote would have been better served on the side of remain.
Click to expand...
I think that the BBC scoured the country, found a handful and then blew it up put of proportion. None of my friends voted leave but plenty of people who work for me did and not one has expressed regret since.

Trixster said:
On a serious note, Scotland voted ¬60% to ¬20% to remain in the EU (The will of the people ^^) so how serious a threat is a breakup of the UK too in all this?
They for sure will campaign for another vote to leave, not sure about NI.
Click to expand...
Scotland voted to remain in the UK and keep sucking on the Bank of England's tit. They gave away the right to count their results separately at that point. The only result in Scotland is the UK result.
 
Grays_1890 said:
I am not shy in acknowledging anything, I stick by what I say.

Cameron offered up the referendum and was PM of the party that if losing would and still has to lead the change. It wasn't for Farage for example to do anymore than just lobby for votes, the same as you would not expect Beckham to take responsibility for the remain fall out, extreme example but I am making a point.

Had leave as is been successful it was going to be the biggest decision in our political history in years but the demand of "what now today" when there is so much to still achieve just seems like the last straw of hope to be clung on to by remain. Lets not forget that Cameron resigning has basically ground any movement to a halt anyway regardless and lets not forget he pledged to help with any transition moving forward best he could but would not lead the ship.

So you are asking the wrong people on what next, I voted for change and I will trust the political system to now deliver that change.....

Had Cameron struck the kind of deal in the last negotiation he promised I would have voted remain .
Click to expand...

No doubt Cameron absolutely screwed up in blithely calling for the referendum. Completely.

He was undone by a combination of complacent campaigning of his own, and a Leave campaign that impossibly stretched truths.

But, had he done his job, neither he, Beckham or anyone else would have had to have dealt with any "remain fall,out": there wouldn't have been any. Things would have remained the same. We knew what we were into. The status quo would have been maintained so all this current and future uncertainty would be negated.

That's not to say that there wouldn't have been debate and discussion around the valid points that Leave had made and how to perhaps incorporate those views in future dealings with the EU, but a hypothetically victorious Cameron wouldn't be dealing with the economic and political fall out that we're currently seeing.
 
Hotshot-Tottenham said:
No doubt Cameron absolutely screwed up in blithely calling for the referendum. Completely.

He was undone by a combination of complacent campaigning of his own, and a Leave campaign that impossibly stretched truths.

But, had he done his job, neither he, Beckham or anyone else would have had to have dealt with any "remain fall,out": there wouldn't have been any. Things would have remained the same. We knew what we were into. The status quo would have been maintained so all this current and future uncertainty would be negated.

That's not to say that there wouldn't have been debate and discussion around the valid points that Leave had made and how to perhaps incorporate those views in future dealings with the EU, but a hypothetically victorious Cameron wouldn't be dealing with the economic and political fall out that we're currently seeing.
Click to expand...

If he had gone and done what he set out to do earlier ( getting us better reasons and conditions to remain in the EU) then he would not have had to go to the country.

He was full of flimflam about forcing the EU to give us better rules/regulations and saying that if we did not get them he would campaign to come out. Guess what he came home with his tail between his legs with nothing and surprise surprise he did his flip/flop and decided we were better in.

If he done his job/promise better we would probably never had the ref.
 
Last edited:
parklane1 said:
If he had gone and done what he set out to do earlier ( getting us better reasons and conditions to remain in the EU) then he would not have had to go to the country.

He was full of hogwash about forcing the EU to give us better rules/regulations and saying that if we did not get them he would campaign to come out. Guess what he came home with his tail between his legs with nothing and surprise surprise he did his flip/flop and decided we were better in.

If he done his job/promise better we would probably never had the ref.
Click to expand...

Makes a lot of sense.

It still feels like out of the frying pan and into the fire to me though.
 
parklane1 said:
If he had gone and done what he set out to do earlier ( getting us better reasons and conditions to remain in the EU) then he would not have had to go to the country.

He was full of hogwash about forcing the EU to give us better rules/regulations and saying that if we did not get them he would campaign to come out. Guess what he came home with his tail between his legs with nothing and surprise surprise he did his flip/flop and decided we were better in.

If he done his job/promise better we would probably never had the ref.
Click to expand...

I may be remembering this incorrectly but wasn't the promise of a referendum included in the last Tory election manifesto? If so then he had to go through with it regardless of any improved terms. The (failed) attempt to negotiate better terms was in the lead-up to announcing the date for the referendum, rather than an alternative to holding it.
Negotiating better terms might have led to some potential Leavers being comfortable voting Remain, but we would still have had a referendum. And most likely disappointment from whichever side lost.
 
scaramanga said:
Yes it is, that's how referenda work. Anything over 50% is the will of the people. On a turn out that size, 4% is a massive number.
Click to expand...

Maybe, I guess we'll agree to disagree there. Number wise yea its a large number, but for a vote it is not exactly an overwhelming majority imo considering the turnout percentage.

scaramanga said:
I think that the BBC scoured the country, found a handful and then blew it up put of proportion. None of my friends voted leave but plenty of people who work for me did and not one has expressed regret since.
Click to expand...

Fair'dos, I was there visiting family the day after so that is all I saw on TV and to be fair since I've come back it is all the media seems to pick up on as well - be that other UK channels or Czech.
I know a couple of friends who did vote to leave but they freely admitted it was mainly a "fk you" to the powers that be rather than for an exact reason.

scaramanga said:
Scotland voted to remain in the UK and keep sucking on the Bank of England's tit. They gave away the right to count their results separately at that point. The only result in Scotland is the UK result.
Click to expand...
Thing is I think Sturgeon will push for it a lot, whether or not Parliament gives it or not is another matter. I think she is a nutter to try, they could lose the option to opt-out from the Euro and not to mention the economy is not exactly strong currently. Businesses too most likely would not want co choose between London or Brussels.

But part of me does think that it is not exactly a democratic result for the Scots, no NI for that matter, in being dragged out for being part of the UK
 
Trixster said:
The next PM will have a tough role for sure, if I am right in thinking that once they invoke article 50 then they need to negotiate with the 27 separate members of the EU for the trade deals n so forth?
Click to expand...
No, I don't believe so. We would be negotiating with the EU as a trade bloc representing all 27 nations (in the same way now that as EU members, we don't negotiate individually with China, India etc, it is all via the EU). So it is one negotiation, but a pretty complex one because it takes into account the requirements of all 27 member nations.
 
Thing is I think Sturgeon will push for it a lot, whether or not Parliament gives it or not is another matter. I think she is a nutter to try, they could lose the option to opt-out from the Euro and not to mention the economy is not exactly strong currently. Businesses too most likely would not want co choose between London or Brussels.

But part of me does think that it is not exactly a democratic result for the Scots, no NI for that matter, in being dragged out for being part of the UK

Sturgeon is clever enough to know that they will not win an Indy ref and that another defeat would be fatal, but also that she has to keep the rank and file happy.
The eu ref was very unlikely to produce a result that would lead to independence. Sturgeon is trying to appease everyone in the hope that everything will calm down. There is way to much uncertainty for them to have any chance of winning Indy ref 2.
 
Glenda's Legs said:
No, I don't believe so. We would be negotiating with the EU as a trade bloc representing all 27 nations (in the same way now that as EU members, we don't negotiate individually with China, India etc, it is all via the EU). So it is one negotiation, but a pretty complex one because it takes into account the requirements of all 27 member nations.
Click to expand...

@Trixster - You are right @Glenda's Legs. It is a single negotiation that currently looks like will be with the governments rather than the EU Commission. What each of the 27 states do have is a veto Edit: the vote on our leave deal is by qualified majority, a vote on any new deal with EU would need to be unanimous.

The negotiations for the two years following invoking Article 50 are only on the terms of our exit and do not cover our trade agreement with the EU following our exit. Strictly speaking, those negotiations cannot begin until we have left but you would hope that we could negotiate an agreement in principle that could be ratified soon after us leaving but we need to remain on good terms for that to happen.

One other thing worth considering, during the referendum campaign leave made a lot on how easy it would be for us to establish new trade agreements with the rest of the world. I doubt that we would get any significant ones agreed before our agreement with the EU is completed because our value to the rest of the world will be largely dependent on our trading relationship with the EU.
 
Last edited:
A couple of interesting articles that I have read today.

This by Michael Portillo is worth reading. He voted leave and still thinks that it is the best for the country but is quite candid in his views of Cameron and the Tory leadership election. He also recognises the difficulties going forward and how parliament will be doing little else but legislate on this for the next four years.

http://www.portland-communications....nder-and-the-conservative-party-leadership-2/

This in the FT is worth a read (their basic level subscription is free if you are having trouble accessing it). It talks through the various options from here and how it is going to be unlikely that most people will be happy with the outcome.

https://next.ft.com/content/7f326126-4422-11e6-b22f-79eb4891c97d
 
parklane1 said:
If he had gone and done what he set out to do earlier ( getting us better reasons and conditions to remain in the EU) then he would not have had to go to the country.

He was full of hogwash about forcing the EU to give us better rules/regulations and saying that if we did not get them he would campaign to come out. Guess what he came home with his tail between his legs with nothing and surprise surprise he did his flip/flop and decided we were better in.

If he done his job/promise better we would probably never had the ref.
Click to expand...

We were never going to be able to get a deal that contravened the four freedoms. The whole point of the single market is that there is a level playing field between the member states and they are not able to undercut each other. I do think that he could have got a better deal though if he had not tried to get it at a time when Europe was preoccupied with the Syrian refugee crisis and Russian aggression.

I think that presentationally it was a mistake for Cameron going to the EU pretending that he could back either side in the subsequent referendum. Leave supporters were never going to believe that this was the case and it gave him insufficient time to make the case for the benefits of the EU.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back