EU referendum debate

Author : Benjamin Timothy Blaine

Can I check that I've understood this correctly ?

The leader of the opposition campaigned to stay but secretly wanted to leave.
His party has held a non-binding vote to shame him into resigning so someone else can lead the campaign to ignore the result of the non-binding referendum which looks like a lot of angry people trying to shame politicians into seeing they'd all done nothing to help them.

Meanwhile, the man who campaigned to leave because he hoped losing would help him win the leadership of his party, accidentally won and ruined his chances because the man who thought he couldn't lose, did.
He resigned, however, before actually doing the thing the vote had been about.

The man who had always thought he'd lead next campaigned so badly that everyone thought he was lying when he said the economy would crash -and he was, but it did.
He's not resigned but, like the man who lost and the man who won, also now can't become leader.

This means that the woman who quietly campaigned to stay but always said she wanted to leave is likely to become leader instead

It also means that she holds the same view as the leader of the opposition but for opposite reasons, but her party's view of this view is the opposite of the opposition's. The opposition aren't yet opposing anything because the leader isn't listening to his party, who aren't listening to the country, who aren't listening to experts or possibly paying that much attention at all.

However, none of their opponents actually wants to be the one to do the thing that the vote was about, so there's not yet anything on the table to oppose anyway.
And if no one ever does the thing that most people asked them to do, it will be undemocratic but if anyone ever does it, it will be a catastrophe

Just about sums things up nicely.

I also heard that there is growing support for appointing Roy Hodgson as PM because "He is a man who can get us out of Europe fast" :laugh:

Now thats funny. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

I suspect we all thought remain would romp home to victory. After all, who was standing up for the leave side in the early days. Think back say 12 months and your viewpoint then. I expect Cameron suggested to Sturgeon at the time of the Scottish referendum that any referendum on leaving the EU would be a whitewash-win for remain. Sturgeon gets a lot of aid from the EU as well as aid from the UK. I feel that what she gets from the EU comes out of what the UK contributes to it. Scottish oil revenues have dropped from £8m to £ ½ m - untenable.
I suspect Boris came into the leave camp in order to try and gain some more popularity in the country for reasons I will outline later knowing it was expected remain would romp home and, even if not, that Cameron would be the captain of the ship. After all he did say (Cameron) "If we leave the EU we will be quitters and we are not quitters" - yes of course David. So the first thing he does is quit. Maybe Boris would have seen this coming but I expect most of us common folk expected Cameron not to quit; possibly never even considered it so why should Boris. Interestingly it now transpires that Cameron told the civil service not to do any work on the plans for leaving the EU ostensibly claiming that any leak of such plans would weaken the remain argument. Me, I think he had no intention even then of seeing it through. We needed someone to champion the leave side to counteract the government machine most of whom fail to understand the plight of the average Hartlepool man.
So to dump the job on somebody else who has no more say or clout then most is entirely unfair and has led to this short term chaos.
As for May, I have seen how the Tory party can be very bitter about blame. One thing us oldies have is a far reaching experience of how things have gone in the past; can see how the EU has changed since it was the Common Market and can see what the Tories do to their own. Despite the fact that Cameron brought this on himself by offering a referendum in the first place the party will aim their hate at Boris and IMHO it is unfair. How we all would have voted had Boris not campaigned we will never know but the country sees him now as the leavers emblem and for the Tories to put May in place rather than Boris could be their undoing. In fairness, had Cameroon seen his Prime Ministership through to the end of this term, and do not forget he said he would do no more terms, then I think May would have been a great choice. I mentioned blame earlier. Cameron gave us the referendum and it is his fault or at least the fault of the Tory elite who agreed to it with him, in the same way Cameron has to shoulder some of the blame for Boris stepping up to the plate to support the leave campaign. This is because he let it slip at his home that he was going to step down at the end of this term in office. You could almost hear the queue forming to take his place. He encouraged a leadership contest back then. Very astutely May kept quiet.
And I haven't even begun talking about the EU itself.

I see Boris has just announced he definitely doesn't want the poisoned chalice.

If Gove gets to be PM I'm emigrating: I reckon I could cash in my pension early and live like a King in quite a few warmer places

facade wrote: I see Boris has just announced he definitely doesn't want the poisoned chalice.

If Gove gets to be PM I'm emigrating: I reckon I could cash in my pension early and live like a King in quite a few warmer places

Blimey I would already be gone !!! :woohoo: :whistle:

Take a deep breath first, Made me chuckle.

So, let me get this straight... the leader of the opposition campaigned to stay but secretly wanted to leave, so his party held a non-binding vote to shame him into resigning so someone else could lead the campaign to ignore the result of the non-binding referendum which many people now think was just angry people trying to shame politicians into seeing they'd all done nothing to help them.

Meanwhile, the man who campaigned to leave because he hoped losing would help him win the leadership of his party, accidentally won and ruined any chance of leading because the man who thought he couldn't lose, did - but resigned before actually doing the thing the vote had been about. The man who'd always thought he'd lead next, campaigned so badly that everyone thought he was lying when he said the economy would crash - and he was, but it did, but he's not resigned, but, like the man who lost and the man who won, also now can't become leader. Which means the woman who quietly campaigned to stay but always said she wanted to leave is likely to become leader instead.

Which means she holds the same view as the leader of the opposition but for opposite reasons, but her party's view of this view is the opposite of the opposition's. And the opposition aren't yet opposing anything because the leader isn't listening to his party, who aren't listening to the country, who aren't listening to experts or possibly paying that much attention at all. However, none of their opponents actually want to be the one to do the thing that the vote was about, so there's not yet anything actually on the table to oppose anyway. And if no one ever does do the thing that most people asked them to do, it will be undemocratic and if any one ever does do it, it will be awful.

Clear?