Thousands demonstrate in London against leaving the EU

[evadgib]

28 minutes ago, pitrevie said:

I don't bother with ignore lists although I know I am on Khun Hans for the crime of banning him from a twitter account I have never had, not being some guy who he has a bee in his bonnet about and for writing books about kings. Don't ask me to make sense of any of that. Also for asking him to provide evidence for another of his ludicrous assertions. That I was told was being facetious and using debating tricks.

 

Where we differ is I do try to make a case for what I am saying. 

Where we differ is I don't go whinging about topics that I have no interest in but continue to post on those topics.

 

Some of us are interested in the topics on which we post. The decision for Brexit has been taken but what matters now is the next steps and how they accord with what we were promised by the people who succeeded in taking us out of the EU.

 

There were three main themes that Johnson and his cohorts made the centre piece of their campaign.

 

Immigration promising to reduce it but since abandoned.

The promise of extra money for the NHS based on a big red bus that almost all the lead politicians on the Brexit side posed in front of but again ditched. 

That we would remain members of the single market, also since ditched.

 

However it seems you are just content to put an X in a box and then criticise others who want to hold those politicians to account.

I alone decide where my interests lie and how I'll respond.

Edited April 3, 2017 by evadgib

[dick dasterdly]

1 minute ago, pitrevie said:

I don't bother with ignore lists although I know I am on Khun Hans for the crime of banning him from a twitter account I have never had, not being some guy who he has a bee in his bonnet about and for writing books about kings. Don't ask me to make sense of any of that. Also for asking him to provide evidence for another of his ludicrous assertions. That I was told was being facetious and using debating tricks.

 

Where we differ is I do try to make a case for what I am saying. 

Where we differ is I don't go whinging about topics that I have no interest in but continue to post on those topics.

 

Some of us are interested in the topics on which we post. The decision for Brexit has been taken but what matters now is the next steps and how they accord with what we were promised by the people who succeeded in taking us out of the EU.

 

There were three main themes that Johnson and his cohorts made the centre piece of their campaign.

 

Immigration promising to reduce it but since abandoned.

The promise of extra money for the NHS based on a big red bus that almost all the lead politicians on the Brexit side posed in front of but again ditched. 

That we would remain members of the single market, also since ditched.

 

However it seems you are just content to put an X in a box and then criticise others who want to hold those politicians to account.

 

 

 

 

As far as I can make out, those voting 'leave' were mainly concerned about three things:-

 

1) uncontrolled immigration - resulting in lower wages for everyone other than those at the 'top' - certainly those at the 'bottom'.

2) sovereign rights.

3) EU bureaucracy and waste - a distant third unfortunately.

 

The entire campaign by both sides was based on mis-information presented as fact/biased information presented as fact etc. etc. .

 

Meanwhile we have people demonstrating against the referendum vote hoping that this will influence government negotiations. In this case they're probably wasting their time as negotiations will be ruled by big business and self interest.  IMO of course.

[dick dasterdly]

16 minutes ago, evadgib said:

I alone decide where my interests lie and how I'll respond.

Exactly!

 

My 'interests' lie with supporting the 'status quo', bearing in mind I'm reliant on private/company pension income.  Nonetheless, I'm sick and tired of those less fortunate being 'thrown under the bus' in the pursuit of money by the wealthy and powerful.

 

I'm even more tired of the bottom two thirds who believe that supporting the wealthy and powerful also supports those at the bottom.  Haven't they seen how salaries/wages have stagnated for everyone other than those at the top over the last few decades??

[pitrevie]

13 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

This is a repost of my number 237, so try and understand, just for once:

 

The referendum voters had a simple choice of in or out. There were a fair amount of prophesies of doom and promises made by both campaigning sides but anyone with a basic understanding of the EU membership rules would know that leaving the EU also means leaving the single market.

 

The only person that was in a position to promise an attempt at a unique deal for the UK to remain in the single market through post Article 50 negotiation (in the event of the UK leaving the EU as a result of the referendum) was David Cameron, who was responsible for the referendum itself. He. of course, was also responsible for formulating any exit plan, which many stay voters now complain is missing. How could anyone else promise any exit arrangement without being in power?? 

 

Hard Brexit! Soft Brexit! I don't remember these beauties being quoted until after the referendum result was known. Sounds like we are dealing with a boiled egg! Well if this goes on for 2 years I suppose it won't be very runny, unlike the noses of the in crowd!  

Anyone who read anything about the Brexit campaign knew that in the event of a OUT vote Cameron was toast I read and heard so many people make that statement I have lost count so how you think he was the only one in any position to deliver a post Brexit deal is just plain wrong. I don't think any serious politician believed that Cameron would survive any Brexit vote.

"David Cameron would be overthrown as prime minister within 30 seconds of a vote to leave the EU in the June referendum, Kenneth Clarke has said."

However as usual we get the bit about the promises made by the REMAIN campaign, its a bit like listening to Trump supporters. Nobody gives a fig what any REMAIN politician promised even if it was a gold Rolex watch and a big red Ferrari, they are all history.

What matters is what those who won that debate promised.

Hard Brexit or soft Brexit, only in this past week the Chancellor mentioned that we cant have our cake and eat it, taken by political commentators to be  a swipe at Johnson.

In poll after poll even Britains who voted for Brexit were in favour of remaining in the single market. 

So despite all the promises of the OUT leaders and what appears to be the wishes of the British people we are going for hard Brexit.

However your statement "anyone with a basic understanding of the EU membership rules would know that leaving the EU also means leaving the single market." Well obviously the leader of the OUT campaign didn't know that.  Look at this link http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/open-britain-video-single-market-nigel-farage-anna-soubry_uk_582ce0a0e4b09025ba310fce then come back and make that statement again with a straight face.

 

[RuamRudy]

2 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

Exactly!

 

My 'interests' lie with supporting the 'status quo', bearing in mind I'm reliant on private/company pension income.  Nonetheless, I'm sick and tired of those less fortunate being 'thrown under the bus' in the pursuit of money by the wealthy and powerful.

 

I'm even more tired of the bottom two thirds who believe that supporting the wealthy and powerful also supports those at the bottom.  Haven't they seen how salaries/wages have stagnated for everyone other than those at the top over the last few decades??

 

Unfortunately, there isn't a party in the country that will have either the will or the ability to assuage your concerns for at least another 2 election cycles, maybe more.

[dick dasterdly]

17 minutes ago, pitrevie said:

Anyone who read anything about the Brexit campaign knew that in the event of a OUT vote Cameron was toast I read and heard so many people make that statement I have lost count so how you think he was the only one in any position to deliver a post Brexit deal is just plain wrong. I don't think any serious politician believed that Cameron would survive any Brexit vote.

"David Cameron would be overthrown as prime minister within 30 seconds of a vote to leave the EU in the June referendum, Kenneth Clarke has said."

However as usual we get the bit about the promises made by the REMAIN campaign, its a bit like listening to Trump supporters. Nobody gives a fig what any REMAIN politician promised even if it was a gold Rolex watch and a big red Ferrari, they are all history.

What matters is what those who won that debate promised.

Hard Brexit or soft Brexit, only in this past week the Chancellor mentioned that we cant have our cake and eat it, taken by political commentators to be  a swipe at Johnson.

In poll after poll even Britains who voted for Brexit were in favour of remaining in the single market. 

So despite all the promises of the OUT leaders and what appears to be the wishes of the British people we are going for hard Brexit.

However your statement "anyone with a basic understanding of the EU membership rules would know that leaving the EU also means leaving the single market." Well obviously the leader of the OUT campaign didn't know that.  Look at this link http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/open-britain-video-single-market-nigel-farage-anna-soubry_uk_582ce0a0e4b09025ba310fce then come back and make that statement again with a straight face.

 

Those politicians promoting 'leave' were in no position to promise anything as they didn't have all the facts and figures provided by civil servants.  A joke in itself admittedly.

 

Clarke may well have said Cameron was 'toast' within 30 seconds of a 'leave' vote - but he was yet another biased politician with an agenda.  Cameron would have been even less credible than May (another leave campaigner - albeit less vociferous and obvious), but Clarke was just 'stirring the shit' and pointing out that Cameron should have come out with even more lies.....

 

None of us know whether or not those who voted leave have changed their minds, in the same way as we have no idea whether some of those who voted remain have changed their minds.

 

The sooner we stop posting biased reactions as facts - the better .

Edited April 3, 2017 by dick dasterdly

[pitrevie]

1 minute ago, dick dasterdly said:

Those politicians promoting 'leave' were in no position to promise anything as they didn't have all the facts and figures provided by civil servants.  A joke in itself.

 

Clarke may well have said Cameron was 'toast' within 30 seconds of a 'leave' vote - but he was yet another biased politician with an agenda.  Cameron would have been even less credible than May (another leave campaigner - albeit less vociferous and obvious), but Clarke was just 'stirring the shit' and pointing out that Cameron should have come out with even more lies.....

 

None of us know whether or not those who voted leave have changed their minds, in the same way as we have no idea whether some of those who voted remain have changed their minds.

 

The sooner we stop posting biased reactions as facts - the better .

 "anyone with a basic understanding of the EU membership rules would know that leaving the EU also means leaving the single market." 

 

Now try reading the link and see how many top politicians thought otherwise. Or perhaps some of the posters on TV think they know better.

 

Even Farage thought we could be like Norway or Sweden including Arron Banks and both those countries are in the single market. Farage started backtracking on that later. 

 

Absolutely nobody is talking about threatening our place in the Single Market
Daniel Hannan MEP
Only a madman would actually leave the Market
Owen Paterson MP, Vote Leave backer

The Norwegian option, the EEA option, I think that it might be initally attractive for some business people
Matthew Elliot, Vote Leave chief executive.

 

Clarke's so called agenda was REMAIN but as an experienced politician he knew that Cameron wouldn't survive an out vote and as it turns out he was right Cameron was out only hours after the vote was annouced

[dick dasterdly]

Just now, pitrevie said:

 "anyone with a basic understanding of the EU membership rules would know that leaving the EU also means leaving the single market." 

 

Now try reading the link and see how many top politicians thought otherwise. Or perhaps some of the posters on TV think they know better.

 

Even Farage thought we could be like Norway or Sweden including Arron Banks and both those countries are in the single market. Farage started backtracking on that later. 

 

Absolutely nobody is talking about threatening our place in the Single Market
Daniel Hannan MEP
Only a madman would actually leave the Market
Owen Paterson MP, Vote Leave backer

The Norwegian option, the EEA option, I think that it might be initally attractive for some business people
Matthew Elliot, Vote Leave chief executive.

 

Clarke's so called agenda was REMAIN but as an experienced politician he knew that Cameron wouldn't survive an out vote and as it turns out he was right Cameron was out only hours after the vote was annouced

And yet again you're quoting politicians 'truths' as gospel .

 

Can we agree that politicians only come out with opinions that suit their own personal interests 99% of the time?

 

Can we also agree that those who voted leave expected the possibility of just leaving - even though they'd prefer the possibility of the UK/EU agreeing free trade agreements as per the original '75 'agreement' put to the electorate?

[nauseus]

26 minutes ago, pitrevie said:

Anyone who read anything about the Brexit campaign knew that in the event of a OUT vote Cameron was toast I read and heard so many people make that statement I have lost count so how you think he was the only one in any position to deliver a post Brexit deal is just plain wrong. I don't think any serious politician believed that Cameron would survive any Brexit vote.

"David Cameron would be overthrown as prime minister within 30 seconds of a vote to leave the EU in the June referendum, Kenneth Clarke has said."

However as usual we get the bit about the promises made by the REMAIN campaign, its a bit like listening to Trump supporters. Nobody gives a fig what any REMAIN politician promised even if it was a gold Rolex watch and a big red Ferrari, they are all history.

What matters is what those who won that debate promised.

Hard Brexit or soft Brexit, only in this past week the Chancellor mentioned that we cant have our cake and eat it, taken by political commentators to be  a swipe at Johnson.

In poll after poll even Britains who voted for Brexit were in favour of remaining in the single market. 

So despite all the promises of the OUT leaders and what appears to be the wishes of the British people we are going for hard Brexit.

However your statement "anyone with a basic understanding of the EU membership rules would know that leaving the EU also means leaving the single market." Well obviously the leader of the OUT campaign didn't know that.  Look at this link http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/open-britain-video-single-market-nigel-farage-anna-soubry_uk_582ce0a0e4b09025ba310fce then come back and make that statement again with a straight face.

 

Cameron was the PM, so he was responsible for it all! As usual you ignore the post content (where I say promises were made by both sides) and continue to ramble down your own dead-end street. Same old rant. 

 

PS it's BRITONS not Britains, Pet!

[pitrevie]

4 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

And yet again you're quoting politicians 'truths' as gospel .

 

Can we agree that politicians only come out with opinions that suit their own personal interests 99% of the time?

 

Can we also agree that those who voted leave expected the possibility of just leaving - even though they'd prefer the possibility of the UK/EU agreeing free trade agreements as per the original '75 'agreement' put to the electorate?

Well Clarke got it dead right and yet you say he has an agenda, He stated the bald fact in the event of losing the vote Cameron was out and Clarke was dead right.

 

As I have pointed out several times most people who have been polled whether for or against have said they wanted the UK to remain part of the single market.

 

[evadgib]

20 minutes ago, pitrevie said:

As I have pointed out several times most people who have been polled whether for or against have said they wanted the UK to remain part of the single market.

What did I think of it, given you have touched up my opinion on everything else?

Edited April 3, 2017 by evadgib

[pitrevie]

1 minute ago, nauseus said:

Cameron was the PM, so he was responsible for it all! As usual you ignore the post content (where I say promises were made by both sides) and continue to ramble down your own dead-end street. Same old rant. 

 

PS it's BRITONS not Britains, Pet!

Same old rant what that means is that you cannot justify what you said "anyone with a basic understanding of the EU membership rules would know that leaving the EU also means leaving the single market."  Even Farage was talking about the Norway and Switzerland situations and both are in the single market. However it wasn't long afterwards that Farage dropped any mention of them. Daniel Hannan an experienced MEP and ardent Brexiter said the same so did Johnson

I haven't ignored your post, anyone with a basic understanding of UK politics knew that Cameron was going if he lost that vote but you now attempt to dismiss it as a rant.

[dick dasterdly]

8 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

And yet again you're quoting politicians 'truths' as gospel .

 

Can we agree that politicians only come out with opinions that suit their own personal interests 99% of the time?

 

Can we also agree that those who voted leave expected the possibility of just leaving - even though they'd prefer the possibility of the UK/EU agreeing free trade agreements as per the original '75 'agreement' put to the electorate?

 

1 minute ago, pitrevie said:

Well Clarke got it dead right and yet you say he has an agenda, He stated the bald fact in the event of losing the vote Cameron was out and Clarke was dead right.

 

As I have pointed out several times most people who have been polled whether for or against have said they wanted the UK to remain part of the single market.

 

So you're convinced that Clarke was the 'oracle' as he said Cameron was 'toast' if there was a brexit result - whilst ignoring everything else - but clinging on to the belief that those who voted 'leave' would now vote 'remain', if I understand correctly.

 

Way too pissed to continue this discussion , as anyone relying on Clarke as the arbiter of 'truth' isn't worth the effort at the moment!

[pitrevie]

Just now, dick dasterdly said:

 

So you're convinced that Clarke was the 'oracle' as he said Cameron was 'toast' if there was a brexit result - whilst ignoring everything else - but clinging on to the belief that those who voted 'leave' would now vote 'remain', if I understand correctly.

 

Way too pissed to continue this discussion , as anyone relying on Clarke as the arbiter of 'truth' isn't worth the effort at the moment!

Nope but like any politician and he wasn't the only one they knew Cameron was out in the event he lost the vote. Even Farage said the same. However that is followed by a smear attempt. 

[mommysboy]

58 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

Unfortunately, there isn't a party in the country that will have either the will or the ability to assuage your concerns for at least another 2 election cycles, maybe more.

 

Sadly, the future is an ever expanding underclass, with less and less rights, fewer jobs and lower wages.  Thats nothing to do with Brexit really.  It is everything to do with corporate greed, and the inverted snobbery of working class voters.

[mommysboy]

22 minutes ago, pitrevie said:

Well Clarke got it dead right and yet you say he has an agenda, He stated the bald fact in the event of losing the vote Cameron was out and Clarke was dead right.

 

As I have pointed out several times most people who have been polled whether for or against have said they wanted the UK to remain part of the single market.

 

That was my understanding.  I see this as an indisputable fact.  I'm sure it was stated overtly,

[nauseus]

15 minutes ago, pitrevie said:

Same old rant what that means is that you cannot justify what you said "anyone with a basic understanding of the EU membership rules would know that leaving the EU also means leaving the single market."  Even Farage was talking about the Norway and Switzerland situations and both are in the single market. However it wasn't long afterwards that Farage dropped any mention of them. Daniel Hannan an experienced MEP and ardent Brexiter said the same so did Johnson

I haven't ignored your post, anyone with a basic understanding of UK politics knew that Cameron was going if he lost that vote but you now attempt to dismiss it as a rant.

I was referring to your ranting. I don't have to justify anything because non EU members are not members of the single market. Norway gets around that by choosing to be part of the EEA but has to abide by the free movement of people rule, while still having to pay a lot of money.  

 

What Farage was talking about was nothing to do with the rules. The point of my post had nothing to do with Cameron going but about his overall responsibility for the referendum and all that entailed. 

 

[citybiker]

UK has some leverage but not much.  Significant factors are defence, the City of London, and trade surplus for EU.
 
It is laughable to think UK will get what it wants. This is a damage limitation exercise. In fact, no deal really could be the best deal.
 
 
 
 

I agree it's a damage limitation process, however, without stating the obvious the EU's priority and has always been since the result is ensuring the UK simply doesn't benefit from leaving compared to being member, due to the possible domino affect, that worries the EU more than anything else, before the constant warnings towards the UK is the EU acting like a spoilt brat and now their tone has moderated, the EU primary role is look after its remaining members interests, I'll await how & what TM obtains in due course.

Lastly, saying the City of London, Defence and the trade issue is 'some leverage' is beyond laughable, almost mockery. I suppose being the 2nd highest economic contributor is also 'some leverage'?




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[mommysboy]

7 minutes ago, citybiker said:

I agree it's a damage limitation process, however, without stating the obvious the EU's priority and has always been since the result is ensuring the UK simply doesn't benefit from leaving compared to being member, due to the possible domino affect, that worries the EU more than anything else, before the constant warnings towards the UK is the EU acting like a spoilt brat and now their tone has moderated, the EU primary role is look after its remaining members interests, I'll await how & what TM obtains in due course.

Lastly, saying the City of London, Defence and the trade issue is 'some leverage' is beyond laughable, almost mockery. I suppose being the 2nd highest economic contributor is also 'some leverage'?




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Its only some leverage, in as much as EU can more easily assimilate any losses on account of its size.  Perhaps the City of London's influence is a major lever.  In the event of a major breakdown in relations, Britain would be most badly effected- a large number of eggs in one basket!

[pitrevie]

Just now, nauseus said:

I was referring to your ranting. I don't have to justify anything because non EU members are not members of the single market. Norway gets around that by choosing to be part of the EEA but has to abide by the free movement of people rule, while still having to pay a lot of money.  

 

What Farage was talking about was nothing to do with the rules. The point of my post had nothing to do with Cameron going but about his overall responsibility for the referendum and all that entailed. 

 

"anyone with a basic understanding of the EU membership rules would know that leaving the EU also means leaving the single market."  Apparently not.

 

"in the event of the UK leaving the EU as a result of the referendum) was David Cameron, who was responsible for the referendum itself. He. of course, was also responsible for formulating any exit plan". 

But everyone knew that in the event of an OUT vote Cameron was also out so how can anyone say that he should have formulated an exit plan. The next day he said that should be left to whoever took over. What credibility would he have had with any exit plan any more than an Osborne post Brexit plan. 

 

Just to add it was another 6 months before May told us what sort of break it was going to be so any hopes for something like a Norway or Switzerland arrangement then went out the window.

Edited April 3, 2017 by pitrevie
Adding more

[Khun Han]

1 hour ago, citybiker said:

I agree it's a damage limitation process, however, without stating the obvious the EU's priority and has always been since the result is ensuring the UK simply doesn't benefit from leaving compared to being member, due to the possible domino affect, that worries the EU more than anything else, before the constant warnings towards the UK is the EU acting like a spoilt brat and now their tone has moderated, the EU primary role is look after its remaining members interests, I'll await how & what TM obtains in due course.

Lastly, saying the City of London, Defence and the trade issue is 'some leverage' is beyond laughable, almost mockery. I suppose being the 2nd highest economic contributor is also 'some leverage'?




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Security and defence certainly had them in quite a tizz. Their retorts that their security is not up for negotiation was comical. Like they get any say in the matter if they decide to fall out with us! No doubt they would go running to their pet court to get it to 'order' us to cooperate, which would also be comical.

Edited April 3, 2017 by Khun Han

[citybiker]

 
Security and defence certainly had them in quite a tizz. Their retorts that their security is not up for negotiation was comical. Like they get any say in the matter if they decide to fall out with us! No doubt they would go running to their pet court to get it to 'order' us to cooperate, which would also be comical.

Judging by the current climate the EU, (Antonio & Guy's press conference for example) was the clearest tangible sign to date they're deeply miffed, well quite frankly tough....no sympathy.

The security co-operation inclusion is TM's polite gentle reminder along with ECJ exclusion has put some noses out of joint, as for the €50/60 ban divorce settlement, the cynic in me thinks they employ monopoly accounts but now the EU are emphasising it's the format not the total sum that should be focused on.

The EU self elite club is seen for what it really is, an unfit for purpose dictating golf club committee that despises being challenged and bullying politics is their mindset.

Divorce diplomacy: It's better to try and fail than not try at all.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[jimmybkk]

3 hours ago, pitrevie said:

Same old rant what that means is that you cannot justify what you said "anyone with a basic understanding of the EU membership rules would know that leaving the EU also means leaving the single market."  Even Farage was talking about the Norway and Switzerland situations and both are in the single market. However it wasn't long afterwards that Farage dropped any mention of them. Daniel Hannan an experienced MEP and ardent Brexiter said the same so did Johnson

I haven't ignored your post, anyone with a basic understanding of UK politics knew that Cameron was going if he lost that vote but you now attempt to dismiss it as a rant.

"I haven't ignored your post, anyone with a basic understanding of UK politics knew that Cameron was going if he lost that vote but you now attempt to dismiss it as a rant."

 

Here are a few quotes from recent posts you've made regarding Cameron's departure: "...knew that Cameron was going..." ,"Cameron wouldn't survive an out vote",  "But everyone knew that in the event of an OUT vote Cameron was also out...", "... they knew Cameron was out in the event he lost the vote.", "...he knew that Cameron wouldn't survive an out vote and as it turns out he was right Cameron was out only hours after the vote was annouced", "... in the event of losing the vote Cameron was out..."

 

The subtle nuances of your posts are not lost on me. Why are you diligently avoiding the word "resign" in any of these posts? Because try as you may to avoid making mention of the fact, anyone with a basic understanding of the way things went after the results of the Brexit vote were announced is aware that Cameron and Osborne both resigned. They weren't pushed, they weren't outed, and they didn't fail to survive. You're refraining from using the word "resign" in favour of words and phrases that suggest Cameron's departure was anything other than of his own doing and his own choosing, when in fact it wasn't. He could've stayed, just as he had publicly promised the people of Britain that he would stay:"And they can either choose to stay in a reformed European Union, or to leave a European Union. And, come what may, I will continue to lead the government in the way I have.”  (Source:)

 

There were no back-benchers plotting to overthrow Cameron if the Brexit vote went the wrong way, so I suspect what you may be alluding to is that Cameron had already pledged his loyalty to the EU in return for a place amongst the 10,000+ EU employees earning more than Cameron earned during his time as British PM, and due to this commitment to the EU and the promise of lucrative future employment, to remain as PM (as he had promised the people he would do) was likely to jeopardize his future employment prospects with the EU and so he decided to step down.

[pitrevie]

8 hours ago, jimmybkk said:

"I haven't ignored your post, anyone with a basic understanding of UK politics knew that Cameron was going if he lost that vote but you now attempt to dismiss it as a rant."

 

Here are a few quotes from recent posts you've made regarding Cameron's departure: "...knew that Cameron was going..." ,"Cameron wouldn't survive an out vote",  "But everyone knew that in the event of an OUT vote Cameron was also out...", "... they knew Cameron was out in the event he lost the vote.", "...he knew that Cameron wouldn't survive an out vote and as it turns out he was right Cameron was out only hours after the vote was annouced", "... in the event of losing the vote Cameron was out..."

 

The subtle nuances of your posts are not lost on me. Why are you diligently avoiding the word "resign" in any of these posts? Because try as you may to avoid making mention of the fact, anyone with a basic understanding of the way things went after the results of the Brexit vote were announced is aware that Cameron and Osborne both resigned. They weren't pushed, they weren't outed, and they didn't fail to survive. You're refraining from using the word "resign" in favour of words and phrases that suggest Cameron's departure was anything other than of his own doing and his own choosing, when in fact it wasn't. He could've stayed, just as he had publicly promised the people of Britain that he would stay:"And they can either choose to stay in a reformed European Union, or to leave a European Union. And, come what may, I will continue to lead the government in the way I have.”  (Source:)

 

There were no back-benchers plotting to overthrow Cameron if the Brexit vote went the wrong way, so I suspect what you may be alluding to is that Cameron had already pledged his loyalty to the EU in return for a place amongst the 10,000+ EU employees earning more than Cameron earned during his time as British PM, and due to this commitment to the EU and the promise of lucrative future employment, to remain as PM (as he had promised the people he would do) was likely to jeopardize his future employment prospects with the EU and so he decided to step down.

Well apparently I have someone saying my post is a rant and now I am being accused of being subtle which I never intended. You are quite right Cameron did resign he wasn't pushed because it was only hours after the vote and he made his mind up very quickly. Cameron did say before the vote that if he lost it he would still stay on as leader but there were those like the Pro Remain Clarke who said at the time if Cameron lost the vote he was finished and thus it proved. Farage also said the same thing but then he would, wouldn't he. Had Cameron tried to remain PM it would have been as damaged goods especially given the campaign that he and Osborne ran and then he would have either resigned later or been pushed as you put it. I think its to his credit that he did go and as he told the Commons it would be up to his successor to formulate an exit strategy, he was enough of a realist to realise that any exit strategy he formulated wasn't going to survive 5 minutes into the next administration.

My only regret is that the man who led the OUT campaign wasn't the one who got his job and had to clear up the mess. As it is we now have people saying that everything Boris said as leader of the OUT campaign now counts for nothing as they back pedal on all the main points that were pushed during their campaign.

I was told that soft and hard Brexit were never words we heard during the campaign which is largely true. In fact it was Boris pushing the myth of belonging to the single market while not accepting the free movement of Labour that pushed it the hardest. Following the vote the EU leaders told us there was no soft or hard Brexit we were either in or out. Which is why Boris has been accused of trying to have his cake and eat it,

Also one of those who very early on pushed the soft Brexit was Farage, he was very fond of turning up in TV studios and telling people how happy and rich Norway and Switzerland were while not being in the EU. The Norway option was also pushed by Brexiters who thought they could have their cake and eat it. Farage very quickly backpedalled on that one and we heard no more mentions of how happy and rich the Norwegians and Swiss were when he realised that they were in the single market in all but name and had to accept the free movement of Labour.

 

 

[rockingrobin]

10 hours ago, jimmybkk said:

"I haven't ignored your post, anyone with a basic understanding of UK politics knew that Cameron was going if he lost that vote but you now attempt to dismiss it as a rant."

 

Here are a few quotes from recent posts you've made regarding Cameron's departure: "...knew that Cameron was going..." ,"Cameron wouldn't survive an out vote",  "But everyone knew that in the event of an OUT vote Cameron was also out...", "... they knew Cameron was out in the event he lost the vote.", "...he knew that Cameron wouldn't survive an out vote and as it turns out he was right Cameron was out only hours after the vote was annouced", "... in the event of losing the vote Cameron was out..."

 

The subtle nuances of your posts are not lost on me. Why are you diligently avoiding the word "resign" in any of these posts? Because try as you may to avoid making mention of the fact, anyone with a basic understanding of the way things went after the results of the Brexit vote were announced is aware that Cameron and Osborne both resigned. They weren't pushed, they weren't outed, and they didn't fail to survive. You're refraining from using the word "resign" in favour of words and phrases that suggest Cameron's departure was anything other than of his own doing and his own choosing, when in fact it wasn't. He could've stayed, just as he had publicly promised the people of Britain that he would stay:"And they can either choose to stay in a reformed European Union, or to leave a European Union. And, come what may, I will continue to lead the government in the way I have.”  (Source:)

 

There were no back-benchers plotting to overthrow Cameron if the Brexit vote went the wrong way, so I suspect what you may be alluding to is that Cameron had already pledged his loyalty to the EU in return for a place amongst the 10,000+ EU employees earning more than Cameron earned during his time as British PM, and due to this commitment to the EU and the promise of lucrative future employment, to remain as PM (as he had promised the people he would do) was likely to jeopardize his future employment prospects with the EU and so he decided to step down.

A letter of no confidence had been lodged in may , with 50 MPs ready to move against  D Cameron

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-cameron-toast-within-days-if-britain-votes-to-leave-european-union-says-tory-mp-a7054696.html

Edited April 4, 2017 by rockingrobin

[nauseus]

16 hours ago, pitrevie said:

Same old rant what that means is that you cannot justify what you said "anyone with a basic understanding of the EU membership rules would know that leaving the EU also means leaving the single market."  Even Farage was talking about the Norway and Switzerland situations and both are in the single market. However it wasn't long afterwards that Farage dropped any mention of them. Daniel Hannan an experienced MEP and ardent Brexiter said the same so did Johnson

I haven't ignored your post, anyone with a basic understanding of UK politics knew that Cameron was going if he lost that vote but you now attempt to dismiss it as a rant.

Well against the topic it is an irrelevant rant! The only thing that you do well!  

[pitrevie]

1 minute ago, nauseus said:

Well against the topic it is an irrelevant rant! The only thing that you do well!  

Yep usual reply no content just what you do best and that is avoid replying. 

"anyone with a basic understanding of the EU membership rules would know that leaving the EU also means leaving the single market."  excluding several very experienced politicians among which was the leader of the OUT campaign and the present Foreign Secretary.

 

 

 

[nauseus]

15 hours ago, pitrevie said:

"anyone with a basic understanding of the EU membership rules would know that leaving the EU also means leaving the single market."  Apparently not.

 

"in the event of the UK leaving the EU as a result of the referendum) was David Cameron, who was responsible for the referendum itself. He. of course, was also responsible for formulating any exit plan". 

But everyone knew that in the event of an OUT vote Cameron was also out so how can anyone say that he should have formulated an exit plan. The next day he said that should be left to whoever took over. What credibility would he have had with any exit plan any more than an Osborne post Brexit plan. 

 

Just to add it was another 6 months before May told us what sort of break it was going to be so any hopes for something like a Norway or Switzerland arrangement then went out the window.

Another irrelevant non-observation. Cameron did not declare that he would quit if the vote was out, prior to the referendum. In any case, any pre-referendum Brexit Plan was Cameron's responsibility as Prime Minister. Bets by people like Ken Clarke have no relevance.  

[nauseus]

2 minutes ago, pitrevie said:

Yep usual reply no content just what you do best and that is avoid replying. 

"anyone with a basic understanding of the EU membership rules would know that leaving the EU also means leaving the single market."  excluding several very experienced politicians among which was the leader of the OUT campaign and the present Foreign Secretary.

 

 

 

Just my reply to your latest irrelevant comment. Nothing else to explain.

[pitrevie]

Just now, nauseus said:

Another irrelevant non-observation. Cameron did not declare that he would quit if the vote was out, prior to the referendum. In any case, any pre-referendum Brexit Plan was Cameron's responsibility as Prime Minister. Bets by people like Ken Clarke have no relevance.  

I never claimed that Cameron said he would quit if he lost the vote in fact I have stated quite the opposite and that Cameron stated he would not quit so you talk about irrelevant observations and then you produce that nonsense.

What I have said repeatedly is that others, among them experience politicians said that he would have to quit if he lost the vote. You really need to read a post before you try a straw-man like that.