Short answer: because David Cameron is an idiot. Long answer: so much of Cameron's Premiership was based on him doing nothing for several years, meaning he had to take a huge gamble in order to compensate for his lack of leadership (as well as to distract attention from the combination of asset-stripping and incompetence he and his cabinet were getting up to) A fine example of this was the Scots referendum from a couple of years back, where Cameron had two years to prepare, yet when he realised that Project Fear wasn't working he had to throw all manner of concessions north of the border at the last minute in the hope that it did enough to sway the vote. Same could be said of the EU Referendum, a referendum he pitched in a transparent effort to get some short-term political gain, but once more he failed to set out a coherent argument for staying in the EU and instead returned to Project Fear tactics even though they damn near cost him two years previously, as well as failing to take into consideration that for a worrying number of people in this country The Sun is The Word of God - and that worrying number of people all paid more attention to the Two Minute Hate campaigns on their front page than a coherent argument Cameron didn't make.
I think the issue is one that should be put to a referendum because this fundamentally changes our democracy. Our elected representatives cannot just give rights away to people and countries who have played no part in our democracy until that point. What's wrong is our media who disable a sensible debate to such a point that the average voter has all the tools to make a very poorly informed decision. What we should be teaching our children is how to access the information they need and to positively ignore every media out let from the BBC to The Sun and The Mail. None of whom give anything resembling rounded reporting. The BBC for example seems to recognise only two areas to debate; money and immigration. Ignoring completely the main issue which is how we want our democracy to work and how the shape of Europe, of which we are a physical part, will change depending on our actions. Having spent 40 years rubbishing the EU it's not that surprising that people wanted out. Perhaps if we had embraced the club we had joined, it might have been a different outcome and the EU might be a far better Union than it is.
It was a media scapegoat for decades and lots of people have been fed utterly incorrect information about it. Most of the reasons that I've seen given for voting Leave actually have nothing to do with the EU. I've seen things that are down to our government, the ECHR and private individuals, yet the papers pointed to Brussels. There are valid reasons on both sides of the political spectrum to disagree with the EU, of course. I've heard more about bendy cucumbers than I have about them, though.
We dont want to do that, we need to keep it open to carry all of our highly competitve exports as a result of the pound falling following the Brexit vote. We've got 2 years + when we still have access to the free market, let's make the most of it.
Here is an interview with Blair soon after 9/11 It was clear then that he was on a 'clean up the world' mission. He had decided well before any evidence or otherwise was produced , just as the USA 'decided' who was resposible with very little evidence.
The government was "elected" by a significantly smaller proportion of the electorate that voted out (or in for that matter). That is the tragedy of our so-called democracy. People are unhappy of the decision of such a large mandate but happy to have minority (by vote) government for ever more.
We elect MPs to make important decisions in Parliament. Putting such an important and complex issue to a public vote isn't necessarily appropriate, particularly as emotive (and often inaccurate) propaganda about immigration, funding and regulation seems to have unduly influenced voting. The implications of remaining in the EU or leaving it are complex and widespread. None of us were privy to enough reliable information to properly evaluate how the UK would be effected by the decision. We didn't know (and still don't know) how our exit will be negotiated and what the consequences will be for those issues which appeared to be of significance when people voted. There is a real possibility that we might end up with agreements with the EU akin to those Switzerland have, which essentially preserve the status quo, except that we don't have any say about how the EU operates. How many people who voted to leave did so with any inkling whatsoever about what the consequences would be? Nobody knew (and we still don't know) what happens next, who will decide what and what we will end up with. It might prove to be the right decision; it might prove to be a disaster. I just scoff at the idea that deciding the issue by letting us all vote in blissful ignorance and with no control over what happens next was wise.
Very true, Luke. The level of actual and factual information, in a format that the average citizen can understand, was woeful. That applies particularly to the economy. Immigration was allowed to take centre stage by the remain campaign. And the really core issue - the economy - was treated as a secondary issue. Therefore, many uninformed or misinformed voters had little or no idea about how voting to leave would affect their personal finances.
This should put a cat amongst a few pigeons!.. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-legally-binding-lawyers-letter-a7129626.html
Did anyone else notice Belgium falling into chaos and anarchy between June 2010 and December 2011? I ask because they didn't even have a government in that period...
The idea that Saddam was involved in 9/11 was ludicrous at the time and everyone knew it. Al Qaeda wanted to get rid of him, because he was a secularist. More bloody experts. Just because the lawyers, economists, scientists, politicians and basically anyone who's informed about it think it's a bad idea, that doesn't make them right. Look over there! There's an asylum seeker who's after your job. And the dole.
Leadsom's pulled out of the leadership race! What a total farce. I might throw my hat in. At least I'm honest about my ****baggery.
Yet another Leave campaigner lies, then buggers off rather than be held accountable. It's getting as predictable as Southern being ****e.
Not really. Just a profession steeped in institutional over-inflated service charges that know a gravy train when they see one.
So, to recap, the leaders of the Brexit campaign, Boris Johnson, Nigel Farage, Michael Gove, Andrea Leadsom, have all disappeared or withdrawn from taking any position in negotiating our exit from the EU. It now seems to be left to somebody from the remain side to do that. What a ****ing farce!....
So to recap : Cameron - thought "Remain" would win, could not deal with the result. Boris Johnson - knifed by Gove et al to ensure he does not become PM, would not take the risk. Nigel Farage - job done. Michael Gove - prize plum + Boris knifing = no chance of being elected Tory leader. Andrea Leadsom - WTF is/was she anyway ?? Have I missed anything/anyone ??
