3 ms·

The failure lay with David Cameron's government, by not putting any legal effect in the bill that authorised the referendum. One paragraph was all it would have

The failure lay with David Cameron's government, by not putting any legal effect in the bill that authorised the referendum. One paragraph was all it would have taken. 'If the referendum carries, the Prime Minister shall be authorised to invoke Article 50'. Why didn't he? Because Cameron never considered for a second he could lose the referendum. He was an idiot.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
StavrosK 10y ago
> Because Cameron never considered for a second he could lose the referendum. He was an idiot. Was he an idiot? Or did he figure that, if he did lose the referendum, he needed to put as many obstacles between the result and the actual Brexit as he could?
- gpderetta 10y ago
  "Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained with stupidity"
  - n4r9 10y ago
    I don't think it's being attributed to malice in this case.
ZeroGravitas 10y ago
To be fair to him, if you had a world class propaganda operation working on your behalf most of the time, you'd be a bit mentally unprepared for what happens when you go against it as well. Poor boy probably thought he squeaked to (partial) victory twice on his policies or statesmanship or something ridiculous like that.
walshemj 10y ago
Or follow parliamentary custom and practice that a 2/3 or 75% majority is required to implement such a major change. After all if companies and even the local allotment association have to get a 2/3 or 75 majority to change the rules surly a referendum should too.
- Silhouette 10y ago
  FYI, the usual argument against that position is that the EU itself has made major changes since we joined and will surely continue to do so, so treating membership as status quo in that way is unwarranted.
  - walshemj 10y ago
    Thats not the point ignoring eskine and may is
    - Silhouette 10y ago
      Where does Erskine May say anything about requiring such a supermajority under the present circumstances?

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

StavrosK 10y ago

> Because Cameron never considered for a second he could lose the referendum. He was an idiot. Was he an idiot? Or did he figure that, if he did lose the referendum, he needed to put as many obstacles between the result and the actual Brexit as he could?

gpderetta 10y ago
"Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained with stupidity"
- n4r9 10y ago
  I don't think it's being attributed to malice in this case.

ZeroGravitas 10y ago

To be fair to him, if you had a world class propaganda operation working on your behalf most of the time, you'd be a bit mentally unprepared for what happens when you go against it as well. Poor boy probably thought he squeaked to (partial) victory twice on his policies or statesmanship or something ridiculous like that.

walshemj 10y ago

Or follow parliamentary custom and practice that a 2/3 or 75% majority is required to implement such a major change. After all if companies and even the local allotment association have to get a 2/3 or 75 majority to change the rules surly a referendum should too.

Silhouette 10y ago
FYI, the usual argument against that position is that the EU itself has made major changes since we joined and will surely continue to do so, so treating membership as status quo in that way is unwarranted.
- walshemj 10y ago
  Thats not the point ignoring eskine and may is
  - Silhouette 10y ago
    Where does Erskine May say anything about requiring such a supermajority under the present circumstances?