David Cameron pretended to campaign for Remain - but was in fact a brexiteer. He lost on purpose.
— karl stone

You have zero evidence for your baseless fantastical claim.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/21/donald-tusk-warned-david-cameron-about-stupid-eu-referendum-bbc — Inis

Cameron was a long term eurosceptic who wrote a manifesto for Micheal Howard in 2005 - that related eu membership and immigration, calling for a referendum, and does so using leave campaign rhetoric word for word. There's the youtube video from 2009 of Cameron calling for a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. He called again for a referendum in the 2010 manifesto - at the same time he canclled an EU ID card scheme that would have given the UK that control over immigration, while making a non-credible promise to reduce immigration. In Europe, Cameron took the UK out of the centrist federalist alliance in the EU Parliament, and joined right wing nationalists. Once you start looking it just goes on and on - he was absolutely not a Remainer.

David Cameron alone decided we would have a referendum, against the expressed will of Parliament in 2011 - who voted against holding a referendum by 485/111. Cameron announced there would be a referendum in 2013, then made it a manifesto commitment that couldn't be blocked by Parliament or amended by the Lords. Cameron pledged to reduce immigration then failed spectacularly to do so. He tried to renegotiate a long list of complaints - published in the media, that couldn't be renegotiated because they would have required treaty change. Cameron appointed himself chief spokesman for Remain, while farming out the Leave campaign to an unaccountable right wing economic policy pressure group,. Cameron carried vast amounts of baggage with him into the referendum, baggage of his own creation - and made economic threats that did nothing to counter the egregious lies and racist propaganda of the Leave campaign. Cameron told obvious lies by which he further sabotaged any residual credibility he brought to the Remain cause. Cameron lost on purpose for Remain - in a referendum he alone decided would happen.

It's really rather obvious that Cameron was a false advocate for Remain. And the kicker is that the Leave campaign lied outrageously, incited racial hatred, stole facebook data to target people directly with propaganda - and still only won by a hair's breadth. Brexit is not the will of the people. It's a scam.

Cameron told obvious lies by which he further sabotaged any residual credibility he brought to the Remain cause. — karl stone

did nothing to counter the egregious lies and racist propaganda of the Leave campaign. — karl stone

Karl, you're not making a great case here. Leave won by lying; but remain deliberately lost by lying.

Cameron told obvious lies by which he further sabotaged any residual credibility he brought to the Remain cause.
— karl stone

did nothing to counter the egregious lies and racist propaganda of the Leave campaign.
— karl stone

Karl, you're not making a great case here. Leave won by lying; but remain deliberately lost by lying. — unenlightened

The different constituencies of the vote are marked by educational attainment and socio-economic class. What was credible to one group was not credible to the other.

Leave told lies to the uneducated - provocative lies, like the EU is a foreign dictatorship, and responsible for mass immigration. Cameron did nothing to challenge those lies.

You and I know that's not true, because the EU is a democratic system, and the UK government failed to put accession controls in place from 2007 - as allowed under EU law, and then failed to remove jobless migrants - as allowed under EU law.

Inis doesn't know it's not true. He thinks he's giving Cameron the black eye he deserves for failing to meet his silly 'tens of thousands' immigration pledge - "or vote me out."

So Inis does.

Karl, you're not making a great case here. Leave won by lying; but remain deliberately lost by lying. — unenlightened

Sounds similar to when we had the join EU debate in this country.

The "Join" crowd painted a picture of the gates of paradise opening with EU membership and the "Don't join" crowd painted a picture of utter doom, perdition with the end of our independence. Back then the old politicians with warm ties to Russia dominated the "Don't join" crowd (so things have some continuity at least here).

Neither side was anywhere near being correct, but their lies live on. The realistic prediction that "things actually won't change so much for the ordinary person and from the viewpoint of the ordinary person" would have been far better, but who would campaign with that kind of slogan?

Sounds similar to when we had the join EU debate in this country.

The "Join" crowd painted a picture of the gates of paradise opening with EU membership and the "Don't join" crowd painted a picture of utter doom, perdition with the end of our independence. Back then the old politicians with warm ties to Russia dominated the "Don't join" crowd (so things have some continuity at least here).

Neither side was anywhere near being correct, but their lies live on. The realistic prediction that "things actually won't change so much for the ordinary person and from the viewpoint of the ordinary person" would have been far better, but who would campaign with that kind of slogan? — ssu

Let's not bother then, eh?

Sounds similar to when we had the join EU debate in this country. — ssu

You never had a "join EU debate" and your 2006 referendum was cancelled because the result would have been the same as in France and Netherlands.

Besides, the Dutch pay per capita (that means per person) a lot more to the EU than the British do (Benkei has explained), so again a questionmark on your crying about payments to EU. — ssu

And in return the Dutch enjoy a surplus in trade of EUR 200 billion with the EU.

The UK pays vast amounts to maintain a deficit.

I cannot equate defrauding of the politically ignorant with the idea of 'the foolhardy masses.' I have a long term fascination with politics - but don't ask me anything about football. Is that foolhardy? No. You could easily deceive me into believing the ball was in - or offside, or whatever. It's just ignorance. And the Leave campaign played upon real grievances and concerns. The lie was that those real issues are the fault of the EU, and can be resolved by brexit. Those who voted Leave, the vast majority of them knew little or nothing about politics - and they were deceived. This isn't a matter of 'the foolhardy masses' - this is a matter of political corruption. — karl stone

Blameworthy ignorance. You shouldn't be so gullible as to allow yourself to be easily deceived, and if you're going to get involved in the game, then you should at least do your homework.

Many people were motivated to vote leave because of their own nationalist and anti-establishment sentiment. Some people don't listen to reason. Some people block it out. Some people believe what they want to believe.

With regards to surplus and deficit with trade partners , why is a deficit "bad" and a surplus "good"? I ask, because if one is continually selling and not buying, then what is the point of selling?

With regards to surplus and deficit with trade partners , why is a deficit "bad" and a surplus "good"? I ask, because if one is continually selling and not buying, then what is the point of selling? — Kippo

Trade deficits are not necessarily a bad thing - but there isn't a brexiteer alive who's heard of Riccardo, less yet understands the doctrine of comparative advantage. I urge you to try - just for laughs, but I assure you - you'd be wasting your time.


From On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation by David Ricardo.
London: John Murray, 1821.

To produce the wine in Portugal, might require only the
labour of 80 men for one year, and to produce the cloth in the
same country, might require the labour of 90 men for the same
time. It would therefore be advantageous for her to export wine
in exchange for cloth. This exchange might even take place,
notwithstanding that the commodity imported by Portugal could be
produced there with less labour than in England. Though she could
make the cloth with the labour of 90 men, she would import it
from a country where it required the labour of 100 men to produce
it, because it would be advantageous to her rather to employ her
capital in the production of wine, for which she would obtain
more cloth from England, than she could produce by diverting a
portion of her capital from the cultivation of vines to the
manufacture of cloth.

I cannot equate defrauding of the politically ignorant with the idea of 'the foolhardy masses.' I have a long term fascination with politics - but don't ask me anything about football. Is that foolhardy? No. You could easily deceive me into believing the ball was in - or offside, or whatever. It's just ignorance. And the Leave campaign played upon real grievances and concerns. The lie was that those real issues are the fault of the EU, and can be resolved by brexit. Those who voted Leave, the vast majority of them knew little or nothing about politics - and they were deceived. This isn't a matter of 'the foolhardy masses' - this is a matter of political corruption.
— karl stone

Blameworthy ignorance. You shouldn't be so gullible as to allow yourself to be easily deceived, and if you're going to get involved in the game, then you should at least do your homework. Many people were motivated to vote leave because of their own nationalist and anti-establishment sentiment. Some people don't listen to reason. Some people block it out. Some people believe what they want to believe. — S

You mean "they" shouldn't be so ignorant... but I say, an unplanned, uncosted policy failure should not have been put to the people in a referendum in the first place. The desire for this referendum does not originate with the people. It originates within the Tory Party. Whether you accept that Cameron was a brexiteer or continue in ignorance of the fact, a Tory disease has been inflicted on the whole country.

And what do they care? Their money is having a tax break in Panama - while they crash the economy into brexit mountain, giving them a clean slate for 40 years of Thatcherite betrayal, and an excuse for austerity forever. That's why an obviously crooked referendum 'must be respected' - why a marginal vote is an absolute mandate, and why May is wasting time on a deal no-one supports - while the clock runs out on Article 50.

And just think about all the bargain empty houses and bankrupt businesses they'll be able to snap up at rock bottom prices.

The desire for this referendum does not originate with the people. It originates within the Tory Party. — karl stone

Actually, the campaign for an EU referendum can be traced back to 2011 when the cross-party People's Pledge group was formed. They took no position on EU membership, other than it should be put to the people.

In 2011 a petition of 100,000 signatures calling for an EU referendum was handed into Downing Street.

Actually, the campaign for an EU referendum can be traced back to 2011 when the cross-party People's Pledge group was formed. They took no position on EU membership, other than it should be put to the people. In 2011 a petition of 100,000 signatures calling for an EU referendum was handed into Downing Street. — Inis

And what happened? Parliament debated it - and voted against holding a referendum by 485/111. So why did Cameron promise a referendum in 2013, and make it a manifesto commitment in 2015 that could not be blocked by Parliament, or amended by the Lords? Do you call that democracy? It's a clear abuse of democratic process.

You mean "they" shouldn't be so ignorant... — karl stone

No, I meant you, following on from your football analogy. But yes, them too. It's an analogy after all.

I love how you deny foolhardiness, then in the very next sentence talk about being easily deceived, seemingly intended as a counterexample. It's foolish to be easily deceived and it's foolhardy to act rashly as a result.

You mean "they" shouldn't be so ignorant...
— karl stone

No, I meant you, following on from your football analogy. But yes, them too. — S

Ah, okay - I see what you did there. No, I don't get involved in football. I don't play football, and I don't talk about it - because I don't know the first thing about it. Could you imagine me in the pub, shouting the odds at a crowd of football fans who have followed the game all their lives. That's what brexiteers are like.

Ah, okay - I see what you did there. No, I don't get involved in football. I don't play football, and I don't talk about it - because I don't know the first thing about it. Could you imagine me in the pub, shouting the odds at a crowd of football fans who have followed the game all their lives. That's what brexiteers are like. — karl stone

The common Brexiteer is living proof that Neanderthals didn't go extinct all those years ago.

Ah, okay - I see what you did there. No, I don't get involved in football. I don't play football, and I don't talk about it - because I don't know the first thing about it. Could you imagine me in the pub, shouting the odds at a crowd of football fans who have followed the game all their lives. That's what brexiteers are like.
— karl stone

The common Brexiteer is living proof that Neanderthals didn't go extinct all those years ago. — S

You seem to be ignoring Her Majesty's plea to find common ground. That can't be achieved by calling brexiteers stupid. Ignorance is not the same as stupidity. Being misled into voting for an unplanned, uncosted policy failure by corrupt politicians is not their fault.

It becomes harder to maintain that position when they are the guy in the pub who knows nothing, telling die hard fans how football should be played - but then, like Micheal Gove told them, "we've had enough of experts." It's not their fault!

And what happened? Parliament debated it - and voted against holding a referendum by 485/111. — karl stone

Cameron voted against a referendum in 2011.

So why did Cameron promise a referendum in 2013, — karl stone

Because UKIP were at 10% in the polls.

I urge you to try - just for laughs, but I assure you - you'd be wasting your time. — karl stone

Is Riccardo suggesting that countries cooperate in order to maximise the total output?

I urge you to try - just for laughs, but I assure you - you'd be wasting your time.
— karl stone

Is Riccardo suggesting that countries cooperate in order to maximise the total output? — Kippo

If by 'cooperate' you mean trade, then yes. Trade is supposed to maximize total output - and make everyone better off. I brought it up, and only now I'm reminded I don't like all the implications, particularly with regard to skills and employment. But still, where capital would otherwise be left idle it can promote inward investment and create new opportunities, I guess. It's so easy to dismiss an issue like trade deficits using a concept like this, and the supposition that everyone is better off, then when asked to explain - it's a whole can of worms - that last time, were the economics professor's problem. But I do remember he would caution against getting hung up on any one idea like that were a comprehensive explanation of how economies work. Worms everywhere! Can we move on?

And what happened? Parliament debated it - and voted against holding a referendum by 485/111.
— karl stone

Cameron voted against a referendum in 2011.

So why did Cameron promise a referendum in 2013,
— karl stone

Because UKIP were at 10% in the polls. — Inis

That's not true. Cameron had been agitating for a referendum since he wrote the 2005 Conservative Party manifesto for Micheal Howard - using leave campaign rhetoric, word for word. UKIP were nowhere at that time. In a 2009 youtube video Cameron again demanded a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, and made the same demand again in his 2010 manifesto - alongside his non-credible tens of thousands immigration pledge.

Only afterward did UKIP begin making electoral gains - largely due to courting the BNP, and organizing far right groups to vote in low turnout EU elections. Parliament debated and rejected a call for a referendum in 2011, by 485/111. Yet Cameron announced there would be a referendum in 2013, and then made it a manifesto commitment in 2015 that could not be blocked by Parliament nor amended by the Lords.

It's simply untrue that Cameron was forced into a referendum he didn't want. So why do people believe it? The pertinent question is - how did Cameron end up on the wrong side of his own ridiculous immigration pledge in a referendum he alone provided for, that was all about immigration?

That's not true. — karl stone

Your constant fabrications have become tedious.

Cameron voted against an EU referendum in 2011.

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/divisions/pw-2011-10-24-372-commons/mp/10777

That's not true.
— karl stone

Your constant fabrications have become tedious.

Cameron voted against an EU referendum in 2011.

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/divisions/pw-2011-10-24-372-commons/mp/10777 — Inis

What fabrication? What have I fabricated? Everything I said is a checkable fact:


Cameron had been agitating for a referendum since he wrote the 2005 Conservative Party manifesto for Micheal Howard - using leave campaign rhetoric, word for word. UKIP were nowhere at that time. In a 2009 youtube video Cameron again demanded a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, and made the same demand again in his 2010 manifesto - alongside his non-credible tens of thousands immigration pledge.

Only afterward did UKIP begin making electoral gains - largely due to courting the BNP, and organizing far right groups to vote in low turnout EU elections. Parliament debated and rejected a call for a referendum in 2011, by 485/111. Yet Cameron announced there would be a referendum in 2013, and then made it a manifesto commitment in 2015 that could not be blocked by Parliament nor amended by the Lords.

It's simply untrue that Cameron was forced into a referendum he didn't want. So why do people believe it? The pertinent question is - how did Cameron end up on the wrong side of his own ridiculous immigration pledge in a referendum he alone provided for, that was all about immigration?

That's not true. Cameron had been agitating for a referendum since he wrote the 2005 Conservative Party manifesto for Micheal Howard - using leave campaign rhetoric, word for word. UKIP were nowhere at that time. In a 2009 youtube video Cameron again demanded a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, and made the same demand again in his 2010 manifesto - alongside his non-credible tens of thousands immigration pledge. — karl stone

The David Cameron is a cunning political creature, though not infallible. He was just being a chameleon out of self-interest. He was working for Michael Howard, someone who is well-known to be a strong Eurosceptic. Then, given his prior role in producing this kind of politics, and given his now vindicated belief that an EU referendum would be popular enough as a pledge to contribute towards his party winning the general election, which they did under him in 2010, he was just latching on to what he judged to be a winning strategy. Likewise with his pledge on reducing immigration to the tens of thousands. The more plausible explanation is that he simply judged making such pledges to be winning strategies, not your criminal conspiracy ramblings.

David Cameron is a cunning political creature, but not infallible. He was just being a chameleon out of self-interest. He was working for Michael Howard, someone who is well-known to be a strong Eurosceptic. Then, given his prior role in producing this kind of politics, and given his now vindicated belief that an EU referendum would be a pledge which would contribute towards his party winning the general election, which they did under him in 2010, he was just latching on to what he judged to be a winning strategy. Likewise with his pledge on reducing immigration to the tens of thousands. The more plausible explanation is that he simply judged making such pledges to be winning strategies. — S

Cameron didn't win the 2010 election though. It was a hung Parliament. The Tories were in coalition with the pro-eu Lib Dems. Think about that in relation to Cameron's 2010 silly immigration pledge - and the fact that Theresa May was the longest serving Home Secretary in living memory.

May and Cameron immediately cancelled an EU ID card scheme that would have given the UK control over EU immigration. May sacked the head of the Borders Agency, Brodie Clark, and allowed 660,000 immigrants into the UK in 2015, and published those figures during the 2016 referendum campaign period.

Meanwhile, by championing Remain, Cameron put himself on the wrong side of his own failure on immigration - in a referendum he alone decided would happen, and forced on an unwilling Parliament!

Cameron didn't win the 2010 election though. — karl stone

Oh, don't be so predictable. You know what I meant. He basically did, he just needed a little help from the Lib Dems. The Tories, led by Dave, won the largest number of votes and seats, but fell 20 seats short of an overall majority. He ended up in the driving seat as Prime Minister. Nicky got the passenger seat as Deputy. The Lib Dems caved in on key pledges which subsequently obliterated them, and they have yet to recover. The Tories went on to win the next general election, again under Dave, but this time with an outright majority.

Meanwhile, by championing Remain, Cameron put himself on the wrong side of his own failure on immigration - in a referendum he alone decided would happen, and forced on an unwilling Parliament? — karl stone

Blah blah blah... yes, his tactics eventually backfired. It happens. It's not uncommon in politics. No need for tinfoil hats.

Oh, don't be so predictable. — S

The facts are the facts. But as you speak of predictability - is there any possibility at all that you would not dismiss an argument that suggested the 2016 referendum was corrupt - and agree that a legitimate democratic result cannot follow from a corrupt process?

If not the fact that Cameron was a brexiteer who campaigned dishonestly and lost on purpose for Remain, how about stolen facebook data used to target propaganda that incited racial hatred, or how about financial corruption and Russian interference?

My prediction is, that wouldn't change your mind either!

The facts are the facts. — karl stone

Yes, and pedantry is pedantry. If you think that I didn't know the outcome, and that I meant that the Tories won an overall majority in 2010, instead of it resulting in a hung parliament, then you're an idiot. Do I have to word everything I say as though I'm speaking to an idiot when I'm speaking with you?

But as you speak of predictability - is there any possibility at all that you would not dismiss an argument that suggested the 2016 referendum was corrupt - and agree that a legitimate democratic result cannot follow from a corrupt process? — karl stone

Yes, if a convincing enough case was made.

If not the fact that Cameron was a brexiteer who campaigned dishonestly and lost on purpose for Remain... — karl stone

You're confusing your own dubious assessment for a fact. Or maybe you're just calling it a fact to make it sound like a sure thing.

...how about stolen facebook data used to target propaganda that incited racial hatred, or how about financial corruption and Russian interference? — karl stone

How about I'm naturally wary of what conspiracy nuts say, but if I care to, I'll look into things further and make my own further assessment? You and Inis are almost as bad as each other, just in different ways. He's a shameless propagandist and you're a conspiracy nut.

My prediction is, that wouldn't change your mind either! — karl stone

Depends whether it amounts to a load of crap or whether it's convincing enough or somewhere in between.

It seems to me like a lot of people want to talk about what they think they see in the fog. At night. Without a light source. When they have no eyes. — Mr Phil O'Sophy

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum. :party:

Yes, and pedantry is pedantry. If you think that I didn't know the outcome, and that I meant that the Tories won an overall majority in 2010, instead of it resulting in a hung parliament, then you're an idiot. Do I have to word everything I say as though I'm speaking to an idiot when I'm speaking with you? — S

Not at all. I know very well you can't pack every fact into every sentence. I meant to indicate that it's a significant fact that Cameron was in coalition from 2010. It scuppered his plans, and that's why he voted against the referendum petition in 2011 - because he didn't have a majority in the HoC, and that's why Theresa May was Home Secretary for a world record six years - while failing dramatically to deliver on an absurd immigration pledge on which Cameron had staked his political career! i.e. tens of thousands "or vote me out!"

As for your other comments, ad hominem attacks are not valid arguments. Stop being so sensitive. I don't know you. I'm commenting on your arguments... your myopic crazed arguments!