How a reckless gamble lowered both the country and party

David Cameron was entirely right that time. It was the fall of 2006, the conservatives, the Tories held the congress, and the party leader told delegates to talk about school, jobs and other voters were interested in – instead of that ”continue to go on about Europe”.

How could Cameron then put in motion the chaos that is called Brexit, and which is now played at various venues in London? The kindest one can say about the former prime minister, is that more has helped to bring together the misery. Let us mention Boris Johnson, Jeremy Corbyn and ms Theresa May.

within the conservative party, but Margaret Thatcher did not grow. After her, in the 90's, it took over everything and made the party ovalbart in the shadow of Tony Blair's Labour party. Cameron inherited a wing of one of the EU haters as he tried to keep at a distance. But he was never the principled type, he got tired often and threw the flesh-bearing bones to the fanatics.

the 2010 Election led to alternation of power, but the Tories got to sit in a coalition with the pro-EU liberals. To appease their eurofobiker gave Cameron to end the fateful promise of a referendum on membership. But it was never intended that it would get rid of.

Brexit, if it is now to be or not, will in the ages to stand for politicians ' vanity, the madness and poor judgement.

Referendums are a risky venture. People voting on everything possible, against the government, for the gold and green forests, but not sure about the merits of the case. All that knew enough Cameron, but he did not believe in any majority in the 2015 elections. So he got it, and saw itself compelled to deliver on the promise of a referendum. A reckless gamble to save the Tories lowered both the country and the party.

Cameron seemed lazy and disträ in the referendum campaign does not save his legacy.

more active. He began his career as a manufacturer of fun fejknyheter about the EU when he was a correspondent for a british journal in Brussels. The same seriousness has characterized his political life.

As the leader of the ' no ' side in the referendum, he devoted himself to hiskliga amsagor. The british would save astronomical amounts on the EU-the fee and submit all of it in health care. Sooner liked Johnson both immigration and Turkish accession to the EU, but in the campaign he warned of the hordes of immigrants that would come when the union made Turkey to the member.

as yttervänstern installed as chairman of the Labour party, also sat in the stands during the referendum debates (when he was not on vacation). For him, the EU is a capitalist plot, even though a large majority of party members want to stay.

Labour's line has remained anything but straight. If only Corbyn gained power, the british would be able to retain all of the EU-the benefits of membership without to be with, it was. Now to the party above all, avoid getting the blame for Brexit.

Probably because she is stubborn. Probably because she has the annoying antagonists who vote ' no ' to her utträdesavtal all the time. But with their mistakes has she made Brexitprocessen to a real praktmiss.

the EU had a plan, to stick together and follow the principles. Theresa May only had incompatible goals. The uk would provide both the internal market and the customs union, and a miracle would prevent a border between northern Ireland and Ireland. The prime minister has devoted two years to a contract that would make the country poorer and not happy.

Brexit, if it is now to be or not, will in the ages to stand for politicians ' vanity, the madness and poor judgement. It is decidedly more John Cleese than Winston Churchill.