#12DaysOfChristmas: David Cameron played Russian roulette with future of UK and Europe #Brexit

Does a political career ever end in failure these days? Or is ‘prime minister’ just a stopping-point for a lucrative speaking tour and a high-level diplomatic role? Rumours that British Prime Minister Theresa May might propose David Cameron as the next NATO secretary general have been denied. However, should someone who made such a reckless decision to put the UK’s future in the EU to a referendum and then failed to campaign effectively be considered for this important role, writes Catherine Feore.

We asked Professor Richard Dawkins if he regretted the UK’s decision to leave the EU. Dawkins said that it was a “tragedy and a calamity”. He was also clear that the blame lay at David Cameron’s door and was due to “misguided confidence in his ability”.

Dawkins said that Cameron had no democratic right to hand over the decision on such a complicated decision to a plebiscite:

There has been much analysis of why the British voted to leave the EU: Did ‘Vote Leave’ run a better campaign, with a better slogan; did Leave.EU and others successfully pander to those fearful of immigration; did the media fail the public with 30 years of negative reporting on Europe or in giving equal weight to arguments for and against EU membership? It is hard to pin the blame on one factor, but Cameron had the ability to call the referendum, draft the question and decide on timing.

It is also clear that Cameron, confident in his own powers of persuasion and wary of intervention from the European Commission, told the Commission not to interfere in the referendum campaign. A senior Commission official told journalists that Cameron rejected a proposal by Juncker to present what had been achieved in the much-maligned British settlement in a straightforward bullet-point list.

Advertisement

The Remain campaign also ignored the extensive review of the ‘EU Balance of Competences’, which brought together experts, civil society, businesses and several government departments in examining all areas of EU work from the single market to justice and home affairs.

What was the conclusion of this study, that was started in 2012, resulted in 32 reports and brought together 2,300 pieces of written evidence? After two years’ extensive work – that was never effectively publicized – the overall conclusion was that the EU was not perfect.

This is hardly news, and most of the criticisms echoed those already acknowledged in the EU’s Better Regulation agenda. The review also found that most of the regulation was necessary if not perfect, and that Britain’s interest lay in being a full and active member of the European Union.

Over the twelve days of Christmas, we are highlighting 12 videos from the past 12 months.

Share this article: