David Cameron: the nearly man

During the 2015 General Election campaign, David Cameron told the BBC's James Landale that he would not seek a third term as Prime Minister. After the unexpected Conservative victory in May 2015 and the election of Jeremy Corbyn as Labour leader, it looked like Cameron was going to have a smooth ride. Instead, the Brexit vote last week means that the Prime Minister's record is now tainted.

DC was so nearly the first Prime Minister to leave of his own free will since Harold Wilson (you may suggest Tony Blair had that luxury, but he was under enormous pressure to quit). A 'Remain' vote could have been the culmination of his goal years ago as leader of the opposition to "stop banging on about Europe". Instead, Cameron joins Mrs Thatcher (the poll tax) and Tony Blair (Iraq) in having a toxic legacy. He put his "heart and soul" in to keeping Britain inside the European Union, but his referendum gamble didn't pay off.

In truth, DC would have been under pressure to go early even in the event of a 'Remain' vote, as his quarrelsome backbenchers would have inevitably  kicked up a stink over the terms of his renegotiation with the European Union. This only adds to my view that the Conservatives are a somewhat ungrateful party:

Ted Heath unexpectedly won the 1970 Election and led his party to support remaining in the EEC: dumped.

Margaret Thatcher won three landslide election victories: dumped.

John Major unexpectedly won the 1992 Election: given hell.

David Cameron unexpectedly won the 2015 Election: given hell and forced out.

For all of his foibles, I had confidence in Cameron as Prime Minister. Whenever anyone (inevitably the far Left) demanded his resignation, I pointed out that any replacement would be worse, not better. DC once said that he's "not a deeply ideological person", which many not sound inspiring to some, but is a welcome relief to others who have lived under fierce ideological battles. The list of candidates for the Tory leadership (and therefore Prime Minister) are hardly encouraging: Theresa May, Michael Gove, Liam Fox, Stephen Crabb and Andrea Leadsom. Against expectations, DC's main rival Boris Johnson has announced that he won't stand for the leadership. Stephen Crabb appears closest to continuing DC's 'One Nation' Toryism, but he has question marks over his connection to gay 'cure' groups. DC would never come out with awful rhetoric on immigration as Nigel Farage does, nor as a Conservative is he anywhere near the hateful bile of Donald Trump in America (I maintain that DC would be a Democrat).

DC so nearly built a potent Tory legacy: he led the first Coalition government since the war, defeated electoral reform in 2011, cut taxes for low paid workers, prevented a Labour-SNP alliance and significantly reduced the budget deficit. As a pragmatist who isn't very ideological, he was never going to win friends. From the Left, his spending cuts across the board and reforms to welfare attracted ire, and from the Right he was lambasted for not doing enough on immigration, governing with the Liberal Democrats, and of course not 'standing up to Europe'.

DC's goal of 'detoxifying' the Tory brand was only partially achieved in 2010, and his victory in 2015 was more a result of fearing the SNP and Labour than vindicating DC's premiership. The Conservatives remain a bitter and divided party, and one that is sure to be disappointed when they realise that their expectations on immigration will be curtailed. DC's referendum offer in the last Parliament was borne out of placating his backbenchers and UKIP voters, but such a move ultimately went against the national interest.

History may look kindly upon DC in the future if his successors mess things up, but his reckless gamble on Britain's future with the European Union backfired, and that sadly will be Mr Cameron's lasting legacy.

Picture copyright: www.pinknews.co.uk

Britain is better off IN the EU

I stand by the arguments I made during the General Election last year on the EU: the Conservative plan for an In/Out referendum was too arbitrary and full of vested interests. I raised concerns that the move was simply to placate troublesome Tory backbenchers, and predicted that much of the next Parliament would be taken up by lengthy negotiations and infighting (sound familiar?). I was happy to stand by the Liberal Democrat policy of having an In/Out referendum when a new treaty change was proposed, rather than on an arbitrary date. However, the referendum is nearly here. We have the opportunity to either put to bed a long standing question, or take a dangerous leap in to the unknown.

'Project Fear' is always a sad reflection on British politics, especially when there is a positive case for staying in the EU, which needs to be heralded loud and clear. In the globalised world that we live in, freedom of movement is ultimately a good thing. We haven't had a war in Europe since 1945, due in no small part to European cooperation. A great deal of our trade is with Europe (almost 45% of our exports are with other EU member states, and 53% of imports are from the EU). The EU gave a directive to paid holiday leave across member states. We have a rebate on our EU contributions, and surely you pay to join a club for benefits other than money in your pocket?

Unfortunately, elements of 'Project Fear' are sometimes necessary. It is a leap in to the unknown to leave the EU, and it's foolish to think that the day after a Brexit vote we'll suddenly be unshackled from the EU. Too much of this Parliament has been taken up by EU negotiations; do we really want the latter part of it to be taken up by similar moves? Norway and Switzerland still pay in to the EU budget to gain access to the single market, proof that we can't wave a magic wand after voting Brexit.

British politics is odd at the moment: SNP figures are talking about being better together, whilst some Unionists are saying that we can forge our own destiny. Neoliberal free marketeers are saying how we can spend the money saved in the event of a Brexit on the NHS, whilst previously (and probably secretly still) Eurosceptic Jeremy Corbyn has outlined the socialist case for staying in the EU. Inevitably, the EU referendum has come down to a fight between the economy ('In') and immigration ('Out'); if the immigration argument leads the campaign, then I fear a Brexit vote. To those who lambaste EU migration, I cannot stress enough how it is a net positive for our economy, and it works both ways: what about the UN estimate of 1.2 million Brits living in other EU countries?

Of course the EU needs to be better. For a University exam, I had to revise how a bill becomes law in the EU, and the process is needlessly tedious: the European Council set the agenda, the European Commission has a monopoly on introducing new laws, which are then debated between the European Parliament and the Council of the EU, before being voted on. This all sounds too much like Monty Python's Life of Brian, where the confusion is over whether the name is the 'Judean People's Front' or the 'People's Front of Judea'. Three Presidents (one each for the European Council, European Commission and European Parliament) is far too many. However, these are reasons to reform the EU and make it better, rather than to petulantly leave it.

Ultimately, it will be my generation that has to deal with the effects of a Brexit, which is why it is so important for the youth demographic to get out and vote. I'll sum up my reasons for an 'In' vote like this: we get a good deal out of the EU, and can make it better; an 'Out' vote is a stab in the dark and leaves us poorer economically and in terms of influence.

This isn't a General Election, where you can vote for an alternative if you're not happy. We're bound by the result of this referendum, and the consequences. Please vote to stay in the European Union.

Picture copyright: www.zimbio.com and www.strongerin.co.uk