Before the referendum I had expected that Cameron would be unhappy but would need to implement the result. Whether by hard or soft Brexit. That decision I had thought would be up to him and his government in consultation with the EU. I actually expected the softest of Brexits given Cameron campaigned to remain.
Which is precisely why Cameron had no choice but to resign - anything he did that wasn't straight down the ERG's alley would have been waved around as
"remoaners trying to sabotage".
And that isn't exactly what happened? In what way...?
I'm not sure if you genuinely don't remember the timeline (or, at least, it's basic shape), or if you're deliberately trying to airbrush history... I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and we'll have a little recap...
24 June 2016 - Referendum result.
13 July 2016 - Theresa May replaces Cameron as PM. May appoints David Davis as Brexit Secretary and Chief Negotiator.
5 Oct 2016 - May's party conference speech announces negotiation
"red lines" - including no ECJ, no free movement.
29 March 2017 - May triggers Article 50, starting the clock on precisely 24 months until UK leaves EU (unless date extended through bilateral agreement).
8 June 2017 - General Election, won by May, but no outright majority -
"confidence and supply" deal with DUP.
18 September 2017 - Ollie Robbins replaces Davis as Chief Negotiator.
9 July 2018 - Dominic Raab replaces Davis as Brexit Secretary.
14 November 2018 - Withdrawal Agreement published.
16 November 2018 - Stephen Barclay replaces Raab as Brexit Secretary.
15 January 2019 - MPs reject Withdrawal Agreement - 432 to 202, heaviest ever defeat for a sitting government.
29 January 2019 - MPs reject No Deal, 318 to 310.
21 March 2019 - UK requests extension to A50 deadline. Granted until 12 April, or 22 May if MPs support Withdrawal Agreement.
12 March 2019 - MPs reject Withdrawal Agreement for second time. 391 to 242.
29 March 2019 - MPs reject Withdrawal Agreement for third time. 344 to 286.
11 April 2019 - Second A50 extension requested by UK, granted until 31 October.
24 July 2019 - Boris Johnson replaces May as PM.
29 July 2019 - David Frost replaces Robbins as Chief Negotiator.
Early August 2019 - Johnson refuses to confirm
"Operation Yellowhammer", Treasury preparations for No Deal.
28 August 2019 - Johnson prorogues parliament until 14 October.
9 September 2019 -
"Operation Yellowhammer" documents leaked
28 September 2019 - Prorogation ruled unlawful by Supreme Court.
8 October 2019 - Johnson prorogues parliament until 14 October.
17 October 2019 - Revised Withdrawal Agreement published.
19 October 2019 - UK requests third A50 extension, granted until 31 January 2020.
12 December 2019 - General Election, won by Johnson.
24 January 2020 - MPs vote to accept Withdrawal Agreement.
31 January 2020 - UK leaves EU, but still subject to transition agreement.
31 December 2020 - Transition agreement expires, UK no longer subject to EU rules.
May's
"red lines", made public only just over three months from the referendum result, made anything but a hard brexit utterly physically impossible - because the four freedoms of movement (capital, goods, services, labour) were indivisible, and because membership of EEA/EFTA/Single Market/Customs Union is adjudicated by the ECJ. From then on, it was whether it was hard deal or no deal, right up to the wire.
It was said many times during the referendum campaign that Johnson was a remainer at heart who supported the leave side for political advantage, and May was a leaver at heart who supported remain for political advantage...
Probably because the entire leave campaign was built on lies.
Dominic Cummings, who ran the campaign,
voluntarily admitted in January 2017 that leave would have lost if they hadn't lied their backsides off.
www.spectator.co.uk/article/dominic-cummings-how-the-brexit-referendum-was-wonNow, with that in mind, look at the closeness of the result - 51.9% to 48.1%, off 72.2% turnout - meaning that just 37.5% of the electorage, 3 in 8, voted to leave... And what had Farage said in May 2016? 52:48 would be
"unfinished business by a long way"www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36306681How many of that 37.5% of the electorate wanted the
"Norway-style" (EEA membership, single market, customs union, four freedoms) that was so heavily trailed before the vote?
Less than a fortnight before the referendum, a poll said it was "overwhelming support" -
www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/06/11/uk-voters-back-norway-style-brexit-poll-reveals/And this from three weeks before the referendum...
www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/06/01/leave-camp-must-accept-that-norway-model-is-the-only-safe-way-to/Yes, the Telegraph. Hardly remoaner-central.
Given a straight choice between remain or the leave we actually have, what would the result of the referendum have been...? It's impossible to say, of course, not least because we're looking at the reality through three and a half years of post-result propaganda that's tried to dissemble the chaos and mess. But remember that only 634,000 people needed to change their vote from leave to remain for the result to change. 3.5% of leave voters. 1.8% of those who voted. 1.3% of the electorate.
And this STILL isn't the right thread for this...