E.U: Leave or Stay? Your thoughts.

Cameron mishandled the whole referendum (IMO), he instructed the executive body not to draw up possible scenarios in the event of a vote to leave, he didn't put the referendum on a sound legal footing like the Scottish one, and he didn't allow the time for reasoned discourse or discussions on what is a very complex topic (Scottish referendum date was know 2 years in advance, EU only 3 months).

 

I think that focusing on Cameron's dereliction of duty is a deviation. His dereliction of duty was in calling the referendum in the first place. As Corky42 says, it was done totally inadequately and inappropriately.

But if Cameron was woefully unprepared because he refused to prepare for a Leave outcome, the people who campaigned for two decades to get this result have even less excuse. If they, who wanted this, can't come up with even an idea of what "leaving" means, never mind any plan at all, why should Cameron have had one? Perhaps the 8-tonne pachyderm in the room is that Brexit is just an unimplementable, unsalvageable turd sandwich. There is no magic plan to make it work.

 

Sorry but that is wholly wrong. In 2015 Cameron said that a referendum would be held as part of his manifesto in the General Elections. So everyone, leave and remain, had more than 3 months to debate and discuss the possibility of a leave vote being secured. The problem was that there was too much arrogance from those opposed to leave and apathy from those sitting on the fence. They never really considered, or wanted to consider the fact that a leave vote could be the result. Even in the run up to the referendum, there weren't enough people prepared to accept or acknowledge the fact that a leave vote could be had. If people waited till the referendum was officially announced before they considered the possibility of a leave vote, then that is their fault.

In fact I'd go further than that. The referendum isn't something which was just sprung on us. It was something that has been potentially on the cards for quite some years now. It's only recently that the possibility became a reality but should that have stopped our government exploring how we could leave the EU if a referendum result called for it? Should it have stopped people having discourse on the possibility? Of course not!

 

Given that it was on the cards for quite some while now --twenty years of campaigning, after all-- shouldn't Vote Leave have had a bit more than a bunch of loose and contradictory promises which the disavowed the very next day? Shouldn't they have had a coherent vision and a plan of sorts? Shouldn't they, over those two decades, have taken the lead in starting that discourse and explored the possibilities as you say?

Perhaps those opposed to leaving didn't take the possibility very seriously because Brexiteers never presented it as a very serious idea. Even in the campaign the best they could do was utter some vague notions of "sovereignty", "taking back control" and "immigrants are doing our jobs and taking our women" (or taking our jobs and doing our women, can never remember which) and a bunch of incoherent lies and false promises. Johnson and Gove didn't even expect to win. Johnson, it seems, didn't even mean to.

So the big mistake made all around, it seems, was underestimating the stupidity of the electorate.

Twenty years. Twenty years to plan the most important change to Britain's status in the world; to explore it, debate it, plan for it. And the Brexiteers have NOTHING. No matter how much you wish to point fingers at Cameron, this was their baby: their wish, their ambition, their campaign. If anyone should have taken a lead in a discourse and explored the possibilities it should have been them. Or is this their idea of "taking back control" of "democracy"?

 

What would happen if they did have a plan?

 

This I disagree with, you are shifting the onus wholly on "brexiteers" when the government should have had an exit strategy in place, in the event of a leave vote being obtained. To try and claim otherwise is a bit daft I think. I count every successive government in the last 20 years for this too.

 

StingLikeABee is right here, it is the governments onus to come up with a plan and a contingency should their strategy fail and an exit results comes about. That's literally their job. Like t5kcannon, I thought not planning for an exit result was reckless of Cameron and his pals. In reality the vote is non-binding (because f-u democracy!) and it doesn't invoke article 50 automatically. The British government has all the time in the world to plan. No one can force Britain to invoke article 50. The contingency it had in place with the central bank was enough to stabilise the markets and all that stuff.

 

Implement it.

I'd consider them both equally culpable, probably more so the government though as they're the ones that put brexiteers under a ridiculous time constraint, three month isn't enough time for people to pick a side and those who wanted to leave to discuss among themselves what leaving the EU would look like, they also created the situation where the legitimacy of the referendum could be called into question.

Not only does the referendum stand on a very shaky legal footing but also, arguably, because of the time constraints people weren't informed of the implications of their decision, it was impossible for either side to explorer all the issues, something i think was intentional.

I would disagree, the governments official stance was to remain, however it's also there responsibility to act in the best interests of the country, to that end IMO they should have provided enough time for the opposition to organise themselves and come to an agreement on what would happen in the event of a vote to leave and for that officially agreed upon plan to be scrutinised by the populace.

Basically it was (IMO) the brexiteers responsibility to come up with a plan but that was made impossible because of the actions of the government.

 

There would have been real democracy (shock, horror), people making an informed vote. There would be more certainty in the markets and less economic chaos.

I'm sorry but who started this? So who should have a plan first and foremost? Or are you seriously suggesting that it is rational and good politics for a party to campaign for a significant policy change for two decades without having any idea whatsoever how to implement it? Do you really think that if you leave it all to the government you will get the Brexit you want?

 

The Conservatives did, after all it was their choice to offer the referendum.

I get what your saying but ultimately you can't expect an opposition to not only organise themselves into a coherent group but also agree upon what they collectively want in the space of 3 months.

 

You can when they've had twenty years to think about it. And the Leave Alliance wrote their plan in less than a year.

No Brexiteer ever mentions the Flexcit plan. I wonder why...

 

What you, mean democracy based on a UKIP (and a few other parties) plan that would never actually be implemented by the Tories? Even if it was the most perfect plan. A plan that was as cunning as a fox who's just been appointed Professor of Cunning at Oxford University. Even then, it would never be implemented by the Tories. The Tories who in spite of internal divisions were pro stay. Yup sounds like it would be completely different all right It would just be a ******** plan the same way they actually sold it on ******** platitudes. The other question is why even bother when you won't be responsible for implementing it and you don't actually need one to win?

 

A plan forces one to be realistic about objectives and their achievability. So in that respect the electorate would have known what it was they were voting for (not just against).

Like I asked: why do you think Brexiteers never mentions the Flexcit proposal by the Leave Alliance?

 

You mean like the plan to spend millions a week on the NHS? That kind of realistic and objective?

 

That is an objective, not a plan.

 

Really? Going for semantics? Ok. Stop giving the EU money then give that money to the NHS. Now its a plan, it contains both an objective and a means to achieve it.

 

'Stop giving the EU money' is not a realistic Brexit plan.

 

No that's a means.

Point is, plans can be as nebulous as you want. Brexiters with a plan would be no less populist and unrealistic than Brexiters with a few catch phrases and no plan.

 

Sure, but the government will never put an opposition plan in place. So the onus is still on them to create one. Creating one before the vote doesn't help a pro-stay agenda and it doesn't really matter. Britain can take as long as it needs. Since the only thing that's going to actually get Britain out of the EU is the British government itself, there's no massive rush in getting a plan together. If it takes longer than May has in office and the whole exit gets scrapped by the next government then such is life, it won't be her problem. If the next government picks up on the plan, then Brexit as usual. Two successive governments plus the time allotted by article 50 should be enough time to get out (what's that like 10 years total?)

 

Sure, but if Leavers value "taking back control" and "democracy" then they should want a plan. The Brexiteers however never wanted a plan, because then it would become pretty obvious that there would be no rainbows and unicorns. This is why the Leave Alliance's Flexcit proposal, while being a solid Brexit plan, is studiously being ignored.

No, but a Brexit plan from the Brexiteers would pretty much set an expectation with government to come up with something close. In fact, with three Brexiteers-in-chief now being part of the government, they could have started implementing it now.

For all my criticism I am, of course, personally quite happy that the Brexiteers have no plan, because, as you say, that makes it increasingly unlikely that there will be much of a Brexit. That's the thing with burners: they aren't builders, so they can't make anything last. Eventually they simply burn out.