Why is it that, after 40 years of opposing EU membership, the Brexiters' plans are so embryonic ?

I believe that Brexiters may be suffering from the curse of long-term Opposition : having promised all kinds of things, to all, and for so long, they are ill-prepared for the inevitable compromises that come with governing.

This situation is aggravated by the discrepancies within former Leave supporters - see Carswell''s version of Brexit vs Farage''s vs Reckless''s vs Hannan's vs etc etc

It is easy to be a purist in Opposition. Now that they are in power, Brexiters will have to disappoint many Leave voters and given their slim majority at the referendum, I believe that the discontent will be such that :

1) another referendum, this time on the exit terms, will be held

2) many former Leave voters might join Remainers in opposing these terms (perhaps even for contradictory reasons)

... which might put the whole Brexit process in jeopardy.

They haven't delivered anything yet.

And many of the leading lights on the Leave side will never have to deliver, unfortunately.

This question will need to be revisited in a year's time, when they will have to have done something else their positions are going to start looking very shaky indeed.

Leave convinced 17 million people they had a plan, and that plan was better than the status quo. The responsibility on their shoulders is huge.

What an odd statement. We had a referendum. People from all shades of political opinion voted on both sides.

I voted out from a Left wing perspective.

How can it be construed that I - or Right wing "Brexiters" come to that - are suddenly "in power"?

Who is "they" exactly? No2EU?

There was only ever one question on the ballot paper and the Leave side never disputed this. Therefore you're all on the same side I'm afraid.

but you never queried the exit terms, or its consequences , when you voted ?

on the ballot there was neither a left wing nor a right wing perspective on leaving the EU. there was just 'leaving the EU'.

by definition, one of these wings will be disappointed!

Brexit is a political idea not a political party. Political parties govern, not political ideas. Ideally it would have been better had a Brexit party with a plan been elected to govern and to implement Brexit. Unfortunately our parliamentary system has failed the electorate, who have long been unenthusiastic (at best) about the EU.

but what would that ' Brexit party' deliver ?

Carswell's version of Brexit (allow very high levels of immigration to preserve the economy, model the UK on Singapore or Dubai) or Farage's (cut immigration at any economic cost) or someone else's ?

As I said : the Brexit project might well fail due to the fragmented support it has.

Had a Brexit party existed for some years, offering the electorate a real choice incidentally, it would have developed a plan of some form or other. It's irrelevant asking what that plan might have been.

Unfortunately no such party existed. The political establishment maintained a political consensus about the EU, effectively denying the electorate a say, which is how we've ended up where we are.

I would assume they would deliver what was in the manifesto they were elected on.

I don't understand what remainers are finding so difficult. The government of the day wanted to remain and campaigned to remain in the EU. The British people didn't agree and want to leave the EU. The government then have to implement what the British people voted for, this takes time.

I think it was relatively easy to understand the bullet points of both campaigns. Remain - stay in the EU. Leave - control of borders and no more money to the EU, as the people voted to leave the government should be working towards control of borders and giving no money to the EU and if this means no access to the single market then that is what it means.

Basically a 50/50 split. Such indecisiveness that a re-run could well swing the other way.


Nope. It was an advisory referendum. No one has to implement anything.



Nope. It doesn't mean any of that. The only thing that is "settled" (let's excuse the piss poor excuse for a referendum and the indecisive result) is that we should leave the EU. What is not all settled is what we do in order to achieve that, or what we do after it.

No one voted for or against freedom of movement, the single market, funding EU programs, etc.

Exactly. Cameron should never have said immediately after the referendum that the people had voted decisively to leave. He should have said that in view of the close result he would go back to the EU for better terms and he would certainly have got them and then had a second referendum on those terms.

Agreed. But then most Remainers didn't want the question asked in the first place. Not surprising really because to be a Remainer you essentially have to not be a democrat.

So when you say "leave" had a plan who are you speaking of?

As you say, it was a binary choice - there were no exit terms to vote on.

Where have you been then???

uh ? are you saying that FPTP is suddenly undemocratic ?

or that Switzerland''s government, having rejected the outcome of its own referendum on FOM , is undemocratic ?

I think the last few months have shown that referenda generate much more heat than light, and that government-by-referendum (much like proportional representation) is not workable and generates endemic instability.

That's because quitting the EU makes no sense from an economic point of view and it would be a bizarre strategy for any mainstream party to risk wrecking the economy for the purely political reasons of "taking back control" and "controlling immigration".

I have been helping Santa's elves prepare for Christmas.

Nope 48.1% remain, 51.9% leave or a leave win by 1,269.501. Not basically 50/50.

I think everyone understood, including Cameron that the government would need to implement the decision of the people, else why bother having a referendum.

Again the bullet points of the leave campaign were simple for all to understand, control borders meaning the government should on leaving the EU be in control of our borders ie no freedom of movement. No £350M a week to the EU (misleading from the leave campaign it is closer to £250M but both sides were misleading), this means the UK should not give any money to the EU when we leave, as the EU has stated no access to the single market without paying this means the UK will not have access to the single market. I think most that voted understood these fairly simple points.

Seems everyone got a crystal ball for Mythmas.

I wish the world could be fuelled by burning know alls.

It does if you are opposed to a neoliberal austerity-promoting entity.

Once this supranational element is shrugged off we can then kick out its national Right wing mirror-image.

Realistically if the government had produced a document that would of described the referendum in accurate detail there wouldn't be an amazon jungle left as it would probably be about 3 million pages thick and would still being discussed in 2476 as to the exact wording etc.

Surely all the remainers need to do is p*** off somewhere else and learn german or french and job done if they feel that much of a need to be in the EU and then they can laugh all they want.

The Leave side spoke of "the freedom to forge new trade deals around the world" but I wonder if any of them actually believed any of that stuff. It's obvious Brexit was a purely political event and happened for political reasons (immigration, sovereignty).

I don't do "sides". It becomes divisive and there is never compromise. Politics is full of know alls.