To think that David Cameron should have to answer for what he's done?

[MsHooliesCardigan]

This is not about the rights and wrongs of leaving the EU but about accountability.
DC decided to hold the referendum for his own political ends, it wasn't because the electorate were all clamouring for it.
It was a far too complex question to be put to a simple Yes/No vote.
For a referendum to be legally binding, terms are set out beforehand about the minimum turnout and majority required which didn't happen so it was advisory but voters were told that it was binding.
And, most shockingly, absolutely NO plans were made as to what would happen if we voted to leave as DC was too arrogant to consider that he might actually lose. The whole shitstorm that is Brexit was released which almost undoubtedly played a part in Trump getting elected (I know there are lots of differences but there are definite similarities and DT himself referred to 'Brexit plus plus).
And the next day, Cameron just fucks off to write his memoirs and spend more time with his money family and leaves everyone else to pick up the pieces for the next 10 years or so.
Is he never going to be held to any kind of accountability for this?
FWIW, I voted Remain but after quite a bit of wavering and I have no issue with Leave voters. The point is that nobody voted for the fucking mess we've been left with.

[Theoretician]

Still making my way through the thread, so don't know if anyone else has responded to this...

We can't start saying "The British public is too thick to make important decisions" unless we want a military dictatorship

I don't believe referendums should ever be held. The public are not generally competent to make most political decisions. The alternative isn't military dictatorship, it's representative democracy.

(Not saying MPs are competent, but they're on average less incompetent than the public.)

Our democracy evolved rather than being explicitly designed, but if someone were to design a democracy with a blank sheet of paper, it would have to make it possible to for politicians to go against the majority, to a limited extent. Representative democracy with limited terms of office is the mechanism that has evolved to achieve this.

If there were referenda on the subjects, people would probably vote for both spending increases and tax cuts. Not allowing them to decide those things, and instead electing politicians to make the decisions increases the likelihood of something sensible happening, because a single brain of a Prime Minister is less likely to purse two inconsistent policies than is the collective mind of the public.

[ChazsBrilliantAttitude]

I completely agree with the OP. Whilst I think the referendum was a bad idea - I accept it has been held and the result is what it is. I also think the quality of the campaigns from both sides was awful and an insult to democracy. I we want the British public to make important decisions

The lack of planning for possible outcomes was disgraceful. Its not as if there were many variables in the possible result
If no - do nothing
If yes - check you actually have the power to trigger a50 before saying you going to trigger it.

[Peregrina]

The alternative isn't military dictatorship, it's representative democracy.

Not necessarily military dictatorship, just dictatorship. Otherwise, I fully agree. Which is why I think this 'the people have spoken' is nonsense. Suppose we put tax cuts to Referenda - most of us would say yes. When it came to education spending, health, defence, would the Government say, righto we will scrap them all, no money. Of course they wouldn't. I do feel annoyed about their stupidity in letting the legislation go through as it did.

[JustDanceAddict]

Completely agree.