Ok- this isn’t about why peopleVotes the way they did or anything like that..

[BertrandRussell]

and I understand that Leave voters must be incredibly pissed off with the way the process has gone.

What I would love to know is how you think it should have gone. It seems that once the result was announced, the political class and the decision makers had no idea what to do next - (apart from the disaster capitalists who immediately cashed in and who are continuing to do so). There does not seem to have been any advance planning at all-which as an ex Civil Servant astonishes me. So what should have happened which would have brought us to an orderly Brexit yesterday?

They should have had a plan in place and semi agreed before it even went to the referendum.

“They should have had a plan in place and semi agreed before it even went to the referendum.”

I agree. What would that plan have been?

They should have looked at the Good Friday Agreement as a roadmap as how you do referendums properly and have reached cross party consensus beforehand.

And done the indicative votes BEFORE triggering A50.

Well how should we know everything? It's their job? I voted remain before anyone jumps on my next sentence which is I DIDN'T EVEN THINK ABOUT THE GOOD FRIDAY AGREEMENT when I was weighing up the pros and cons it never even passed my radar I forgot all about it and I'm pretty sure they did too

Fucked if I know. I really can’t believe that it even got as far as holding the referendum. It’s as if they didn’t think it through at all

The voters did their jobs. Then it was up to government working together with parliament to come up with a road map and to work collaboratively with the EU once that road map was agreed.

The GFA was agreed before it went to the people, so the electorate knew exactly what they were voting on.

Brexit is selling your house, handing over the keys and standing in the road with all your belongings looking at other houses that might be for sale.

Fucked if I know. I really can’t believe that it even got as far as holding the referendum. It’s as if they didn’t think it through at all 

I'm still convinced that Cameron just had a hissy fit at being badgered by his party and trying to keep them together.

Like when your DC pester for haribos. You spend weeks saying " Have a piece of fruit instead"
" All those E numbers aren't good for you"
" Not now it's not the right time just before bed"

Then one day they pester you for a referendum or haribos and you just say for god's sake eat the bloody lot.

He didn't think it through. It was a snap irritated decision.

Not a leaver at the time (don't know what's for the best from this point forward) but this is where it went wrong.
They should have waited to have agreement domestically about how to proceed before triggering Article 50.
They should not have agreed to pay the £39 Bn so early. With this and triggering Article 50 without a plan they lost control.
Simple fact is the EU would have had to talk to UK eventually even without triggering.

Theresa May is a truly awful boss to have - she doesn't let you do the job she's given you, she goes behind your back, undermines you, disempowers you. Which is a shame because she would be a great number 2, with her dedication etc. But if she had set up a cross party committee to take charge of it at the outset, recognising that this is a cross party issue, then the extreme politicking/putting party before country that we have seen could possibly have been handled.

And they should have thought about taking some advice from Varoufakis who has more experience than anyone else in stress negotiation with EU.

I think the concept of an "orderly brexit" is a contradiction in terms. Any kind of brexit would harm our country.

Of course the referendum should never have happened, but since it did, a responsible PM should have set up a group to thoroughly examine and research the possiblitiy of brexit.

The group would have included politicians of all parties and experts (yes experts!) in all aspects of British life- industry, commerce, agriculture, science, economics, diplomacy, international trade etc.

When the group had spent enough time to assess the effects, I believe that they would have concluded that brexit was a bad idea.

They could then have gone to the other 27 EU countries and spoken with much more strength and authority about reforms to the EU, and I think it likely they could have achieved more than Cameron was offered.

We would all have saved £billions and years of agonising over the attribution of blame for this whole sorry fiasco.

1. Indicative, free votes across the house as first step.
2. Conclusions drawn from those, analysis of outcomes of each prepared and put back to HoC for reconsideration and confirmatory votes.
3. Draft WA drawn up based on the favoured outcome.
4. Only then invoke article 50 and begin negotiations with EU with draft proposal as starting point.

• Cameron should have had a plan, and a spine so he'd stick around to put it into action.

• All other parties should have boycotted this Tory-UKIP shitshow and urged people to abstain or draw a big willy on the ballot.

• EU should have said it's EFTA/EEA in the interim or fuck off and we'll impose sanctions until we get our forty billion.

MockerstheFeManist

• All other parties should have boycotted this Tory-UKIP shitshow and urged people to abstain or draw a big willy on the ballot.”

😂 thanks , sorely in need of a laugh

“* EU should have said it's EFTA/EEA in the interim or fuck off and we'll impose sanctions until we get our forty billion.“

Why do the ERG and their ilk persist with this fantasy that there is any choice whatsoever about meeting our legal financial obligation? So, we walk away and don’t pay. Wtf is going to trade with us thereafter? Our rating would drop immediately and no trading nation worth its salt would ever deal with us again.
JR-M and his disgraceful cronies know it damn well and are playing the public who vote for them like violins. (I answered my own question there, didn’t I? Because people who know no better believe them. It’s very sad.)

I voted for Scottish independence - there was a lot of "we'll work it out" but they had a far more solid plan than this lot.

That said, having seen this shit show I think I'm glad we didnt vote yes.

Would you vote yes again Peghi?

Love Scotland (Scottish dad), was very sad at the prospect of you leaving and glad you didn’t. Given the way Scotland’s voice has been completely ignored here though through this disastrous process, I’d be voting for independence next time round, if I were in your position.

(Irish stepdad too, so much debate in this family 😁)

The government should have set up a cross party group to explore Brexit options and impacts, and produced some sample options for Brexit that were likely to be agreed by EU. Then hold public consultation and indicative votes in HOC.

Once one plan emerged as the forerunner, we should have had some early talks with EU to check if they had any major objectives to that exit plan, followed by a Referendum of the planned deal vs remain. If that passed, then trigger Article 50 and enter formal discussions with the EU.

Also during that period develop trade talks with other countries and planning of civil service etc. And not to trigger Article 50 before the UK is in a reasonable position to leave. The whole thing would likely take five-six years from starting discussions to exiting.

I voted Remain btw.

I think I would vote yes because I'd like to think we've learned a lot of how not to exit a union from Brexit. I would worry that the UK would impose punitive terms though- particularly given it looks like the UK isnt going to fare well from Brexit.

First time round I voted with my heart, this time it would be head but it would still be a yes. As you say, Scotland has been royally screwed over the past few years. How many of the "promises" were kept? Aside from the fact Scotland didnt vote for brexit.

I think if I had to pick just one thing to do differently, it would be delaying triggering article 50 until there was a plan in place.

If I were PM (god forbid) I would definitely try the cross party working group approach. But honestly I am not sure it would ever have worked with the people we have in Parliament, on both sides I think there are too many troublemakers and people putting their own interests first.

Then hold public consultation and indicative votes in HOC.

Yes to this. On reflection it's totally bonkers that there wasn't a usual green paper/white paper process like there is on most other major government initiatives.

At least it would have given the government some evidence to work with and something to back up their approach. I'm sick of hearing "this is what the public want", how does anyone know what the public want based on one yes/no answer to a very complex question.

I thought there would be a cross party "Brexit cabinet" for want of a better phrase.

As it turned out it was noticeable that even May's fellow conservatives were frozen out of negotiations. And it was left to May and her close advisors to run their juggernaut.

I expected similar debates to what preceded indicative voting this last week, but years ago!

First off, the terms of the referendum were wrong, and a supermajority should have been required. It’s just madness to implement major constitutional change on such a tight margin. That’s basically within error and could have gone the other way on another day (polls show very small remain majority now). I say this as a leave voter btw, although it was a tight call for me.

If a convincing leave vote was obtained, there should then have been consultation and evidence gathering, then cross party planning of what the U.K. was aiming for BEFORE triggering article 50. We (the U.K) should then have started negotiating, and would have been in a much stronger, united, position and wouldn’t have been dictated to be the EU to the extent we were. Most importantly, there wouldn’t be the level of division we’re seeing now.

Shouldn't have triggered A50 until they had a sensible plan.

Triggering A50 prematurely (with the overwhelmingly support of both Tories and Labour) is what got us here.

Once that had happened, disaster was pretty much baked in whatever May did, although she made a bad situation worse.

I absolutely agree about the “super majority” - I was amazed that wasn’t done.
I find the “that’s their job” responses a bit baffling. The technicalities are their job of course- but I think I would only have votes leave if I had had a broad idea of what I wanted to happen. Which is what I would have expected the politicians to have given us before the Referendum.

As someone who has always had faith in the parliamentary process ( not in politicians-that’s different) I don’t want to believe in the “Oh all right have the bloody Haribo!!” explanation but it looking increasingly likely. And I didn’t think about the Irish Border either but surely to goodness the politicians must have done???