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?

surely to goodness the politicians must have done?

Re the NI border there is no evidence that they did.

Just after the ref I watched a sitting of the NI committee at which 2 trade experts testified. The border issues appeared to come as a surprise to almost all the MPs present.

The referendum should have been set with a 60% majority required, and each of the four parts of the Uk having to vote in favour. The Channel Islands and Isle of Man should also have had a say, as they are affected but had no chance to vote. Admittedly their numbers are small, but they should have had a say.

However, given the position of Gibraltar, and the GFA, it should not have happened at all.

As it did, and the result was so close (and remain in Scotland, NI and Gibraltar), it should not have been a question of "winner takes all" but consider a compromise solution - this is what Norway did in reverse. Staying in the EEA should have been a minimum requirement.

If they had agreed staying in the EEA they could have triggered Art 50 when they did, we would have left yesterday with an orderly exit which affected few people adversely and would have honoured the referendum result by leaving the political union.

It might still happen but after a big mess and much damage done.

Well, I suppose considering that the Channel seems to have come as a surprise.........

Can someone outline the bit in the MP's induction pack that shows them how to do this Brexit thing? How are they supposed to know?? I find it staggering that people genuinely believe that any MP would be an expert in anything / everything, from housing, to education, to immigration, to once in a lifetime stupid decisions like Brexit.

I am increasingly blaming the politicicalization of the civil service, and the pathetic nature of the media. Both used to have the function of speaking truth to power- but signally fail to do so now.

A supermajority wasn’t required because it was supposed to be advisory only. How we got from there to triggering A50 is a mystery, but Cameron’s TV appearance saying to the country “once in a lifetime, it’s your decision” seems to be the key thing for the objectors now. (STUPID MAN!)

Bring advisory only is also why it can’t be cancelled because of Vote Leave’s illegal activities

Presumably, if May had handled things differently in the first place, the 2017 election wouldn’t have been thought necessary so she’d have had a working majority throughout?

There was no way to an orderly Brexit, since nothing that was promised at the time can be delivered.

If the truth about where we are now had been told before the referendum, Leave would not have won.

If the referendum had been taken as a signal to investigate the pros and cons of remaining in or leaving the EU, then it would have found that there was no vision of Out that was not in someway disadvantageous to the UK, and it would not have been acted upon.

We're here because Leave lied, and there is no earthly way to deliver any of their promises. Even the much trumpeted "sovereignty" has been exposed as leaving the UK unable to act thanks to a parliamentary logjam.

This is what happens when a builder knocks on your door, offers to build an extension for £1,000 all in, and rather than checking them out you hire them, and wonder 2 years and £50,000 later where your fucking extension is. At some point you'd think the penny would drop that not only are you never getting that £1,000 extension, but that the builder damn well knew he wasn't going to deliver it, and is now simply reading your increasingly desperate tweets/snapchats/instagrams from a poolside in Spain.

“I find it staggering that people genuinely believe that any MP would be an expert in anything / everything, from housing, to education, to immigration, to once in a lifetime stupid decisions like Brexit.”

They don’t. That’s what the Civil Service is supposed to be for. Ministers make policy- civil servants implement it.

The bit about it being an "advisory vote" is not really the problem, IMO. The problem was when Cameron said (and also wrote it in the bit of paper through everyone's door) that they would stand by the result. Therefore, he, in everything but name, changed it from an advisory vote to a binding one.
He then also evoked Article 50 far too quickly (by quite a few years in my opinion).

If he had kept it as a true advisory vote, it would still have come as a shock to him, but he could have formulated a plan (over many years), and then put that to another referendum. He completely cocked it up in so many ways, just for the sake of in-fighting in the Conservative party.

I voted leave in the current Referendum, and also voted to leave in the first Referendum (1975), but I am not at all opposed to a trading deal with Europe, but am totally against closer political ties, and the way the EU is aiming to abolish the "Veto". That is the reason I voted to come out in '75, as I thought it would be the thin end of the wedge in regards to Political Union, and was very suspicious that Political change would creep in through the back door.

However, being as the phrases "Brewery", "piss-up" and "couldn't Organise" are apt for the current incumbents of the Palace of Westminster, I feel the only way out of this complete mess is to do it all over again, and this time, if Leave still "Won", then do it properly this time, as many people have suggested on here, with a second referendum once a deal has been finalised. There should never have been a "binding" vote on such abstract and absolute terms as "leave" and "remain".

People are also correct when they say that there are a thousand versions of what "leave" means, and the leave voters are not just one mass with exactly the same thoughts on the matter, as I daresay they are many Remainers who are not at all happy with some aspects of the current EU.

I wonder if Cameron hadn't said that (and put it in the leaflet), and Remain had won, whether the Leave voters would have then jumped up and down saying it was advisory only and we should leave anyway :)

Oh well in a parallel universe..

So what should have happened which would have brought us to an orderly Brexit yesterday? sparkly fireworks breathing unicorns no less.

Cameron promised that Cameron would honour Cameron's referendum promised in Cameron's election manifesto.

When Cameron buggered off, it was entirely up to his sucessor to take any course of action, and again after 2017 when a new Parliament and a new govt not bound by the previous manifestio came to office.

You can take Labour to task for going along with it, but this is a Tory Fecal Cabaret owned by Cameron, Osborne and May.

"I am increasingly blaming the politicicalization of the civil service"

Example please? Round our way we are pretty scrupulous about not being political.

He then also evoked Article 50 far too quickly (by quite a few years in my opinion).

He didn't - he was long gone by then (tosser). It was May, trying to be Strong & Stable. She announced the election very soon after that - A50 9th March, election announcement 18th April. Completely mad.

29th March (fat fingers)

He didn't - he was long gone by then (tosser). It was May, trying to be Strong & Stable. She announced the election very soon after that - A50 9th March, election announcement 18th April. Completely mad.

Apologies (I blame my age) you are quite correct-I just got my tossers mixed up.

What I think should have happened:

1. Announce cross party group to explore all options.
2. In recognition that the margin between remain and leave was quite low, and the damage to the country no deal could do announce soft brexit option such as Norway etc. That way the vote is respected but also the fact that the country was almost evenly split on the issue.
3. Put it to another referendum.

Result: Most people would have been happy in my opinion. If you look at the polling before this farce Europe was not an issue high on voters' priorities. It was only ever a fringe issue. Yes some of the more looney contingent would be moaning but they don't reflect the majority so stuff them.

Instead what happened:

May got PM. A woman known for being OTT on the authoritarian front. She then:

Came up with some red lines based on God knows what. Appointed someone who had publicly demonstrated he had no idea how the EU worked as Brexit secretary.

Triggered article 50 with fuck all of a plan.

Then, presumably for a laugh, called a general election and spent the entire campaign hiding in warehouses with Tory sycophants instead of meeting real people.

This forced her to make a pact with the religious Irish nutters who apparently don't want NI to be different in anyway to the rest of UK apart from that pesky matter of women's rights.

Then came up with a deal that everyone hates and that she can't get passed.

So here we are, in an utter farce.

Meanwhile, in a parallel universe, Prime Minister Ed Milliband has just announced a boost in funding to the NHS and education budgets and forums are filled with discussions on whatever reality TV show is popular.

*Meanwhile, in a parallel universe, Prime Minister Ed Milliband has just announced a boost in funding to the NHS and education budgets and forums are filled with discussions on whatever reality TV show is popular&

Alternatively, the cost of a Labour coalition with the SNP was another referendum, which they've just won, and we're into Brexit on steroids.

In my alternative universe Yvette Cooper is PM!

Should have started planning for a no-deal scenario immediately, so the EU would know we were willing to walk away without one.
We'd have been in a much stronger position for negotiating.

In my opinion, they should have taken the referendum as advisory (as it was supposed to be). They should have acknowledged the slim majority voted leave. Set up a cross party committee to look into the logistics. Realised it will screw the country over, be completely impossible to navigate the Ireland issue etc, and gone back to the voters saying "we know most of you want to leave, but this is why it's a bad idea, so as your elected representatives we've decided to stay for now". After all, we elect them to make the decisions in the best interests of the country. The vast, vast, majority of the population do not have all the facts.

Firstly- Cameron's government shouldn't have set the referendum without a plan for what to do if it went the way they didn't want it to. (and should have made it a super majority)
Second- May's government should never have triggered article 50 without a consensus on the terms of leaving at an idea of what they wanted. Diabolical decision.

IlonaRN- the EU don't really care if we have a no deal, other than how it affects them. And we were never in a strong position to negotiate, as the terms have been clear from the start- there is no compromising on the four freedoms.

I agree, my understanding is that TM was under no obligation to Trigger article 50 and shouldn’t have done so until extensive work was undertaken on what Brexit would look like ( or that it was bloody impossible and we should Remain).