They can have all the thoughts they want but they were denied access to EU related government "machinery" because the government took a stance of supporting staying in the EU. The leave camp will have ideas and thoughts of how to tackle the key issues but without access to the civil service departments that are experts in the area that would be just talk. That is not how government works. The civil service are the planners, the developers and the implementers of policy and politicians are the ones that choose the direction. The civil service does all the actual work. It is much simpler to understand if you look at the USA. Obama could promise all he wanted but without the support from below he could not do anything. Trump will be the same. Just a figurehead with no actual power. It is a facade.
One of my points in the build up to this was and still is, that they should have shared those thoughts with the electorate. There is still nothing to stop them coming out now and saying "Hey, calm down chaps this is what we think should happen over this topic" . I've heard and learned more from you, some bloke on a football forum, than them. That's not right is it? That's all I'm asking.
I totally agree but that is not leave's call. The government holds the keys to the contingency plans and the PM is still in charge. I would guess that Osborne and May disappearing is down to sorting something out behind doors. The contingency options need to be sorted out and worked through in which direction each part should go before any plan can be publicly announced. You can't say here are the plans. Loads of options. We haven't decided which parts and which directions we are going in yet but hey, it will be something from this lot. There will be a lot of different options in these contingencies and they need to sort those options out before they have a final plan. Do you want them to come out with a plan that has multiple choices all the way through it? or should they get down to work and narrow those options into something that can be understood and workable?
We are split into three equal branches of government. The President is the head of the Executive branch, Congress is the legislative branch. Neither one is "below" the other.
It appears that Cameron has let the country down in the following ways: 1. He appears to have called a referendum with two possible outcomes and only planned for one of them 2. He's resigned immediately after the referendum and refused to deal with the outcome. In my opinion he should have finished the job by staying on to negotiate the best possible terms for our exit. If the reports that he said "Why should I do all the hard s**t for someone else, just to hand it over to them on a plate?" are correct then I'm afraid I don't think he was ever fit for the office of prime minister. 2a. This one isn't entirely his fault but he doesn't appear to have tried to change it. A 3-4 month Conservative leadership campaign is not, in my opinion, acceptable given the current situation. Markets don't like uncertainty and a lengthy campaign means a longer period of uncertainty. I believe our governing party has a responsibility to provide some certainty. Time to speed up the leadership election and let's start to sort things out.
In the light of, what appears to have been a mistake made by the British people, a petition for another EU vote was started on Friday. It is already well past 3.2 million signatures in a couple of days: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/131215 There's also one backing Proportional Representation, which given the apparent split in the country, would seem to be the best chance for every vote in the future, on anything regards one's political persuasion, to be counted: http://www.makevotesmatter.org.uk/brexit-petition/#sign
Maybe we should be thinking of a coalition of both labour and conservative to enter the negotiations with the E U? After all it was MPs from both parties that wanted the exit. Is that possible?
Gosh, aren't there a lot of people out there that don't seem to understand exactly what democracy is, and what the rules were when they voted in the referendum. Perhaps they would prefer multiple referendums until they get the result they do want and sod those people that voted for and achieved the result that they wanted first time around. There's no excuse for playing fast and loose with democracy in this way, and certainly no justification for rewriting the rules just to appease the short sighted
I think the EU has form for asking a question repeatedly until it gets the answer it wants. Trouble is this one's down to us (well the Tory party) to sort it out. Piss ups, couldn't manage to organise and Brewery come to mind.
Do you think for one minute that if the result had been the other way, we'd have heard the last of Farage and co? The beauty of democracy is that there are at least 2 sides to every debate, and the losing side still deserves to be represented. I don't want to leave the EU, so I'm buggered if I'm going to make it easy for those who want to take us out. By the sound of it they're not going to find it easy anyway.
But you know what I mean. The President is purely the figurehead and can get nothing done without the machinery of government supporting him.
It is not '"leave's" call, but I feel Like they have a moral duty to speak out. Not just a "hooray chaps we won" but some words about their thoughts. It is the government in control currently, I understand, but right now me and 16 million others need to get on board for the sake of this country. The people who led us out are doing nothing in my opinion to get that bit to happen and I believe they have an obligation (moral) to do that. Right now, they as make me feel like they were just the disrupt squad. Two of those people at least have pretences of running this country. Well my message to them is get yourself out front and centres and start to show me that you can!
I don't think it should be loads of politicians at all. I agree there should be cross party input but politicians are not negotiators and are not experts in the field.
Look at the date that the main petition was started. It had minimal votes until the result went the wrong way.
