As we now all know, the Brexiteers had no plan. All they offered us with a series of conflicting visions of a land of economic milk and honey, supported by a series of lies.
Now the vote is completed, we are faced with a divided country and a statement that 'Brexit is Brexit' which sounds pretty threatening and nasty even if no one quite knows what it means. It is a pretty frightening basis for decision-making which affects the strategic future of the country and its 60m+ people.
An example of the quality of the Brexiteers planning is contained in an article (in the West Briton of 21 July) by George Eustace addressed to his constituents.
He starts with a call-out 'It is important to bring the country together', a phrase which we have heard often of late and is typical of the playground bully who, having 'won' says 'I won so to come together you have to agree with me.'
Precisely how should we come together, Mr Eustace? You and I disagree along a very clear fault line and nothing you can offer me - other than your resignation and a reversal of the vote - is going to get agreement from me.
His article goes on to say how delighted he is to have been re-appointed as Minister of State for Farming, Food and the Marine Environment:
'I said during the EU referendum campaign that I hoped to be the first farming minister in more than 40 years to design a new national agriculture policy, starting from first principles ... my office can now become a vibrant hub of discussion with farmers, fisherman, scientists, ecologists and volunteers talking about how we can try new things and do better ... '
The man who was responsible for Agricultural Policy before the vote appears to have no more than a blank sheet of paper on what the future might look like. He gives us no indication of what needs to change or where, all he talks of is 'taking back control': a fine stirring phrase but to do what is not made clear.
So all those fishermen and farmers who backed Brexit voted on the basis of a vague hope that the Minister might have an idea what he was going to do. He clearly did not.
And what, one might ask, did he do about the EU Agriculture or Fisheries policies before the vote? Did he do anything to articulate what was wrong with them, gain active support from the UK industries involved and seek to effect change in the EU? Or did he just sit there bemoaning his lot and blaming 'faceless bureaucrats in Brussels'? I know which answer my money is on.
I hope they sell tickets to the 'vibrant hub of discussions'. I will be at the front of the queue as he attempts to explain to angry fishermen how the quotas are not changing and to farmers why their subsidies are going to be cut.
Could we, as a nation, really have been so stupid to fall for such vacuous stuff?
