Sufficient stupidity applied to contentious issues is a disaster. That's how we get measles outbreaks.

Failing to present a coherent, workable programme for how we'd leave the EU and at what cost is leading us to a situation where the government is doing civil contingency planning as if we were going to be hit by a hurricane rather than a self-inflicted disastrous choice.

I'm in complete agreement, but I don't think the desire to leave is particularly contentious if it's backed by reasonable arguments (and Farage was always very keen on talking about why he didn't like the EU). The real problem comes in when we get to the point of "OK, we want to leave the EU" but immediately trigger the process without planning a strategy first. Especially with reluctant and un-aligned (May was a remainer) leadership in place.

Could you please outline some of yours?

To be fair to UKIP that was the Tories job. UKIP had ?one? MP and have never been near to government. The Tories called the referendum. They were in government. The Tories should have been ready to govern. They should have had plans in place.

Disclaimer I am a remainer and dislike UKIP as much as anyone.

For a starter, "wanting to leave the EU" without having a clue of how to do it or proposing practical solutions is not the finest thing to do.

And also the entire immigration discussion was some bs considered the non-EU migration is been higher than EU one for decades https://fullfact.org/immigration/eu-migration-and-uk/

I disagree, I think it's perfectly fine to want to leave the EU on principle. For example, the principle of not wanted to be ruled by unelected oligarchs who can pass laws like Article 13 which affect UK citizens.

Unelected oligarchs like the House of Lords? The UK has absolutely zero legs to stand on with regards to "unelected" or "undemocratic" arguments.

(For years I tried to be a "sensible Eurosceptic", but recent events have highlighted that the EU is a bastion of sanity compared to our current local politics)

Because having politicians work directly in the Tory part to serve the interests only of their rich donors, their partners, and themselves is so much better than being ruled by elected representatives and those chosen by those representatives (whom you call oligarchs) in Europe?

Perhaps if we hadn't been fooling around trying to destroy the project for cooperation across Europe we could have taken part in making this new legislation better?

I guess it comes down to whether you're willing to accept peace and prosperity above less power for the Tories and a few wayward laws. As we get wayward laws already in the UK (we'd get Art.13 anyway if it serves media conglomerates interests), then it comes down to whether you want to buy back greater power for the Tories at a cost of greater UK poverty, and less international cooperation.

your comment doesn't leave much room for nuance. You're just setting up a narrative of the Evil Tories who Eat Babies versus the Noble European Union and its Band of Merry Altruists. You must know that this absolutist duality is not an honest representation of reality.

You’re forgetting that Corbyn is a staunch Leaver, he opposed the EU his entire parliamentary career. That is a matter of public record. And most Leave voters were in traditional Labour areas and most Remainers were traditionally Tory voters.

So the “Tories” narrative just doesn’t add up.

See, the problem is that here we don't need principles. We need real facts and real solutions.

Many - across Europe - want to leave the EU on principle. The UK is giving the perfect example to everyone that principle is not aligned with reality in this case.

"Clumsy and ham-fisted way" is a weird way to say "white supremacists".

it's no mystery to me, but downvotes don't really bother me. The opportunity to engage in genuine cross-political discussion is worth the negligible cost to my ego.