The "leave" plan is linked to in the article.
If you read the plan (which is admittedly unlikely given that it's 400+ pages and quite comprehensive and few people can be assed to read something of that length) then it covers pretty much everything, including the suspicion that the "remain" camps electoral strategy would be not to mention the plan, and then deny the existence of any plan to bolster their campaign on the basis that "leave" had no plan to leave the EU. That obviously didn't happen at all...!
Newsflash, news sources these days are active political entities in their own right. If events don't fit with the agenda they have built then they simply aren't covered in the news. The prevailing news agenda for the left leaning media was that there was no plan for what would happen if you voted leave and that everybody considering doing voting "leave" was a far right, facist, racist, xenophobic, evil, bigoted, assasaination supporting irresponsible maniac. Hence why if you only read the BBC/Guardian then you won't have heard *anything* about the existence of an exit plan.
Or have you? How well informed are you by your chosen news sources? Why did >50% of the population vote to leave? Is >50% of the population really far right, facist, racist, xenophobic, evil, bigoted, assasaination supporting irresponsible maniacs or are your news sources just not covering why >50% of the population are unhappy with the EU and the status quo?
Deliberately breeding that sort of hate and not covering things that concern the working classes is one reason that the westminster bubble has the level of trust (ie, zero) that it does. But "divide et imperia" I guess, even if it does mean deliberately stoking hatred and turning the entire country against each other for votes. :(