Petition to hold a referendum on final Brexit deal

Here’s a link for anyone interested in signing this. It has already reached more than 100,000 signatures which means it will probably be debated in parliament.


My problem with this is - what happens if the GBP (Great British Public) decides it does not like the deal struck.

Even if the question s formulated as “Do you accept the deal and wish to leave the EU” vs “Do you reject the deal and wish to remain a member of the EU” (which it won’t be BTW) you then have the problem that it is very unlikely to be possible to simply say “oh, we changed our minds, we’re back in, shall we just forget this ever happened and continue as before”.

That’s one of the questions suggested by the petition and I can imagine the majority voting for this now that the implications of Brexit for the UK are starting to emerge. Whether the EU would just say “Oh alright then you can stay” after 2 years of thrashing out a deal would be another matter entirely.

Surely if you live in France You would want this ridiculous thing reversed with a referendum based on facts rather than one based on lies?


As it happens I live in the UK and have a house in France. I voted Remain and would prefer that we continue as a member of the EU despite its shortcommings. But the way the whole thing has been handled, the pressure from the Leavers and especially the “why aren’t we out yet - we were told it could all be done in a weekend” crowd, the mishandling of the exit negotiations and the total disarray of UK government at present means that I do not really believe a further referendum would do anything other than muddy the waters.

Consider the possible outcomes.

We could leave with no deal ready to sail the high seas of international commerce and do lightweight, quickly negotiated deals with anyone who wants to trade advantageously with us. Or not. We are likely to be at the back of the queue for a deal with the US, China or Japan. We have a weak government and our economy will have inevitably have been weakened so we are not going to hold a strong negotiating position with anyone. The deals will be quick because we will be told by those large economies what deal is on the table and we can take it or leave it. Even if that were not the case and nations truely are clamouring to beat a path to the negotiating table with us I would not trust the current UK government to have the manpower or competance to make the necessary deal. Or any UK government in fact given that we are chronically useless at management.

Or we could leave with a “hard” brexit deal - that will probably look much like the above except we might have to accept restrictions on what we can negotiate with other nations to get any slice of the EU pie.

Or we could leave with a “soft” deal. Probably the best for the economy but then we really will be in the position that the Leave campaign posited - beholden to Brussels but with no influence.

Or we could, cap in hand, ask to be let back in. Do you think that we would retain the pound or our rebates?

I know I am leaning heavily towards pessimism but I don’t see the short term future being rosy - manybe in 10 or 20 years we will be back where we are now.

I really hope that the “control” we have bought is worth the price we paid.

1 Like

I have signed. Brexit must be stopped. I have no doubts about that. I believe whatever deal the incompetents on the British side get an opportunity for a PROPER remain campaign would win any referendum.
That does not necessarily mean the EU27 would have Britain back but that problem could be solved.


I have already signed. This government is trying to avoid the electorate having a say, even through their elected representatives.
I cannot see that the preliminary talks on the Irish border coming to a conclusion which will satisfy the UDP and they will have to withdraw their support and we could well be into another general election.


“oh, we changed our minds, we’re back in, shall we just forget this ever happened and continue as before”.

The above is about as good as the original reasoning that helped the referendum vote go “For BrExit”, which was the Massive Migration crisis at the time.

Then again, maybe Brits need to see first hand how bad the economy can get when its trade with the EU suffers from Brexit. Of course, that’s the hard way …

That’s not a “what if”.

The EU is obliged to make BrExit as difficult as possible in order to dissuade other member countries from such stoopidity …

It was supposed to be mild sarcasm, not advice.

The EU is not obliged to make life difficult for the UK once we have left, but neither is it obliged to make it easy or solve the problems that the UK has foisted upon itself with Brexit.

The EU is obliged to protect the best interests of its 27 members. If there is any conflict of interest then clearly it won’t be doing the UK any favours. But it’s not going to disadvantage itself just to make things difficult for the UK. The job of the negotiators is to find a solution that benefits both sides. Contrary to what some people seemed to expect, changing a trading agreement that’s so good it would be hard to improve on, without disadvantaging either party, is very tricky, the EU doesn’t need to make it any more difficult than it already is.

When UK proposals are declared unacceptable, it’s not out of perversity, to stop the UK getting what it wants. It’s because the UK is proposing something that would be detrimental to the EU. What I can’t decide is, whether the UK doesn’t look at the bigger picture and therefore doesn’t realise that what it’s proposing can’t possibly be acceptable, or whether it’s hoping the EU is too dozy to see the implications, or whether it’s doing it to provoke conflict and make the EU out to be the bad guy.

How on earth can Maybot expect the EU agree to any kind of future barrier-less agreement with the UK, when the UK is also free to conclude FTAs with the rest of the world so that in effect, all the UK’s trading partners would have back-door barrierless access to the EU market via the UK?


Well put Anna

Well said Anna.

Hear, hear! (Read, read? ;^)

It was supposed to be mild sarcasm, not advice.

Yes, I thought of it as such.

Still, it’s a bit difficult to make fun of a tragic circumstance.

It seems the Brits have still not yet understood that if they are an island off the coast of Europe, they are still in a “Europe” as manifested by the European Union. (Economically, there is strength in numbers.)

Lesson to be learned: The greatest advantage of the United States is that it is a “common market” of good/services. Such a market assures that the viability-risk is shared over a larger number of consumers - which in economic terms is “goodness”.

Instead, what we have presently is a religous polemic regarding the hordes who are “invading Europe”; and who happen to be not only of a minority religion (in Europe) but also a religion itself afflicted by internecine strife since it separated into two factions in the 7th/8th century. (Just as Europe did with its Catholic/Protestant wars of the 15th/16th century.)

There is a movement afoot for the Chiites and the Sunnites (the two major factions) to find common-ground and live peacefully together. Let’s hope that works out, because the opposite (failure) is unthinkable …

1 Like

It will be a pretty pointless debate. Michel Barnier’s latest statement reminds us that he is continuing to do what the EU does best - “kicking the can down the road”. It is becoming increasingly clear that the EU will do everything possible to frustrate progress in “the negotiations” presumably in the hope that the UK will eventually run out of time or become embroiled in an election which might undo Brexit completely.
Nothing will get agreed by March 2019 when the UK will leave the EU with or without “a deal”.

Anyone who thinks we could remain in the EU or reapply on the existing terms is living in the clouds. The EU’s price for UK’s “impertinence” will, as a minimum be loss of the rebate and mandatory adoption of the Euro

In case anyone is interested (and I don’t know why they would be) I live in France, UK and Cyprus. I voted to leave accepting it would cost us money in the short term but convinced that it will be in the medium to long term interests of the UK where my children live. I was interested to learn recently that James Dyson seems to agree with me. I suspect he has a better understanding of the implications than I, and many others still hotly debating on this forum something which is over.

Time will tell if I was right. As my old boss used to say “If you want to know the answer do the experiment”. Good advice then and it still is.

1 Like

If I were you I would start by doing a bit of research into Mr Dyson. You might discover that your hypothesis cannot become a theory that will stand up to the test.

>“Time will tell if I was right. As my old boss used to say “If you want to know the answer do the experiment”. Good advice then and it still is.”

Perhaps for you, yes. But for 65.6 million others it is a tragic risk of an undertaking for a supposed benefit that is not the least bit evident.

Scotland will out. What remains to be seen is if Northern Island wants or not a physical border with Ireland. The “UK” will be in tatters - perhaps even economically given the higher EU import taxation.

The EU must make of the UK an example for those with large country “leave contingents”. It is obliged to do so …

1 Like

I am sure Mr Dyson understands, or thinks that he understands, the implications of Brexit for Mr Dyson, however if his interests do not align with those of the common man which way do you think he will flip?

As I recall he manufactures in China - so his support for anything which has the potential for quicker reduction in tariffs from the Far East while simultaneously increasing costs for goods imported from the EU will appear to be in his interest. Especially if he already has an axe to grind over European “interference” in his business. The fact that vacuum cleaners from both China and the EU are likely to be more expensive post Brexit because of the weak pound does not bother him - just that his product gains an edge.

I think he has cooled on the idea now it has dawned upon him that he stands to loose significant amounts of subsidy currently paid on the swathes of land he owns in the UK.

He also seems to think that if he looses out because of increased tariffs under “WTO rules” the government should bail him out with reduced corporation tax - I’m sorry Mr Dyson but you were very much for Brexit so if there is a downside you should feel it in your pocket as well.

Of course he won’t - he has enough wealth that it would not matter to him if he did not accumulate another penny and certainly enough not to notice even large increases in the cost of living. He is also wealthy enough to go and live somewhere else on a whim.

Which brings us to one of the things that really rankles (for me) in this process - we had a lot of high profile individuals pushing for Brexit who had little real skin in the game. Many did not even really have business interests at stake (hello, Mr Farage) but just wanted to push their dubious ideas on the political stage. As soon as they won they drew back from their most egregious lies and most have simply disappeared from view leaving others to take the blame for the inevitable train-wreck which will ensue (no doubt to emerge to tell us that the idea was wonderful but we f****d up the implementation so it’s all our fault). It is one thing to carry out an experiment which might blow up in your face. It is quite another to force someone else to do it then piss off to the blast shelter.


That’s democracy Tony.

I wonder if we would have seen the same “outrage” if the 51% odd had gone the other way or would the “remoaners” be claiming a great democratic victory for “common sense”?

1 Like