I realize that this post may well be read by those who do not agree with my views, but I assume that if you have an interest in the subject then you also have a stake in the result of this social experiment. I call it an experiment because in the whole history of the EU, no one has ever tried to break free.
At this point in time, I am certain that few if anybody would disagree with the viewpoint that in terms of Brexit, we have reached an impasse. A Mexican stand-off if you prefer. Whether you call yourself a Tory, Labour, Liberal, a Democrat, SNP or whatever, deals are being struck between parties that have absolutely nothing in common but their opinion on Brexit. Each side's demands are diametrically opposed to the others.
In my opinion, (which actually is irrelevant in terms of what I am proposing), those that think that the EU doesn't want a solution or wants to punish Britain are wrong. They just cannot be seen to give Britain a better deal than what they had as a member of the EU. It would be suicide.
To those who would have the EU implode I say this. If by some weird sequence of events the EU was to disappear overnight, I guarantee you it would form again but in a new way, a way that would be stronger; because they have everything to gain from a strong united Europe.
Until 1974 when UK joined, France, then under Charles de Gaulle, did not even want the UK in the EU. It wasn't until his retirement that Britain managed to enter. But all that is history.
As things stand, the deal that David Davis negotiated, named the Transition deal, has shown all of us the shape of things to come. Nobody, but nobody will be happy. Already the fishermen in Scotland are livid. They feel they have been sold out, but consider what was logically possible. If by being outside the EU Scotland had full control of its territorial fishing grounds, and it insisted on keeping this for itself what do you think would happen? Leaving aside for a moment the fact that most fish are migratory and swim between the fishing grounds of several countries, what do you think would happen to the Scottish fishing industry if in retaliation the EU slapped a tariff on Scottish fish? Even if this was 0%, what do you think would happen to the freshness if border delays slow down exports by days?
Nobody can negotiate a decent Brexit! It is an impossibility ... and so what I am suggesting is to put the question back to the people in the form of a final vote on the Brexit deal. Not a referendum, because that is a binary tool and this is a non-binary problem. What I am proposing is a vote. To be held in Early November latest, with a three way question.
Accept whatever deal is being proposed and leave in an orderly manner
Reject the deal and simply leave, opting for the NO DEAL option
Accepting that any Brexit is too detrimental, therefore choosing cancelling Brexit
Consider what could happen. If the vote shows a 50% majority for anybody then the question is settled. Most likely it would not and then, just like the elections in many countries, it goes to a second round, with only the top two options going forward. If the two options don't include staying in the EU then the choice will simply be between hard - soft Brexit (or whatever is your preferred nomenclature for the options.)
Most likely, the result will include staying in the EU and one other. If the other is a hard Brexit, then those who voted 'soft' will be obliged to decide in the second round, either 'stay' in the EU or accept crashing out (a 'hard' Brexit). If on the other hand it is the hard Brexiteers that lose out on the first round they will either have to accept an orderly 'soft' Brexit or 'stay' in the EU. In this way nobody can say this is undemocratic or that they don't have a chance at a Brexit of their choice.
All those who still insist the people have already spoken are doing nothing but risking the entire future of the United Kingdom, from Ireland to Scotland, from Tory to Labour. To delegate this decision to the politicians is silly, as can be seen from the state of Brexit negotiations where they can't even agree on the simplest of deals.
Then there is always the question of the interpretation of the EUA 2011 (EU Agreement of 2011), that hasn't been tested yet. One small phrase contained therein 'or replaces any EU Treaty' needs to be ratified in a referendum. What do you think will happen if this goes to court? It could even be said that the referendum held was in fact premature, and the terms of the Brexit should have been known before the people were asked.
The man in the photo is Lord Kerr. He wrote the Article 50, never once thinking it was his own team that would invoke it. Lord Kerr, a former UK ambassador to the E.U, said Brexiters in May’s cabinet were suggesting Brexit was irreversible and thereby misleading the public.
This former diplomat says the UK could opt to reverse Brexit up to the moment it leaves, even if a date for the country’s departure from European Union were added to the withdrawal bill, as Theresa May plans.
SIGN THE PETITION DEMANDING THE FINAL VOTE BE RETURNED TO THE PEOPLE.
This is the only way to truly know what the people want and to unite the country again. Everybody, knowing the consequences, takes an informed decision. These are the options, this is the price! - DECIDE -.
Ask yourselves, do you really trust a politician, many of whom take donations from the Russians , to take what is almost certainly the most important decision of your and YOUR CHILDRENS' lives for you?
Tell your friends. Tell your family. Tell your fellow students. This sale is only on until March 29th, 2019. (Actually, if a transition period is negotiated it could be longer but I wouldn't risk it). Before Mar 29th 2019, even the EU can't stop a reversal. After that who knows) Vote the way you think and then its in the lap of the gods!
Sign Petition : https://t.co/Wo8DgvjjYN