To think the Brexit referendum result should be set aside if allegations of corruption are proved?

[Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g]

Vanity Fair article about this

Just like the US election last year, there is more and more evidence emerging now that some parts of the Leave campaign were fundedy in very shady ways. Also, social media was manipulated to feed personalised fake news to voters before the referendum. Even the ludicrous #usepens seems to have been pushed by Russian bots as a way of undermining confidence in the electoral process.

We are teetering on the brink of making the biggest political mistake of my lifetime (and I'm in my 50s and remember a good many other bad times). That's bad and bad enough, but if it wasn't even a legitimate vote surely it should just be set aside?

for the UK to not leave the EU requires the agreement of the EU

There have been plenty of overtures from Europe that this debacle could be stopped.

WWED OP?

(what would Elsa do?)

f Theresa May said she wasn't leaving, I suspect the 26[sic] would be delighted to welcome us back to common sense and reason.

On revised terms, probably including schengen and the Euro (not a problem for many, but also not the status quo)

Even the ludicrous #usepens seems to have been pushed by Russian bots as a way of undermining confidence in the electoral process.
So we should have another vote because Brexiters were persuaded by Russians that they would be robbed and we'd vote remain? eh?

On revised terms, probably including schengen and the Euro (not a problem for many, but also not the status quo)

I suspect the EU would make some concessions. No one with an ounce of economic literacy wants this.

There have been plenty of overtures from Europe that this debacle could be stopped.

For a price, of course.

I suspect the EU would make some concessions

Well they didn't make any when Cameron asked them. My personal view is they'd say "why should we?" don't forget we already had our own deal on many issues.

Brexit will not be good for the EU. Again, no thinking person really wants this.

If the EU was so keen fro us to remain why didn't they offer us a deal to stay before now? In their view they hold all the cards, leave or remain.

Well they didn't make any when Cameron asked them. My personal view is they'd say "why should we?" don't forget we already had our own deal on many issues.

There were legal and Treaty concerns regarding Britain's requests.

If the EU was so keen fro us to remain why didn't they offer us a deal to stay before now?

What deal? What do you think they should offer for the UK to stay?

It's not like they could agree to the UK leaving the Euro or the Schengen treaty.

For goodness sake we were a key Member State. We could have used appropriate and established processes to enact change.

What deal? What do you think they should offer for the UK to stay?

I am the one saying I don't think they would offer us a deal to stay - another poster thinks they might make concessions, I don't.

What did you mean with that question, then?

We could have used appropriate and established processes to enact change.

But we have triggered article 50 now. David Cameron did a tour of EU and asked them for concessions to ease the dissent at home over some aspects - for the most part the EU said no.

What makes you think there is any appetite for concessions now? The atmosphere seems more one of punishment and preservation.

Freedom of movement is not a side issue. It is part of the very foundation of free trade. You cannot have free movement of goods and services if workers cannot cross borders.

We chose to ask from them the impossible.

What makes you think there is any appetite for concessions now?

I would imagine they would be concessions inside the limits of the Treaties. They are not legally able to do any more than that without Treaty change.

And if you recall Cameron did get them to agree to concessions.

What did you mean with that question, then?
I was asking makeourfuture, who had asserted an opinion that the EU wanted to make concessions for us to stay a member, why the EU didn't offer such a deal in the run up to the referendum, or immediately after.

My opinion is that whatever the rights and wrongs, the EU doesn't feel they want to make any further concessions to keep us as a member. At this point, if we had a referendum tomorrow and voted not to leave, I suspect we'd be the ones making concessions to remain members - I suspect we'd have to join Schengen so France could do away with all the controls at Calais (they have expressed a view that everything at Calais was our fault for not joining Schengen), and the Euro. I don't see any signs that the EU wants to offer us even what we had.

And if you recall Cameron did get them to agree to concessions

Yes he did, but they were insufficient for him to be able to sell to the electorate. The concessions he got evidently didn't do enough address the concerns of voters (setting aside the question of whether their concerns were legitimate).

I would imagine they would be concessions inside the limits of the Treaties.

Such as?

I know of remainers who have said they would vote leave if it was run again as they don't believe there should be another referendum.

Well that is just about the stupidest thing I have ever heard. "I don't believe in X but i'll vote for it anyway just because i'm having a mardy"

I'm not sure. The EU doesn't want the UK to leave. It's dangerous for the EU.
I suspect that if there are any intentions to stay, they will just keep it as it was. As a concession.