English: Parliament buildings London UK (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
According to Patrick Wintour, the diplomatic editor of the Guardian, MPs could initiate ‘reverse Maastricht’ to minimise number of EU laws the UK pulls out of, or push for a second referendum.
Source: Pro-EU MPs could stage guerrilla campaign to reverse Brexit decision | Politics | The Guardian
This is probably one of the finest articles that I have read on Brexit. It provides penetrating insights into the possible alternatives to a simplistic In/Out analysis.
Although I’m passionately European and pro-Remain, I cannot believe that things will be the same after the referendum, even if there is a strong win for Remain. The campaign has raised legitimate concerns about immigration and over-population.
If there is a referendum win for Brexit, it looks like MPs would put the brake on exit negotiations. Patrick Wintour’s arguments are very valid. However, note his concern about France’s reaction being hostile. Yes, the full range of negotiated position is potentially available. But there are a number of very real risks in the grey zone.
Firstly, financial markets will react negatively to the uncertainty of a Brexit win. This will stimulate fear, with jobs and investment immediately at risk. We don’t yet know how the Bank of England would respond. Similarly, the Treasury would need to reassess its budget with tax revenues being at risk.
Secondly, the prognosis for bilateral trade negotiations is bleak. See the recent excellent article by London based think tank, Chatham House.
Thirdly, after Brexit, focus will swing towards national elections in both France and Germany, and it is likely that French and German leaders would be forced to take a hard-line with the UK. The UK would be left to stew in its own juices.
Fourthly, it is not clear that the UK has available legal and specialist resources to disentangle from the EU. Large contingencies would be needed by the Treasury to pay for expensive big firm lawyers and consultants. Partner level strategy consultants cost circa GBP5,000 a day.
Fifthly, there would likely be a Conservative Party leadership challenge and there would be the uncertainty of the next prime minister not having been elected by the people.
Sixthly, there are law and order risks. The uncertain grey zone will quickly fan xenophobia and violence could follow. Also a major terrorist incident in the UK or continental Europe will take precedence and defer post Brexit negotiations.
In short, after the Brexit referendum I see the UK entering a extended grey zone of risk and uncertainty, irrespective of which side wins. It is conceivable that parliament could ignore or seriously water down the impact of of the referendum.
Thoughts?
Dr Alf's Blog 
Parliament and MPs, thinking about “waging guerilla warfare against a Brexit decision or watering down the effect of a vote to leave the EU, are playing a very dangerous game.
As it is, politicians in this country and throughout the world are rightly held in contempt for “Only being in it for themselves”, representing the interests of plutocrats, tax avoiders like Vodaphone who have paid no Corporation Tax in the past 11 years, criminals, money launderers and unpleasant Wahibi regimes, like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan and Kuwait.
People trying to earn a little on meagre savings find themselves at the wrong end of buy to let legislation at the same time as the Land Registry is to be sold off—A licence for drug barons and criminals to engage in what Dr Alf calls “financial irregularity” on an industrial scale and with impunity as no-one will know what land they actually own.
The decision for BREXIT or Remain, with the latter being the likely option, has to be respected but if the vote is close then legitimate concerns of the opposing side such as where to build extra houses and infrastructure, trade with the EU”passporting” rules for investment banks, concerns about future Eurozone bailouts,proposals to create a European army,lost trade etc have to be taken into account and dealt with properly.
If people are ignored completely, which is what the Guardian is suggesting, and what these MPs are suggesting then the consequences will be to bring the entire system into even greater contempt than it already is. That is going to mean more tax evasion, more criminality at a low level which the police cannot be bothered to deal with and a bloody minded attitude from the dispossessed and marginalised.
As it is, I question seriously why we need more than 200 MPs because a great many of them are pretty useless and not required, why too do we need a House of Lords when a slimmer senate would do? Also why do we need such an expensive Monarchy which holds £trillions GBP in land and monies overseas when it could be stripped of its powers and made to deliver value for money?
Certainly, if we do become part of a United States of Europe then the case for large Government and a Monarchy and layer upon layer of local authorities, overmanned constabularies,quangos and fire commands gets diminished rather than increased?
People need to be careful what they wish for,respect democracy and remember that guerilla warfare is a two way street.