Superdry co-founder gives 1 million pounds to campaign for second Brexit vote

[webfact]

Superdry co-founder gives 1 million pounds to campaign for second Brexit vote

By Costas Pitas

 

FILE PHOTO: A woman walks past a Superdry fashion store in Berlin, Germany, March 17, 2016. REUTERS/Fabrizio Bensch - RTSAW68/File Photo

 

LONDON (Reuters) - The co-founder of fashion brand Superdry is donating a million pounds ($1.28 million) to the campaign for a referendum on the final Brexit agreement as Britain prepares to outline in more detail how a no-deal outcome would work.

 

"I'm putting some of my money behind the People's Vote campaign because we have a genuine chance to turn this around," said Julian Dunkerton, a "remainer" who opposes Britain's planned departure from the European Union.

 

"I’ve got a good instinct for when a mood is going to change and we’re in one of those moments now," he said in comments reported by several British media outlets.

 

Britons voted in a 2016 referendum to leave the EU but in July the proportion of voters who favour a referendum on the final terms of any Brexit deal overtook those who do not for the first time, according to opinion polls.

 

Britain's Brexit minister Dominic Raab will travel to Brussels on Tuesday in a bid to pick up the pace of talks with the EU's chief negotiator Michel Barnier, Prime Minister Theresa May's office said.

 

Britain will publish on Thursday the first of a series of technical notices designed to help people and businesses prepare for a no-deal scenario and Raab will give a speech outlining how the government plans to mitigate against any potential risks.

 

"Securing a deal is still by far the most likely outcome, but we want to make sure that we clearly set out the steps that people, businesses and public services need to take in the unlikely event that we don’t reach an agreement, said Raab.

 

Britain said it has been undertaking work on a no-deal scenario for almost two years with nearly 4 billion pounds allocated by the finance ministry.

 

London and Brussels hope to agree a Brexit deal at a summit in October but May faces splits within her party and the tough task of securing parliamentary approval for the final agreement, as she tries to face down rebels.

 

Campaigners on both sides of the argument have been stepping up their efforts in recent weeks as someBrexiteers argue against any agreement which keeps Britain tied to EU mechanisms such as the customs union or single market.

 

On Saturday, the former leader of the United Kingdom Independence Party Nigel Farage said he would join a "battle bus" tour around the country by a pro-Brexit group which is opposed to May's plans.

 

The government is planning to recognise some EU regulations if London and Brussels fail to strike a deal, taking a "flexible" approach to make sure medicines, car parts and chemicals are still available, The Sunday Telegraph reported.

 

A spokesman at May's Downing Street office did not offer an immediate comment on the report.

 

But just days after a car hit pedestrians and police officers outside Britain's parliament, junior defence minister Tobias Ellwood said military and security cooperation should not be up for debate with the EU.

 

"Let the Brexit talks continue – but European security should be unconditional," he said.

 

(Reporting by Costas Pitas; Editing by Chris Reese and Sandra Maler)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2018-08-21

[pegman]

A man with some common sense. 

[owl sees all]

Keep voting 'til you get it right.

[prakhonchai nick]

1 hour ago, pegman said:

A man with some common sense. 

 

A man with more money than sense

[transam]

4 minutes ago, prakhonchai nick said:

 

A man with more money than sense

Exactly, he has to worry about sod all...

[Jonmarleesco]

Let's trust the arrogant fool loses his money. 

[zydeco]

Just the sort of guy you would want to follow into battle.

 

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, zydeco said:

Just the sort of guy you would want to follow into battle.

 

Well if this is the alternative:

 

 

[Top man]

He can give all he wants, there will be no second vote. Just think about this for one moment, more uncertainty for business,the let down for 17 million people, I really could go on and on, but to tell you the truth, I've had enough. These remainers are not street wise,they really don't know the problems this second vote would do too the country. 

[Thailand]

I guess the only only reason the pro Brexit camp would not want a second vote is the certainty they would lose.

[stevenl]

36 minutes ago, Top man said:

He can give all he wants, there will be no second vote. Just think about this for one moment, more uncertainty for business,the let down for 17 million people, I really could go on and on, but to tell you the truth, I've had enough. These remainers are not street wise,they really don't know the problems this second vote would do too the country. 

Glad to hear brexit is going smoothly now.

[connda]

Pretty soon all 'democracies' will be able to be have the rich fund new elections when the first elections doesn't go the way that the plutocrats expected.  So, no doubt there will need to be changes to all 'truly democratic' countries constitutions so that if the electorate votes in a manner different that what the 1% paid for, then the elections need be declared null and void and new elections scheduled so that the rich and elite can purchase enough corporate media (propaganda) air-time to convince the plebes to vote 'correctly' in the next election. 
"Here at the Fair Elections for The Masses NGO we help our client governments to reschedule elections that weren't quite -- 'fair' to our major donors.  In doing so, our donors have a chance to 're-educate' the populace so they make wiser choices in the second election.  We like to think that this is 'true democracy' at work!!!"
Sounds crazy huh?  But that's the direction this is going. 

[dundee48]

A fool and his money.

Might have been better if this hypocrite had used the million pounds to give workers in his sweatshop Indian factories a pay rise instead,some of them are on less than 50p an hour.

[dick dasterdly]

I'm suprised that it's legal for any individual or company to be allowed to support any political agenda by paying 1m sterling - particularly in light of the furore over an organisation giving another organisation money during the referendum.

 

For which they have not only been soundly lambasted, but face possible criminal prosecution?  Not to mention the odd (extremely odd, to be fair ?) suggesting that the referendum result should be ignored as a result.

[dick dasterdly]

1 hour ago, dundee48 said:

A fool and his money.

Might have been better if this hypocrite had used the million pounds to give workers in his sweatshop Indian factories a pay rise instead,some of them are on less than 50p an hour.

"Might have been better if this hypocrite had used the million pounds to give workers in his sweatshop Indian factories a pay rise instead,some of them are on less than 50p an hour."

 

Do you have any evidence that this is true?

[Chomper Higgot]

8 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

I'm suprised that it's legal for any individual or company to be allowed to support any political agenda by paying 1m sterling - particularly in light of the furore over an organisation giving another organisation money during the referendum.

 

For which they have not only been soundly lambasted, but face possible criminal prosecution?  Not to mention the odd (extremely odd, to be fair ?) suggesting that the referendum result should be ignored as a result.

The furore was actually an investigation by the electoral commission that revealed electoral fraud by the ‘Leave Campaign’ the matter has now been forwarded to the Police.

 

The donation under discussion is to the campaign for a citizen’s vote on the final deal.

 

[vogie]

4 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Well if this is the alternative:

 

 

I would have thought this was the alternative.

[dundee48]

1 hour ago, dick dasterdly said:

"Might have been better if this hypocrite had used the million pounds to give workers in his sweatshop Indian factories a pay rise instead,some of them are on less than 50p an hour."

 

Do you have any evidence that this is true?

https://www.politicalite.com/brexit/slave-driver-raheem-slams-superdry-boss-over-28p-an-hour-workers/

[milwaukeeboy]

Just do the will of the people already! The vote was 23 June 2016! Stop dragging your feet for God's sake!

And then if some douchebag wants to fund a vote to join the European Union or not, that's fine because they never had one in the first place.

[Bluespunk]

5 hours ago, Top man said:

He can give all he wants, there will be no second vote. Just think about this for one moment, more uncertainty for business,the let down for 17 million people, I really could go on and on, but to tell you the truth, I've had enough. These remainers are not street wise,they really don't know the problems this second vote would do too the country. 

Why will there be no second vote?

 

There is no reason why there cannot be one. 

[Basil B]

3 hours ago, vogie said:

I would have thought this was the alternative.

No unfortunately a reality, there will have to be a general election within the next four years, unless the moderates within the Labour Party can get rid of him before. 

[Basil B]

45 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

Why will there be no second vote?

 

There is no reason why there cannot be one. 

I for one did not vote leave...

I believe had the voters been told the true facts the result would have been a decisive remain...

But a lot of water has passed under the bridge since the referendum, and a lot of bad blood, I do not feel we could ever be a full member receiving fair treatment again so would next time vote leave.

 

 

[Bluespunk]

46 minutes ago, Basil B said:

I for one did not vote leave...

I believe had the voters been told the true facts the result would have been a decisive remain...

But a lot of water has passed under the bridge since the referendum, and a lot of bad blood, I do not feel we could ever be a full member receiving fair treatment again so would next time vote leave.

 

 

I’d still like the poster I quoted to explain why there cannot be another referendum. 

[Chelseafan]

7 hours ago, Thailand said:

I guess the only only reason the pro Brexit camp would not want a second vote is the certainty they would lose.

How do you reckon on "certainty" ? I'm a remainer but if a second vote came up, I would vote to leave.

 

 

 

 

[Chelseafan]

1 hour ago, Basil B said:

I for one did not vote leave...

I believe had the voters been told the true facts the result would have been a decisive remain...

But a lot of water has passed under the bridge since the referendum, and a lot of bad blood, I do not feel we could ever be a full member receiving fair treatment again so would next time vote leave.

 

 

We don't really know the "facts" two years later. How can anyone really make an informed choice ...then or now?

 

 

 

[Chelseafan]

40 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

I’d still like the poster I quoted to explain why there cannot be another referendum. 

There can be but why should there be ? We voted. We lost. We should accept the verdict of the majority. Whether the choice is the correct one only time will tell.

 

To vote again when we have no real further information other than scare-mongering from both sides of the camp would be pointless.

 

 

[arithai12]

I don't have a particular opinion about Brexit, but if a second vote was needed then it should have taken place before the UK government triggered Article 50. By now, it's not just a UK internal issue but it also concerns the rest of the EU.

If the 2nd vote was for remain, I would think it rather awkard if Mrs May would knock at the EU's door tomorrow and say, well, actually, you know, forget all that was said, we prefer to stay.

And if the 2nd vote was also for leave, how would that improve today's Brexit confusion?

 

 

 

 

[candide]

19 minutes ago, Chelseafan said:

There can be but why should there be ? We voted. We lost. We should accept the verdict of the majority. Whether the choice is the correct one only time will tell.

 

To vote again when we have no real further information other than scare-mongering from both sides of the camp would be pointless.

 

 

There is scare-mongering, true or not.

But that's not the issue. The issue is: after 2 years, is there still any sensible argument that explains that it will be better after Bexit?

[Chelseafan]

2 minutes ago, candide said:

There is scare-mongering, true or not.

But that's not the issue. The issue is: after 2 years, is there still any sensible argument that explains that it will be better after Bexit?

And is there any sensible argument to say that it won't....and that's my point....if the economists, politicians and those more intelligent than you or I can't make a real case either way what hope do we have of making an informed decision. For every economist who shouts fire and brimstone there will be another who thinks we will be better off.

 

Personally, I think for the short-term we are in for a bit of pain but if we can get a strong Government who can negotiate well then free trade agreements could make this country prosper

 

 

[candide]

7 minutes ago, Chelseafan said:

And is there any sensible argument to say that it won't....

Several arguments have been exposed in this thread. I have not seen much pro-brexit arguments except " we will be free" "we will be able to make sovereign decisions" "we will not be subject to the ECJ", etc...

The only coherent arguments I have seen were from ultra-liberal economists: free trade, low taxes, minimal regulations, minimal social help. I don't support them but at least they are coherent. But I'm not sure that's what all leavers voted for.