Realistically, I think we've all accepted that the CAA isn't going to permit a Lightning to fly again in the UK. As I've said many times before, I think the CAA's attitude stinks, and I wish an MP would make an effort to ask some serious questions about the CAA and how they are able to create their own rules and regulations, without any honest attempt to base their views on practical experience and technical expertise that would clearly indicate to anyone with less cynicism that a suitably-capable team would be perfectly able to safely operate an aircraft like the Lightning.
Having said this, I think from a financial viewpoint a Lightning would be a very difficult aircraft to support even if the CAA's rules were different. For example, a Canberra and Meteor F8 went overseas largely because of insufficient interest in the UK, and the Sea Vixen is still struggling to find a future down at Bournemouth. Practically-speaking, I think the best we could hope for is that sponsorship for the Vixen will be found and that Coventry's two Canberras will enjoy a more secure future.
My real gripe though, is that the CAA seem to have a problem with the Shackleton which could have been back in the skies over here by now. It's hard to know what ludicrous excuses even the CAA can find to prohibit a relatively simple four-engined piston from operating here, especially when aircraft like the Connie and DC6 seem to be regarded as acceptable. Surely, a contra-prop doesn't suddenly render a piston type as being complex, otherwise even the poor Gannet (okay it's not a piston) would remain grounded (which it seems to be managing to do even without the CAA's help).
My vote would be for supporting Avro's second-greatest aircraft, and persuading the miserable, blinkered CAA mandarins to get real, and respect Air Atlantique's abilities, and let the Shack come home.
Then again, there's all that Vulcan expertise at Bruntingthorpe now and another airframe sitting down at Southend...
