There is a smell of defeatism in the air, a widespread view that the people have spoken and that we must respect them and accept their verdict. What nonsense! There is nothing sacred about a referendum vote, any more than the result of a General Election. We Lib Dems cannot accept Brexit because it would be a calamity that would undo everything we have always fought for. Furthermore reversing Brexit is not a hopeless cause.
When the time is right, there is every justification for a new referendum. A referendum must offer a clear choice, which the last did not. When Theresa May says Brexit means Brexit, what does Brexit mean? Some Leavers want no more free movement of labour, which means no access to the single market. Others want access, which means the free movement of labour must stay. Indeed with only a very tiny margin in favour of Leave, far more votes were cast for Remain than for each of these two incompatible objectives of the Leave Camps.
A re-run is especially justified if there is a dramatic change in circumstances, such as a massive shift in public opinion. This is very likely. Most economists and every independent expert organization, the IMF, the IFS and the Bank of England, predict a serious recession. Leavers promised a future in the sunny uplands, and lots of new money for the NHS, not more austerity and severe cuts in spending. Now they may be ringing their bells, but soon they will be wringing their hands.
So what should Lib-Dems do now?
Fortunately there will not be an early general election – it would ensure a large Tory majority, with UKIP possibly the main opposition. The Labour party is in chaos and we have not yet rebuilt the strong base in local government we need for winning seats in Parliament. As for a second referendum, the right time will be when we know the terms of the settlement for exit that Parliament must accept or reject. That will not be for years. Delay may be frustrating, but the recession will only develop gradually and opinion will not change overnight.
So what can we do meanwhile? There are rumours of talks about a new party, but few Conservatives will abandon Theresa May when she has only just become Prime Minister. What is needed now is a cross-party movement, which we could help initiate, to prepare the ground for the new referendum. Why not call it “Common Cause”? It would fight to change the public mood, praise the positive merits of EU membership and expose the consequences of Leave. Wherever there are redundancies, whenever companies relocate abroad or investment plans are cancelled, when there are cuts and staff shortages in the NHS and in social care, or when prices rise, as well they may, we must shout from the rooftops and swamp the social media with the cry that its cause was the vote for Brexit. It would be a campaign that would mobilise the enthusiasm of our new members who want action now.
The Common Cause is clear: to restore an outward looking United Kingdom at the heart of Europe of which we can be proud, not a Brexit nightmare of an isolationist and isolated little England with little or no influence in the world.
* Lord Taverne - Dick Taverne QC - was a founding member of the SDP and then the Liberal Democrats and has been a life peer since 1996.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Lib Dems pick Richard Kilpatrick as candidate for the Greater Manchester Mayoral election
The Joy of Six 1538
Is Kier Starmer the new John Major?
Peter Hirst
Neil Sandison
David Allen
Nick Hopkinson
66 Comments
I joined the Lib Dems for exactly this reason but I’m detecting the kind of defeatism Lord Tavern is talking about. There needs to be an authentic voice which says “this was wrong, it was based on lies and cannot be in the national interest”. Honestly, I find it incredible that such a narrow defeat has been accepted in mainstream politics so easily, particularly, as the author says, the mood is likely to shift in the next 6 months.
Hear hear, my Lord!
“There is nothing sacred about a referendum vote, any more than the result of a General Election.”
Um, what? You’re saying you don’t think General Election results should be taken at face value either? Okaaaaaaay.
Later in your article you say some more sensible things (and I might agree about a referendum on the negotiated deal – if you would explain what happens if the deal is rejected by the public), but for me you really ruined the article in the second line by implying it’s OK to try to overturn General Election results if we don’t like them. There are no winners from weakening democracy.
“We Lib Dems cannot accept Brexit because it would be a calamity that would undo everything we have always fought for.”
a third of lib-dems did precisely that.
how many of the 48% voted remain not out of any love for the eu, but because they believed in brexitgeddon?
when little changes in three years time, how many will change their mind?
I agree with Tony Smith – I’m staggered that people accept “the people have spoken” meme so easily. It is nonsense. Democracy MUST be about more than the narrow mathematical victory. The campaigns were rubbish on both sides, lies were told by Leave, and the Remain side could do little but peddle doom and gloom. More than that, though, is the need for DUE PROCESS in democracy. Democracy is nothing without due process, and a victory based on lies cannot be called “democracy” just because it was arrived at through a popular vote. That means that referendums can only be respected if there is a clear and consistent framework within which democracy is run. Given that the 2014 Scottish referendum had a different franchise, given that the 1979 Scottish referendum had a 40% mandate threshold whilst others didn’t, given that the government has just a few weeks ago obliged trades unions to have a 40% mandate on strike ballots yet ths 2016 referendum had no such requirement, and given that a government minister said that the 38% of doctors rejecting the new contracts were a “minority” because he decided that those who didn’t vote can be counted as being on the side he prefers them to be on, it is clear that this country is NOT capable of running fair, consistent and rational democracy. There is no reason to be obliged to recognise the 2016 referendum as legitimate and there is certainly no need for everyone to roll over and accept such a narrow verdict and give up the fight.
Mark Wright: I reject every General Election result that I can remember because not one of them has produced a representative Parliament. However, I can’t do much to overturn them (unless I have a valid court case against any of the constituency elections), whereas there is considerably more scope forpreventing the EU referendum from resulting in the invocation of Article 50.
Mark Wright a voice of refreshing reason in a desert of unreason !
A referendum in Scotland we think put that issue to rest , but not the EU !
Lord Taverne should understand what Tim does not seem to be aware of , there was and is a Liberal Democrat Brexit campaign ! I voted to stay in the EU and would again , but was and am very in keeping with our constructive Liberal critics !
As for the Suggestion from Lord Taverne on crying or blaming “Brexit ” at a time when on many an occasion we dislike what is happening , for example on NHS funding , lets get a grip !
T he main reason for Remain was I reckoned we would never hear some ,talk of anything else , if we went for Brexit !
Lib Dem Voice is great. I entertain a Leave friend by reading these blog postings over the phone in a very film-like urgent almost menacing voice. They’re like pastiche pieces of cliched writing. It does make us laugh. Keep it up!
“Democracy MUST be about more than the narrow mathematical victory.”
Can you explain the method of passing laws in your new Parliament that doesn’t rely on the comparing of vote numbers please?
And perhaps I should remind you that:
a) We have always been against turnout thresholds, and we were against the Scottish one which was rightly seen as gerrymandering; and we are still against the Govt union proposals to impose thresholds on union votes.
b) All elections, ever, have included lies. Both we and the Labour Party have said at every General Election since 1955 that the Tories will dismantle the NHS if they win. The Tories won most of those elections…and yet the NHS is still here and we still love it! Those were just lies, I’m afraid. But, presumably, the right kind of lies?
Don’t get me wrong – I’m in favour of a General Election or possibly second referendum on the negotiated EU deal in a few years, but some of the “To hell with the vote” stuff that’s been appearing on here is just embarrassing. I’d expect to see it in ranty Guardian comments, but not being written by Lords.
@ Lord Taverne, “There is nothing sacred about a referendum vote, any more than the result of a General Election”.
Whilst I’m in sympathy with the remain cause – and would welcome a Liberal Democrat campaign to continue to press the positive case for Europe – I’m afraid I must give a gentle caution to Lord Taverne about the second part of his sentence regarding the result of a General Election not being sacred.. It feeds into all the pernicious anti-establishment stuff (paradoxically) peddled by those members of the establishment who support Brexit
It will be said that it ill behoves a member of the unelected chamber
The phrasing was unfortunate. What Lord Taverne meant was that a general election’s result does not mean that you abandon your manifesto ideas, which were defeated, stop advocating them as in UK’s interest. You seek to convince more people that your ideas were right, while living with the elected government UNTIL the next election. Liberal Democrats should accept that Leave terms be negotiated, while highlighting the Leave campaign put forth a wishlist future as if UK could cherry pick its rights worldwide & with EU with no downsides. These negotiations could take 4 to 7 years. When people see ‘what May deals come’ then the EU may look less like a scapegoat. Listening to the Brexit advocates being interviewed, I thought their plan was to Leave the EU and join Cloud Cuckoo land.
A member of the unelected House of Lords says, “There is nothing sacred about a referendum vote, any more than the result of a General Election.”
I’m really confused by the Lib Dems these days.
This does assume that having triggered article 50 and negotiated a settlement that the remainder of the EU would allow us to then put the outcome to another vote – all within the requisite 2 years???
I’m afraid that I do not see this happening…..
Mark, I’m certainly not against thresholds if we insist on having referendums on dangerously important constitutional matters. But personally I prefer Parliamentary sovereignty and I don’t want referendums, certainly not on the arbitrary, make-it-up-as-we-go-along basis that we have had so far in this country.
What I am saying is that if we want to have referendums then they need to be on a consistent basis. Either 16 year olds are allowed to vote in them all, or none of them. You certainly shouldn’t enfranchise them for one and then disenfranchise them for another less than two years later. You shouldn’t arbitrarily enfranchise all residents in one and then restrict it to only citizens in the next. You shouldn’t have a threshold in one but not thresholds in another. You shouldn’t make one referendum legally committing a government to act (2011), and the others merely advisory, if they are all on constitutional matters.
That is what I mean by the fair, consistent, due process upon which democracy should be run and which is as much a vital part of democracy as the mathematics of the result. The latter has little validity without the former,.
(b) General Elections and referendums are completely different in that respect. Our General Elections currently create a Parliament which simply doesn’t represent the votes cast whereas a referendum – a one-man-one-vote popular ballot – can’t not do that. This is an entirely separate issue from the legitimacy of the campaigns and I was not referring to any issues of lying etc in my criticism of GEs. Maybe that wasn’t clear in what I wrote above, sorry.
When we have a democracy that creates a Parliament that reflects the votes cast to a sensible degree of accuracy, I won’t reject General Elections.
As for your first question, I wasn’t actually referring to the passing of laws in Parliament, although I could well do if you wish: Parliament does not represent the people (especially those who voted UKIP) and therefore the process of democracy is flawed and unreasonably and the mathematics of a parliamentary majority have little validity. I do not respect any vote in Parliament in which the majority party is elected on 37% of the votes cast. I do not respect a Parliament which is prevented from voting on a debate because its ludicrous rules allows individual MPs deliberately to talk out a debate by filibustering.
Mark, I’m certainly not against thresholds if we insist on having referendums on dangerously important constitutional matters. But personally I prefer Parliamentary sovereignty and I don’t want referendums, certainly not on the arbitrary, make-it-up-as-we-go-along basis that we have had so far in this country.
What I am saying is that if we want to have referendums then they need to be on a consistent basis. Either 16 year olds are allowed to vote in them all, or none of them. You certainly shouldn’t enfranchise them for one and then disenfranchise them for another less than two years later. You shouldn’t arbitrarily enfranchise all residents in one and then restrict it to only citizens in the next. You shouldn’t have a threshold in one but not thresholds in another. You shouldn’t make one referendum legally committing a government to act (2011), and the others merely advisory, if they are all on constitutional matters.
That is what I mean by the fair, consistent, due process upon which democracy should be run and which is as much a vital part of democracy as the mathematics of the result. The latter has little validity without the former.
Mark: (b) General Elections and referendums are completely different in that respect. Our General Elections currently create a Parliament which simply doesn’t represent the votes cast whereas a referendum can’t not do that. This is an entirely separate issue from the legitimacy of the campaigns and I was not referring to any issues of dishonest campaiging in my criticism of GEs. Maybe that wasn’t clear in what I wrote above, I’m sorry.
When we have a democracy that creates a Parliament that reflects the votes cast to a sensible degree of accuracy, I won’t reject General Elections.
As for your first question, I wasn’t actually referring to the passing of laws in Parliament, although I could well do if you wish: Parliament does not represent the people (especially those who voted UKIP) and therefore the process of democracy is flawed and unreasonably and the parliamentary majority has no validity. I do not respect any vote in Parliament in which the majority is elected on 37% of the votes cast. I do not respect a Parliament which is prevented from voting on a debate because its ludicrous rules allows individual MPs deliberately to talk out a debate by filibustering.
This is a very solid and sensible article by Dick Taverne.
Michael is right about the need for a framework for democracy. we need a proper written constitution and, as the current fiasco shoes, this is not just an arcane academic theme – it has huge practical consequences and unfortunately recent Tory and Labour governments have often been constitutionally illiterate, not least David Cameron’s one.
It is quite ludicrous that we should be thrust out of the EU by a bare majority, just as it would have been if the Scottish independence referendum had gone the other way.
Most sensible democracies require a two thirds majority to amend the constitution which is essentially what leaving the EU or breaking up the UK is.
Referenda are in my view a poor substitute for representative democracy. If we are to have them, as we probably now do for major constitutional issues, then they should fulfill certain criteria as follows –
1. They should be a government proposal based on a worked out scheme
2. They should be clearly sanctioned by a general election mandate
3. They should have a super majority to change major constitutional arrangements – probably two thirds.
On this basis, the following referenda were legitimate –
European Common Market referendum 1975
Scottish Assembly referendum in 1978 (failed to reach threshold majority)
Scottish Parliament referendum 1997
Scottish independence referendum 2014 (failed to obtain majority at all)
The following referenda lacked legitimacy –
AV referendum 2010 (no election mandate)
EU referendum 2016 (no worked out govt proposal, no govt election mandate for leaving, no super majority)
Proposed 2nd Scottish independence referendum in current term of Scottish Parliament (arguably no clear mandate, no worked out scheme)
Dick Taverne is right. The EU referendum lacked legitimacy – indeed it was the least legitimate referendum of modern times. it does not have the status of infallibility – although of course it is a democratic reality that can only be trumped by another referendum or a general election.
Liberal Democrats and others are quite entitled to argue for a rerun and the strategy of building common cross party consensus for a second referendum is a sound one.
“Democracy MUST be about more than the narrow mathematical victory.” – I see where you are coming from, however am not sure who would claim that Remain were fully objective and if any election can always be fully objective from both sides: ideal though that would be – equally for all its faults UK voters can vote out 100% of UK MPs and under 10% of EU MEPs.
All the best.
Mark Wright , again , and David Raw and Peter Watson , here , here !
I often support the peers and feel they do a good job and talk sense , except when they do not !
It is good to see Dick Taverne still in circulation. He is an all-round admirable bloke, and would have got to the very top of British politics had he not been so nice and so honest.
Dick is of course totally correct on this. We need a broad-based cross-party campaign. Europe has always been an issue that has cut across party lines, right the way back to the days of the McMillan government and the De Gaulle veto. The 1975 “Keep Britain in Europe” campaign saw Labour moderates, Liberals and mainstream Tories work together very effectively to keep Britain in what was then known as the Common Market. A similar movement is possible today.
I would, however, counsel against the name, “Common Cause”, because it sounds like and could be mistaken for “Common Purpose”.
Rigging votes so you win doesn’t strike me as liberal or democratic so no to thresholds. People have an absolute democratic right to abstain and their decisions cannot be usurped by either or any side. Most of us here are bitterly disappointed at losing the referendum, we can and must campaign for a mandate to reverse it, but we should accept there is a substantial risk that we will be taken out of the EU by the Tories and Unionists (the latter in defiance of the NI majority) and it will take a very long time to get back in – why would they want us back. It isn’t defeatist to accept a risk and set about the contingency plan. That has to be EFTA/EEA solution that seems to work for 2/3rds of the electorate. At this precise moment we have no idea where May and her Crazies are going to take us. We have no idea what is going to happen to Labour, essential to the fight back. Scotland and the SNP are going to make Brexit and preserving the Union near impossible. Anyone want to second guess Merkel? We need some breathing space, to let the fog lift, see where May is heading. You cannot devise an effective strategy against completely unknown scenarios so why even try. Sit back, wait, react. And what Mark Wright says, very sensible.
What I’ve yet to hear on any of this is those who HAVE no voice. As a parent of someone with Down’s Syndrome she had no say at all. Isn’t she entitled to representation? So who represents her? Me with my one vote and biased pro-Remain opinions? Should I have had an extra vote for her?
I believe that Parliament speaks for all people who had no vote, didn’t vote, couldn’t vote. But how do they vote for everyone?
Well clearly they take account of those who voted each way and then they must weigh up the issues and consider those of their constituents who have no voice. On that basis I feel, by suggesting this we are NOT saying “to hell with the vote”. It’s advisory, I couldn’t care less what the % maths is on this it’s advisory – simply part of a package of factors our representatives MUST consider, along with the continual petitions, street protests (I refer you to the Poll Tax Riots if you don’t think they are part of the democratic decision making process of this country) and letters to our MP’s – Have YOU written yet? I have, asking him to consider my daughter and others like her.
Given my daughter’s value system is completely different to ours – happiness, cuddles, a desire to see people happy, joy, and an unending desire to smile, love and be loved are her value system. I think we could learn a lot from her – I’d take her vote over anyone posting here any day. Parliament had better speak for her.
I’m sick and tired of defeatism hiding behind misapplied pedantry and logical distortion!
Dick Taverne has written a cogent and powerful article containing one sentence which, if deliberately misread, cvan be claimed to be ambiguous. When Taverne wrote “There is nothing sacred about a referendum vote, any more than the result of a General Election.”, do we think that he has spent a lifetime hurling Molotov cocktails at newly elected Prime Ministers? Of course not. So what did Taverne mean?
Clearly, he meant that a General Election chooses a government for a term of no more than five years, and that the public quite soon gets a chance to vote again and make a different choice. If a single, desperately badly conducted referendum were, by contrast, to be treated as irrevocable – and probably excluding us from the EU for generations – then that would be entirely undemocratic. Now, defeatists, can you see Taverne’s point at last?
Taverne rightly includes caveats. We’re not going along with that silly petition demanding an immediate rerun, which is just petulant. A second vote can only be when there is a different, clearer question to ask, about specific terms for leaving. It can only be when time has passed, events have happened, and opinions have shifted.
But let’s face it, how do we think the Brexit process is going to go? Nice and smooth? Or might there be recession, job losses, endless arguments, no trade agreements in sight? Yes, there might, mightn’t there?
We shall then look very silly if we have said “Well Leavers, we did gently warn you, but, in the end we decided it would be rude to make a big fuss, or try to get in the way of your disastrous rush toward Brexit…!”
David Allan, agreed.
We have to get serious here. Saying “well both sides lied” or “all elections contain lies” is far to simplistic. The worst that happened for Remain was that Osborne was incompetent. He presented realistic figures (shrinking economy, more taxes, more cuts or more borrowing. Difficulty of allowing pensions to rise in a high inflation environment when tax returns are dropping) in a cack handed way. But the underlying issues were sound.
Leave on the other hand lied on an industrial scale to quote Prof Michael Dougan. They promised things they couldn’t possibly deliver and essentially isolated free movement as if it could be curtailed without any other impacts. How can you respect a result if one side will literally say anything to win. How do you even argue the case when one side says “believe in yourselves, you are amazing, you can have all the good stuff and none of the bad stuff”. At least in an election they can be held to account, but this wasn’t an election, so they could promise anything. Goebbels lesson in propaganda was “don’t tell small lies,tell really big ones”, and Leave did.
This result is both deeply illiberal and against the national interest. It also has legitimised hatred and fear of the other. Do we really intend to let it go at that? I say this as a new member so forgive me but this is a fight where liberal philosophy lines up with 48% and climbing of the population, and cuts across all normal party political boundaries.
There will be no more cash for the NHS, there will likely be less.
Immigration won’t decrease by enough to satisfy the leavers
Jobs won’t suddenly appear, wages won’t suddenly rise
But prices will, the NHS will be hit and the mood of the country could begin to change. All I’m saying is surely it’s good for the country and for Lib Dems if we get in front of this movement.
The problem is that the government back Brexit and the Tory majority in Parliament will back the government, and by the time the next election rolls around, the EU will have dwindled to a small dot in the rear mirror, so what exactly are we supposed to do about it?
@David-1 I think the answer to your conundrum is this. Dick is quite right that Leave contains two incompatible visions. Access to the single market and restricting EU migration. May has already suggested that she is prepared to jeopardise the single market for the cause of restricting migration.
However, there is no majority for that in parliament or in the country (see recent ComRes poll here (http://www.comres.co.uk/polls/bbc-news-brexit-expectations-poll/).
With 8 MPs, we are not in a strong position but we need to recruit a majority in the House of Commons which will vote against any proposal to lose access to the single market. That is an achievable goal and one which unites both people who favour the EEA/EFTA solution and those who think we should continue to fight for our position in the EU.
And I thought it was clear that Dick was saying that you look to overturn a negative General Election at the next General Election….however, shows how careful you need to be with language!
Mark G (above|); “With 8 MPs, we are not in a strong position but we need to recruit a majority in the House of Commons which will vote against any proposal to lose access to the single market. That is an achievable goal and one which unites both people who favour the EEA/EFTA solution and those who think we should continue to fight for our position in the EU.”
This.
I see no problem with the general thrust of the article…It doesn’t say that we, as LibDems , should “Save voters from themselves”…….What it does say is that if circumstances change, and the dire predictions of ‘the experts’ come true, calling for a second referendum is no different than calling for the first…It should be as binding (no more; no less) as a General Election….
However, what I disagree with is the twisted logic that says, in essence, “Remain really won because Leave voters had different reasons for voting as they did”….It was made absolutely clear that the referendum was a simple majority, OMOV proposal to ‘Stay/Leave’ the EU; “no if’s no buts”….As with any election, voters voted (as they did) for different reasons.
The referendum had important flaws. The different result in Scotland and Northern Ireland of course is going to be a major problem. All four nations needed to vote Leave if it is going to be of any validity.
To make such a big change a more substantial majority should be necessary.
All British citizens wherever they are no matter how long they have lived abroad should have been able to vote.
I have nothing against the Irish or Commonwealth citizens living in Britain but why should they have had a vote.
It was really a ” General Election” not a referendum.
I am entirely with the sentiments expressed by Lord Taverne. ‘Nothing sacred’ clearly means that a referendum is not ‘forever’ any more than is a General Election. Both can be changed — after all, within five years of the country-wide, wholly decisive 1975 referendum, the Labour party was calling for Britain to leave and the Conservatives soon followed. Today, it is depressing to see politicians, who election after election choose to call a majority of seats on a minority of votes cast a mandate, now insisting that a bare referendum majority, shot through with regional and age group splits, must be accepted and actioned without any question or nuance; but to try to reject the June referendum result sadly would be counter-productive. As the consequences of the vote, and the options for leaving the EU take shape, we can indeed make a principled case for another vote. Here’s to BRejoin.
“incompatible visions. Access to the single market and restricting EU migration.”
Not really. You can have quota systems and exceptions that in practical terms amount to free movement on an equal footing whilst ensuring that we don’t all get trampled underfoot by the 10 million Turks on their way here when their membership is confirmed in a few weeks time (according to Leave).
Free movement for all Irish citizens to preserve the CTA. Free movement for students, temporary workers, skills in need categories, visitors and retirees, spouses and children. A 3 million unrestricted mutual rolling quota for the rest. Or whatever numbers work to meet the condition of us being “in control”. No criminals, no benefits claimants, no hedge fund managers. Fast track to full citizenship for EU citizens. There are ways of doing this that satisfy most in a practical sense even if conceptually it grates on your beliefs.
“All four nations needed to vote Leave if it is going to be of any validity.”
Vote rigging again because you know Scotland will always vote Remain. On that basis it would have been a lot easier and cheaper to just have run the poll in NI. If they vote Remain, as they did, then game over, don’t bother elsewhere because the NI vote is a veto on Leave.
LEAVE won the referendum despite the Conservative, Labour, Lib Dem and Green parties supporting REMAIN along with the government machine, the Treasury, the CBI, the IMF leaders, the US President, leaders in France, Germany and other EU countries and the vast majority of called experts.
Now many of the Project Fear cliams (eg Osborne’s threat about spending cuts and increased tax) have already been shown to be false and the government is supporting BREXIT we can expect another referendum to show an increased vote for LEAVE.
@Leave The EU:
You don’t want the UK to be in the EU, well, I respectfully disagree, but that is a valid stance to take. But please stop repeatedly saying “UK voters can vote out 100% of UK MPs and under 10% of EU MEPs.”, when it has been pointed out to you more than once that that is how representative democracies work. I can say “Gloucester voters can vote out 0.15%¹ of UK MPs and 0.8%² of MEPs and therefore Westminster is less democratic” by the same sort of logic; does that sound ridiculous to you?
If you want to make your case, although this is an odd place to attempt it, please state your case in a sensible way.
1. 1 of 650
2. 6 of 751 (South West England constituency)
The problem of the ComRes poll, (and most polling), is that it merely serves to corral the view of voters into a small (pre-known), narrow mode of assumptions.
By way of example, if General Election ballot papers over the last 20 years had had, as a choice None Of The Above,.. then the anti establishment mood which is scything both, the political class, and their ‘Praetorian experts’, would not have come as a total shock.? As ever,.. it’s what you don’t ask or don’t yet know,.. that leaves you blind to real world events.?
These polls such as ComRes, usually ask questions centred around the EU Single Market, as a datum, from which to draw conclusions. But the single market is nothing more than an EU construct, which is a barely concealed internalized EU protection racket? A reality which as yet, seems difficult for many liberals to grasp, is that we just don’t need the single market, nor pay its extortion fee of $19 billion per year.? They [polls], also ask multiple choice alternatives such as the Finland model, Swiss model, Icelandic model, Liechtenstein model, for a relationship with the EU. Again, these poll questions don’t ask outside of the box of known’s, mainly because they (and we), don’t yet have new alternatives such as *The British model* for trading with Europe.
But for sure, there will be,.. *A British model*.
The question to put before British voters in the 2020 GE, is,.. do you want to continue with the new *British model* of relationship with Europe, or do you want to go back to a sclerotic,.. un-reformable EU, as Tim Farron says he wants.? Good luck with that Tim.
Mark Goodrich, “With 8 MPs, we are not in a strong position but we need to recruit a majority in the House of Commons which will vote against any proposal to lose access to the single market. That is an achievable goal and one which unites both people who favour the EEA/EFTA solution and those who think we should continue to fight for our position in the EU.”
A very strong point. The only question it leaves unanswered is whether we should continue to fight hard to stop Brexit, or just blend ourselves into a vague and developing consensus that something a bit like Norway will be sorta just fine. I suspect that is roughly what May intends to come up with in a year or so’s time, after her hard Brexit crew have taken the rope she has proferred to them, and duly hung themselves in confusion and acrimony.
Quite what sort of deal the EU will then feel like offering, after a year of sneering from Boris and bullying from Davis, who knows? The probably won’t mind whether we call it Norway-plus or Norway-minus, provided it gets shot of those bloody Brits, and is seriously tough enough to make quite sure that no other nation will be tempted to follow the same road!
If we fight Brexit, we may not win, but we just might. Even if we don’t win, we will be heard, we will grow, and our strength could well help see off the hard-Brexiters and achieve a not-too-terrible outcome. Your proposal to seek a parliamentary alliance against loss of single market access will fit in well if we reach that point.
If we don’t fight Brexit, we risk disappearing into anonymity, muddle, and an unsatisfactory compromise which leaves Britain isolated, friendless and poor.
It just needed 2% to vote the other way- hardly enough to change- practically, the whole future of this country!
@Daniel Walker – at the risk of stating the obvious, the UK is an (independent) “country” and Gloucester is a county (not a country).
*city (or Gloucestershire county)
I’m with David Allen (above) on this.
@michaelKilpatrick
“It is nonsense. Democracy MUST be about more than the narrow mathematical victory”
I’m afraid that’s how democracy works. I bet you wouldn’t say that if Remain won with 52%.
Yes, there were lies and distortion son both sides – that’s the thing with election campaigns.
The Lib Dems MUST accept the verdict of the UK electorate. By all means, argue for the Single Market – but we’ll be outside of the EU
@Leave The EU: Whether the geographical entity is a “city”, “county”, “country” or anything else is irrelevant. The same principle of representative democracy, as outlined by, Daniel Walker, applies in exactly the same way.
@John B: Accepting the result does not mean we have to stop campaigning for what we support. The referendum result does not mean the question is settled and no-one is ever allowed to oppose the decision. Otherwise no-one should ever campaign against government policy as decided by an election. And yes, if Remain had won I would absolutely respect the right of Leave supporters to continue to advance the case for leaving the EU. And I do the same with respect to supporters of Scottish independence.
Please let’s 1) stop arguing against the referendum ( yes it was a nonsense but we will ruin our case by being bad losers) but 2) recognise the need for a stable government right now ( and so no immediate general election please) and join with the clever new PM and her )less competent) Brexiteers to work out what the best possible deal could be. Maybe the best deal won’t be good enough, so then Brexit could get voted out in Parliament or kicked out by a second referendum. Let’s play the long game, recognising the legitimate concerns of non-racists and non-xenophobes who are worried about the sustainabilty of a vastly increased population and those bothered the threat to the Union of the UK. We may need a better offer from the EU to stay in and may even get it. In the meantime a reductio ad absurdum of the case to be made by Boris et al., unable to find a sensible Brexit solution, may offer the way back into the EU. Tim has been a bit intemperate about Theresa — she might even turn out to be an ally!
On the 23rd June either 17.4 million or 16.1 million people were wrong. Because the 17.4 million won, they get to have a go. May, Johnson, Davies and Hammond get to have a go at navigating our way through one of the most critical periods in the recent history of our country. Maybe they will play a blinder in the exit negotiations and subsequent trade deal negotiations with the rest of the world, or maybe they will f*ck it up completely and destroy our economy and our children’s future. It’s a hell of a gamble.
But right now, the Brexit vote is already having an effect on real people. The fall in the value of the pound will result in winners and losers. Companies that import most of their raw materials are seeing their costs rise. That affects me personally.
I have friends who have lived in this country for several years who were born in other EU countries. Prime Minister May has disgracefully declared that their futures are bargaining chips to be played in Brexit negotiations. I have British born friends and family who haved moved to other EU countries – what of their futures?
So the 17.4 million have made a decision that negatively affects me, my friends and family. It’s personal, so don’t expect me to shut and accept it any time soon.
I hate the idea of Brexit and will fight against it. But I felt uneasy at seeing just now this piece about having another Referendum, soon after Tim had called for an early General Election. I hope and guess we will have both, but at the moment I think we should (as one or two others have said) bide our time. If Teresa May really does want social justice now, good luck to her though she has scant chance of leading her party there. But I think her choices of Cabinet colleagues are clever, and purpose indefinite delay and a good chance of us getting what we want. She has weakened the Foreign Office, sharing foreign affairs out among three Brexiters, and leaving the heavy lifting for Brexit to them. Surely there is every chance they will fall out (especially as Davis and Fox are reputed to detest each other), and in any case get completely bogged down in the impossibilities of the Brexit fantasy world. May who voted for Remain can then step in, and put the chaotic case to the people …
Meantime, we should just continue quietly to work out our own proposals for the benefit of the ‘left-behinders’, to pursue greater equality, and better democracy through PR and reform of these great institutions, the House of Lords – and the EU.
Just to reply to John B (15th July 6:55pm) who wrote
‘@michaelKilpatrick “It is nonsense. Democracy MUST be about more than the narrow mathematical victory”
I’m afraid that’s how democracy works. I bet you wouldn’t say that if Remain won with 52%.’
The thing is, John, that Nigel Farage had already said that a 52% Remain victory would have been “unfinished business” that would ultimately lead to a call for a second referendum.
Such a position is the ultimate in unlevel playing fields, and it’s “we will keep on fighting until we get a victory, knowing that it’s a victory that will be far more difficult to undo once it is won”. It’s basically a one-way street towards Brexit. Any number of referendums could see us remain in the EU and leave open the option of a future vote if conditions change: indeed that is now written into our rules in Parliament, that any treaty change in the EU demands a new referendum!
Sadly, I feel I have little option but to lower my standards to that level too: I have to say that a 52% Leave victory is unfinished and I must demand a clearer mandate (and truthful campaigns) in order for this country to take an almost irreversible decision, knowing that the one-way street is most definitely biased in Leave’s favour.
Very pleased to find there is still a functional brain somewhere in the body politic of the UK. This all makes perfect sense. Now is the time to regroup and develop our strategy for the coming years. The struggle has only just begun.
We cannot afford to give up. The soul of our country, not to mention the fate of a free and open West, is at stake. A spirit of political vandalism stalks our nation (who would have thought…). We must stop it not just for our own good and that of our children, but also out of basic respect for all those who came before us and who gave so much to build what we have inherited.
Democracy is nothing without due process, and a victory based on lies cannot be called “democracy” just because it was arrived at through a popular vote.
In which case just about every general election result in history would be invalid, most notably last year’s! What’s incredible is how the public expect and tolerate lies from politicians and still just carry on voting for liars. If Boris and Gove had based a ad campaign for a market product on lies they would have been prosecuted. Why should politicians lying about something that has changed the course of British history be exempt…and in Boris’ case even promoted!
Some of the “Jingo” sites are now advocating invading Scotland and civil war. We are indeed in for interesting times. My only comment on Cllr Wright’s statement about democracy, general elections, et. al. With an election, we all get to choose again after 5 years. A non-binding referendum is now to be enacted with no future recourse. Sorry, but in my opinion, that is not democracy, it is mob rule inflicted on the UK. For this reason and many others, we must fight against the negative consequences.
@Alex Macfie – again at the risk of stating the obvious, a village and a country are not the same thing and do not function as the same at all.
@Alex Macfie
“Accepting the result does not mean we have to stop campaigning for what we support”
Are you arguing that the Lib Dems should campaign to re-join the EU (assuming we do infact leave!)? If so, that would mean accepting the euro….
Better, I think to accept we are out of the EU and campaign to stay in Single Market.
EU membership must be settled for a generation.
@Cllr. Robert Brown
Sensible comments on the legitimacy of referendums.
I recall many years ago, shortly after I joined the party, attending a meeting where Charles Kennedy spoke. He described the then campaign for Scottish devolution. He explained how the Liberal Democrats were working with others over the long term to change things so that devolution was to become “the settled will of the Scottish people”.
This seemed very sensible to me then, a man with a plan who was not going to rush to a single referendum and go with 50.1%.
A referendum with lucky timing that gets 51.8% for a constitutional matter, that would deserve a two-thirds super-majority in some places, does not indicate “The settled will of the British people”.
For that reason, and others, this is unfinished business.
I agree with Lord Taverne.
I was opposed to the referendum, but given that we have had one, people should be able to vote again once the dust has settled, and we can see what being a member of the EU or leaving it actually looks like.
If there is a change in circumstances or an apparent shift in opinion when the electorate is dealing with cold facts rather than predictions, probabilities and risks, etc., a second referendum which allows the electorate to change its advice to the government seems both sensible and democratic.
The decision to leave is irrevocable. If the outcome remains ‘leave’ and there is no ‘buyers regret’, one can be more certain that the vote actually reflects the wishes of the public, based on a sounder knowledge of the actual effects and consequences of any decision.
@Leave The EU:
But they function in exactly the same way as regards representative democracy. When a village is part of a wider unit, say a country, it is represented as a part of that wider unit. In the same way, when a country is part of a cross-national body with its own parliament, its representation in this parliament is as part of that cross-national body. There is nothing mystical about the nation state that means that normal rules of representation don’t apply.
@Alex Macfie a village is subservient to the country it belongs to and does not have autonomous control of foreign affairs, etc. – the UK whilst part of the EU was reported as subservient to it – and Brexit would put a stop to that.
The European Parliament will have a vote on the detailed Brexit deal, after 2-4 years of negotiations. This will form part of the UK constitution. If the European Parliament, why not the British people ?
@Leave The EU: You can repeat that all you like, it’s still irrelevant to the issue of representative democracy and your wilful misunderstanding of it. As far as I’m concerned this discussion is over. Good morning to you.
@Alex Macfie If you somehow think (like to claim) that an independent country is less so by giving up its sovereignty to the EU, then I cannot help you – good day.
There is nothing mystical about the nation state that means that normal rules of representation don’t apply.
This, I think, is the crux of the disagreement.
One side sees nothing special about nation-states.
The other realises that nation-states are the correct level for sovereignty to reside because they are the level at which there is a demos, an ‘us’, a shared ‘we’. And that attempts to stitch national-states together into a federal superstate with the institutions of a nation-state, like a parliament and a government, but without the shared historical, cultural and, yes, nationalistic sense of being a single people, are doomed to messy failure, Yugoslavia-style.
So, in fact, yes, there is something mystical about the nation state. It’s patriotism, and it’s what, for example, makes us willing to fight and die for a government that we personally didn’t vote for but our fellow citizens did.
Dav
You, unlike “Leave the EU”, are quite clear about your basis for rejecting the EU, and I can respect that whilst fundamentally disagreeing with it. (“it’s what, for example, makes us willing to fight and die for a government…” – speak for yourself, chum!)
The exasperating issue with “Leave the EU” is that he/she repeatedly claims that the EU is undemocratic on the nonsensical grounds that one part of the EU (us) doesn’t have absolute control over its institutions, and then puts that forward as an argument for leaving, though the argument only works if one has rejected the legitimacy of the body (as you do) in the first place. It’s called ‘begging the question’ and it’s a common, virtually undefeatable because logically inaccessible, error in argument. Alex McFie is not the first to have tried and failed to shake the certainty of a fundamental axiom masquerading as a reasoned argument, only to walk away in exasperation.
Incidentally, whilst your characterisation of the UK as a “nation-state” is preferable to the vague word “country”, it is still questionable. Even if there isn’t quite a majority for independence in Scotland, there’s definitely a majority who feel that they are in some sense a distinct nation and the radical difference in political colour and debate between Scotland and England/Wales (to say nothing of the entirely separate party system in Northern Ireland) casts some doubt on whether there truly is a UK “demos” at all. Are you happy to follow your own logic to the conclusion this indicates?
@Malcolm Todd “The other realises that nation-states are the correct level for sovereignty to reside because they are the level at which there is a demos, an ‘us’, a shared ‘we’. And that attempts to stitch national-states together into a federal superstate with the institutions of a nation-state, like a parliament and a government, but without the shared historical, cultural and, yes, nationalistic sense of being a single people, are doomed to messy failure, Yugoslavia-style.” – don’t forget permission – when were the UK people explicitly asked if they wanted to sign away UK sovereignty to an EU superstate? And as you say it may be that someone like like Malcolm Todd “sees nothing special about nation-states.”.
P.S. @All – I hope we can disagree without being disagreeable – all the best.
What would be the point of leaving the EU which does allow us to have an input into the way the rules are made, only to stay in a single market like Norway who have to pay for the privilege like full members but have no say in its workings ?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36834743
@Richard Underhill
If no article 50, who would rule out at least a UKIP coalition government if a 2020 election: they got about 4 million votes in the last election – if sounds far-fetched, remember the SNP takeover in Scotland.
All the best.
Leave
On this point, I absolutely agree with you!
Lord Taverne is making a very serious, important point. His analogy with General Elections clearly means not that they should be overturned, but that they are not cast in stone for eternity, and opposing parties never just shrug their shoulders and give up. They look forward to the next time.
The EU referendum is different, but it is even more essential we do not simply give up. it would be very wrong to meekly accept such a new and dubious direction on a vote based on misinformation, party politics and self interest. History is unlikely to thank us for standing by on such a serious matter. The consequences of a Brexit are as far reaching as it is possible to imagine. Everything from jobs, workers and citizens rights, defence and global security, the economy to partnerships with and the well being of strategic allies are threatened. And for what ? Do we seriously believe our new direction will result in growth greater than we were experiencing already, or greater freedoms for our citizens? We have evidence already of how things might well look. In an unstable and increasingly dangerous world, it is extraordinary to pursue such a risky course on such a slight rationale. As we watch the economy threaten to unravel, and witness the bafflement of our greatest allies, it is essential we find a way to ensure adequate checks are put in place at a timely point to ensure we are indeed progressing the right way. That must be with a view to informing the public of the truth of the matter at that point based on new evidence, with the option of reversing direction if needs be. As well as ensuring we are on the right path, that would also show we have given appropriate consideration to this matter and weighed it carefully before proceeding. That in turn will help unite the nation and confirm our direction in a way nothing else could whichever way we ultimately go.
Opinions change, this is why we have an election every five years, sometimes sooner. Referendums are a once off, therefore referendums are not democratic, they are but a snapshot in time.