News reaches the Voice:
20,000 new members have joined the Liberal Democrats since the EU referendum, the party has announced today.
The surge in membership has been boosted by the party’s clear pro-European stance, including calling for a referendum on the final Brexit deal, and the re-election of Jeremy Corbyn as Labour party leader last week.
The Liberal Democrats have gained over 1000 members over the past week alone, including a number of former Labour members.
President of the Liberal Democrats Sal Brinton said:
It is wonderful to see so many people joining us who share our vision of a Britain that is open, tolerant and united.
With Labour throwing in the towel and the Tories veering towards a hard Brexit, we are now the UK’s only truly pro-European party.
Each new member that joins strengthens our voice as the real opposition to this Conservative Brexit Government
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Reform own goals
Following the course of the River Leen through Nottingham
Trumps' White House thuggery appals the world including most Americans
Mick Taylor
Mary Reid
Alison C
Alex Macfie
23 Comments
Great news but could we have an actual figure please ?
On the downside, no Centre-Left Party has ever won a majority at Westminster with less than 150,000 members.
Hang on Paul…we still have a while to go and if we can encourage every Constituency to look for members ,you never know
A political party’s goal should be to win votes sustainably. I don’t see how you get from that goal to wanting to carve out a pro-EU niche.
There were 16m + voting for Remain –
They should be obvious candidates for LIBDEM
We want a party determined to fight Brexit.
Eddie,
The pro-EU movement is not going to go away any more than the anti-EU movement did after 1973! Many people feel personally disadvantaged by Brexit and many more will realise they are as time goes on. Being the only Party that cares about those people is a very sustainable position, just as representing the 20% that really hate the EU has been sustainable for UKIP
I’m uber-Remain so well said rosslyn and Andrew
UKIP didn’t go away for 31 years so why should the Remainers ?
Yet another Question Time without a Lib Dem. I am getting fed up of seeing UKIPPers earning vast sums of money from the EU yet slagging it off at every opportunity. I refuse to watch question time until we see some balance.
David Brenton – I’m getting my butt to Whitney again this weekend. Win this one and then we shall see their smiles turn
Looing at these two comments together:
Tim Hill 29th Sep ’16 – 10:44pm
UKIP didn’t go away for 31 years so why should the Remainers ?
David Brenton 29th Sep ’16 – 11:06pm
Yet another Question Time without a Lib Dem. I am getting fed up of seeing UKIPPers earning vast sums of money from the EU yet slagging it off at every opportunity.
I am going to make two linked observations:
1. UKIP hasn’t existed for 31 years, what does this say about a lib-dem place in british politics in ~2040?
2. Do you remember how often UKIP people were invited onto Question Time in the nineties and noughties?
It is so good to see so many new members. I am an ardent remainer and one of the 48%.
I have been a member for over 40 years Lib and Lib Dem. It is so comfortable to be a member of a pro Europe party.
Sadly my disabilities limit my activities but us oldies can still stuff envelopes and fold Focus. So there is always something we can do.
I am considering joining, but haven’t yet. I am a social liberal and an economic liberal – for example I nearly always agree with Economist editorials. But I can’t get my head around the call for a new referendum. If the vote went against the deal the government negotiates, what would happen? Back to the drawing board for another few years? And then another vote that might also be no? Seems a bit ridiculous to me. And all set against the backdrop of a (probably) declining EU riven by internal splits and looking increasingly unattractive to the average voter.
I will be looking closely at George Osborne’s contributions going forward, as he is emerging as the standard bearer of a more realistic soft Brexit solution. I think the LibDems will have much to learn from this, and should be focusing more on the details of what we want (City, Japanese car makers, etc) and the economic implications of a hard brexit.
Paul Emerson
Written or unwritten, the constitutional position is clear; Parliament is sovereign, not ‘the people’, not the party in government, not the Executive, no matter how much Theresa May would like us to ignore that fact, just as she preferred us not to notice that a number of her decisions as Home Secretary breached the HRA.
The process of leaving involves activating Article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon. That action would overturn primary legislation. The Executive need the permission of Parliament to take that action. Parliament, being sovereign, is entitled to take into account not just the referendum result, but also the size of the majority voting to leave, the way in which that majority was achieved, the adverse consequences which have already occurred, the increasingly clear indication of future adverse consequences, and of course expected benefits of leaving. Parliament then has an obligation to take a decision on the basis of what is in Britain’s best interests. If they judge that leaving is not in Britain’s best interest, they can, indeed must, refuse permission for Article 50 to be triggered. Moreover, if they give permission the MPs equally have a duty only to endorse a negotiated agreement which is in the best interests of the country as a whole. Parliament is entitled to put its views to the citizens by way of a new (not second) referendum which they alone can decide to make binding or merely advisory.
That is my understanding. If I’m wrong I hope people will come back with chapter and verse as to where I am in error.
@Ian Hurdley
” … involves activating Article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon. That action would overturn primary legislation.”
If the treaty as passed in Parliament is Primary legislation, then this can not be the case as Article 50 doesn’t overturn the treaty, it just gives notice. Parliament agreed the treaty (did it?) with that article and without any stipulation that it should be consulted before it was invoked, therefore Parliament must have been happy about it.
@chris_sh
Thanks for your reply. The primary legislation I was thinking of is the 1973 Treaty of Accession, but yours is an interesting point. I believe that the matter has prompted a court action (or proposed action) challenging the authority of the Government to proceed without the explicit agreement of Parliament. It will interesting to see the outcome.
Incidentally, the democracy we cherish seems already to be established at EU level; whatever deal is assembled by the 27 will have to be approved by the (democratically elected) European Parliament before it can be enacted.
Ken Clarke points out that even if Theresa doesn’t want to let him vote on triggering Article 50, and even if she wins the ongoing legal case on that point, there will still have to be a host of subsidiary legislation to enable an Article 50 negotiation to proceed. And he threatens to vote against that. We just need a few more to do likewise…
@Ian
thanks Ian, I’ve obviously had my mind elsewhere as I’ve not heard of the court case, you are right as that will be interesting to watch.
I only threw that in as I often hear people say that Parliament should approve A50 being invoked, but they should have written it down at the time. Having said that, my gut feeling is that if a requirement had been written in, it would have been for a referendum rather than a vote in Parliament.
@chris_sh
If my understanding is correct ( and I’m not even a lawyer, let alone a constitutional lawyer), the Royal Prerogative which is what Theresa May would invoke, does not extend to overturning primary legislation. The Treaty of Lisbon amended the Treaty of Accession but did not overturn it. So Parliament does not have to actively claim the right to decide; the constitution lays that responsibility on Parliament, and just as the monarch’s power are constrained, so too are those of a prime minister claiming Royal Prerogative.
@Ian Hurdley
Interesting points, but again we come down to things like sovereignty (like youself, I’m no legal eagle though). I believe that the Lisbon Treaty is primary EU Law along with all off the other treaties, as an EU member we are bound to recognise it as such, aren’t we?
Having said that, didn’t the EU get around the problems of EU referendums by changing the status of Lisbon from a constitutional document, to one that modifies existing treaties? If that is the case, then any modifications would become part of the original treaty, wouldn’t they?
Putting all off that aside, the question should be raised as to whether invoking A50 (which is initially just written notice of intention to leave) does overturn primary legislation, I would argue that is does not for 2 reasons:
1. A50 states that “the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal”. Therefore it is this agreement and not the actual notification that will overturn the previous treaties.
2. Someone on this site (perhaps yourself?) kindly pointed me in the direction of the vienna convention on the law of treaties. Article 68 states that “A notification or instrument provided for in article 65 or 67 may be revoked at any time before it takes effect.” So at any time up to the 2 year point, the Government could withdraw the notice and everything would carry on as before (in terms of the treaties).
For these reasons, I can not think why May would need Royal Prerogative to start the process. Parliament agreed the modifying treaty (Lisbon) and the Government is giving notice as per the modifications. There may be a case for Parliament to sign off on any final agreement which does overturn, but if it doesn’t agree and the 2 year point passes then we are out anyway.
@chris_sh
Either way, one thing that does seem to be clear (to me at least) is that it is Parliament which decides whether or not to approve the ‘deal’ finally presented, and not the Executive. In the meantime I shall continue to campaign for the best interests of the U.K to prevail over those of a section of the Tory party who are now seeking to treat the advisory referendum sanctioned by Parliament as a binding referendum which gives them a mandate to remove Britain from the EU without further reference to the electorate and Parliament.
Wish me luck, if you like.
@Ian Hurdley
Good luck 🙂 A week is a long time in politics, 2 years means that anything is possible.
Great Repeal Bill brings Parliament into play. In particular, flushing out the House of Lords. How will everyone vote? Labour especially? Would a punch up with the Lords trigger a dissolution on issue of replacing EU laws with UK laws?
@chris_sh
A propós our earlier conversation: http://www.politico.eu/article/uk-release-secret-brexit-documents-after-court-order-brexit-article-50/