Several comments on LibDem Voice last week argued that we’re all too late to stop Brexit: ‘it’s a done deal.’ Except that it’s not: we have a government that still has no clear idea of what future economic relationship it wants to have with the EU after we leave, and no coherent proposals for managing our future borders with the EU. 9 months from the date on which the UK is committed to leaving, Theresa May is holding together a divided Cabinet by endlessly postponing hard decisions that would trigger resignations from one side or another. The odds are rising on a political crisis towards the end of this year, as hard Brexiteers call for Britain to crash out of the EU without a deal, the Prime Minister promotes a formal exit which will leave us still following EU rules for an extended transition period (‘Brexit in Name Only’, or BRINO), and business protests that they lack any guarantees about future rules to encourage investment in Britain.
Remember what No.10 was saying about the timetable a year ago? To manage an orderly exit, we would negotiate a package of measures with the EU by June 2018, to be agreed at the June EU Council. That would allow time for the necessary legislation in the UK, and ratification both here and in other EU states, to be completed before March 29th next year. We are now reaching the June European Council, after months in which David Davis has assured us that the negotiations ‘are making good progress’, and find that there is no package and little attention to Brexit on the agenda. Number 10 is now briefing the media that there may be ‘serious’ negotiations at the October European Council, but that agreement on key issues may be postponed until December.
Several months ago, two Cabinet committees were announced to consider alternative proposals for managing the border. They have hardly ever met, and the government has now admitted that the ‘customs arrangement’ idea is impracticable; the ‘max-fac’ alternative may, however, work when new technology is tried and tested, within the next five years or so. A Cabinet ‘Away-Day’ has now been fixed for next week, to agree on the government’s negotiating objectives finally. But don’t be surprised if it fails to agree on several key issues.
This week several ministers have attacked business leaders for speaking out on Brexit, and multi-nationals for not having enough commitment to Britain’s future. Nothing any business leader has said could have come as a surprise; they have been briefing politicians in private, including the Liberal Democrats, for the past year and more along the same lines. ‘Sources close to Boris Johnson’ have referred to ‘the EU-funded CBI’ – that’s a desperate accusation of bias and conspiracy by the institutional voice of British business.
Neither House of Parliament is busy at present. We should be completing the Customs and Trade Bills, with agriculture and fisheries bills, and more, to follow, and then several hundred Statutory Instruments to set up the domestic agencies to replace the European ones we are leaving and to adopt the domestic law. It’s now too late to manage all that before March 29th, unless Parliament starts to sit six days a week; and there’s an EU Withdrawal (Implementation) Bill promised for after some agreement has been reached but before we leave.
It’s no longer possible to manage all of this in the time remaining. The Prime Minister will, therefore, have to attempt some sort of fudged-up deal, with an extended transition period, and the most critical decisions put off until after we have formally left. Meanwhile, the pound may drop; further, investment will slide lower – and quite possibly a deepening trade confrontation with the Trump Administration will destroy Liam Fox’s illusions about an Anglo-Saxon ‘free trade’ zone. So, it isn’t all over yet – not by a long way!
* William Wallace is Liberal Democrat spokesman on constitutional issues in the Lords.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
"Corporations have neither bodies to be punished, nor souls to be condemned, they therefore do as they like"
Another Sunday band concert at Magdalen Green #dundeewestend
Beware the white lady
Andrew Melmoth
ANDERS LARSON
John McHugo
Steve Trevthan
William Wallace
117 Comments
Brexit moves on to the next stage at 11PM on the 29th of April, after that we need to take a short time to rethink before we begin the Campaign to join The EU.
The closer we get to April the more Businesses will be taking decisions that affect the Economy, the worse divisions will get in both Tories & Labour & the more Voters will demand that Politicians sort it out.
If Brexit is to be stopped it will probably be at the last moment & in an atmosphere of complete chaos.
Just a couple of quotes from this article which puts things into some perspective:
“since 2012 there has been a fivefold increase in the surplus from £8bn to £39bn.”
That is a SURPLUS in the UK’s trade with the ROW. Not the EU!
“Britain’s trade performance with the rest of the EU has been woeful. According to data produced by the House of Commons library, it has run a trade deficit in goods and services combined in every year since 1999.”
So yes there is bound to be some disruption when we leave. But let’s get it done. Sometimes the grass really is greener on the other side of the hill. We just need to find the resolve to make the climb.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/apr/08/why-the-uk-trade-deficit-with-the-eu-is-woeful-and-widening
@petermartin, our high quality exports to the ROW producing the healthy trade surplus may be due to specialist integration of manufacturing production with our EU partners enabling high quality at a lower cost than could otherwise be achieved domestically. Look at how our motor industry has prospered under EU membership compared with what it used to be like under British Leyland. I hope Lord Wallace’s conclusion works out,but the lack of any progress in negotiations is playing right into the hands of the obsessed Tory brexiteers and I don’t think any terminal chaos is likely to disuade them in the final completion of their mission.
Paul, Isn’t the 29th March at 11pm when we leave the EU (exactly 2 years after T May invoked Article 50) or are you thinking of something else as the next stage of Brexit? Apart from that, I agree with your assessment + there will be a build up to a massive ‘Blame the Remainers’ campaign in the run up to that date.
There will be a massive blame everyone campaign. The remainers will blame the Brexiteers, the Brexiteers will blame the remaniaics. Brexiteers will blame each other for not getting their own private Brexit. Fingers will be pointing at the EU the government and the failure to find the fairy gold. It will be a finger pointing fest.
After it dies down hard decisions will have to be made. Less money will mean more cuts and no one will not be touched. Blame only gives you so much cover eventually you have to face the music and that won’t be pretty.
frankie
If Brexit goes sideways the only ones sitting pretty will be the Labour party who having sat on the fence getting some serious splinters during this whole debacle will then be free to jump down say what they like, a bit like Theresa ‘the Submarine’ May did after the EU Ref.
Sandra,
Perhaps but as we are likely to be rushed into a general election which they may win, the trying to sort out the mess will kill them. They also come across as being on the fence, on the remain side and brave Brxiteers
It is nice to read that William Wallace reads the comments on LDV. This article from its opening paragraph should be about why it is possible to stop Brexit, but it isn’t. It lists the government’s problems to get a comprehensive deal by 29th March next year.
However, if we are going to stop Brexit by 29th March next year we not only have all these problems we have others as well. On 12th June our weak amendment to include the OPTION of a referendum on the deal verses staying in the EU was not even put to the vote. And it previously hadn’t had enough support for it or something similar to be passed by the House of Lords.
We had only 22 MPs sign up to support our amendment. This means we need to find another 298 MPs to support holding a referendum on the deal and staying in, but we haven’t even managed to get the support of a majority of the MP’s who represent the 241 constituencies who didn’t vote to leave (based on the spreadsheet based on the list of Dr Chris Hanretty amended by BBC data [https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/parliament-and-elections/elections-elections/brexit-votes-by-constituency/]). If people believe we will convince a further 298 MPs by the end of the year so we can have a referendum on 21st March 2019 can they say how they think it can be done?
Another Brexit article, another opportunity for me to punt this. 🙂
https://www.peoples-vote.uk/
Please all take a moment to sign it, and then send the link round your friends and your local party members, put it on twitter and facebook etc. This one matters.
There will be a massive blame everyone campaign. The remainers will blame the Brexiteers, the Brexiteers will blame the remaniaics. Brexiteers will blame each other for not getting their own private Brexit.
Need to plan for this, as need to ensure plenty of sh*t gets stuck on to the Conservative party – there is an opportunity for the Conservatives to be out in the wilderness for a generation…
I think two of the key issues going forward will be 1) is Brexit (still) the will of the people? and 2) will the British people demand a final say on any deal agreed. On the former, Yougov polls over the last 9 months show consistently a majority, albeit small, believe that Brexit is wrong, and I think that this opinion is hardening with the hard facts as they emerge. If the government are committed to delivering the will of the people, they will have to think long and hard before going ahead if they believe that Brexit is not the settled will of the country. On the second point, as time passes, more and more of the population is concluding that the voters ought to be the ones to have the final say. Everyone is muttering these days how badly things are going with this government, including many traditional Tories, and how they see politicians, especially Conservative ones “playing politics with peoples lives and jobs”, as Neil Kinnock once said. The people are losing/have lost confidence in this government and I believe that the voices of the people are quite likely to get too loud for the Tories to ignore the People’s Vote, and it may actually give the government a way out from getting the blame for a bad deal and it’s negative impact on the country.
The fact that Parliamentary business relating to Brexit isn’t getting done, Lord Wallace, could perhaps be useful in that it will be seen as less than a completed deal that is irreversible. However I hope all Parliamentarians who support staying in will collectively stop the outcome of a transition deal which prevents the starkness of the decision to leave being faced, but is advanced to save the skin of this appalling Government.
Moreover, decisions made by Parliament at the end of this year will be too late to arrange a referendum to be held before March 29 next year. Michael BG is right, we have to convince a majority of MPs to support it. There has to be a public outcry, and major protests continuing from industry, to get the major parties ready to vote for staying in the single market as well as in the customs union. Hopefully the EU will reject the fudges on these issues, particularly in relation to the Irish Border, and a majority of MPs will accept in time that to remain is right, and the only democratic way to ensure it is to have the People’s Vote.
Macron said Brexit is a crime. He is right, but I always thought its leaders will easily evade prosecution. I am not so sure anymore: destroying an established economic integration against all expert advice, and totally failing to formulate an alternative is an astonishing dereliction of duty that will have millions of victims.
The Torys will most likely be out in the wilderness for a generation. It is so obvious that I am wondering whether May will really stall to the end. It is crazy.
Even more puzzling: Corbyn. Brexit is a golden opportunity to bring this Government to an end now. He cannot seriously believe in maintaining his fading appeal until 2022 when, due to his inaction, everything will be lost. Is he already becoming senile to not see this?
Macron said Brexit is a crime
Yes he has. The Spanish ruling class thinks Catalan and Basque nationalism is a criminal conspiracy. The Chinese government thinks the same of Tibetan nationalism. The British ruling class, itself, knows all about branding independence movements as treasonous and seditious. It’s a common reaction by those who see their power base threatened and has been the cause of many civil wars.
He’s really just confirming what many of us suspected all along about the true nature of the EU. All the more reason to get out now while we still can. I’m not a natural supporter of Mrs May but if she’s to be treated as a criminal by the EU then there’s no question of not siding with her.
I voted leave and would vote leave tomorrow if asked again.
Right now the feeling I have is, biding my time waiting for Brexit to happen/be completed. I don’t think those who continue to push the idea of re-vote (whichever version this 2nd vote might be) have any notion of the angry backlash that would be unleashed if Breit were not to be completed. Huge! A 2nd vote would get a huge surge to leave once more. The political class would be reputationally attacked, there might well be civil disorder.
That is the strength of feeling that is simply sitting there as a silent majority waiting for Britain to leave the EU.
I am aware of all the pro and anti views of the UK leaving the EU. I still think the UK will do very well as an entity outside the EU.
Isn’t Macron bringing back compulsory national service to instil/force “national pride” in/on French teenagers!
Never underestimate Mrs May’s ability to hang on to power, if it all goes wrong the EU will get blamed for being bullies and the Conservatives will pick up MORE support not less (I say this as someone who wants to stay in), called being British when backs are against the wall.
“as hard Brexiteers call for Britain to crash out of the EU without a deal” ??
There has always to be the possibility of “no deal”. It’s Game theory 101. Everyone who is hoping for a good deal for both the UK and the EU has acknowledge this. It doesn’t make them ‘hard’.
If anyone is thinking of buying/selling a house, or a car or whatever, I would very much recommend to Lib Dems that they shouldn’t follow party policy and always insist, in advance, that there has to be a ‘successful’ outcome.
You’ll just get ripped off and it won’t be a success at all!
@Katharine Pindar
Has anyone looked at the European Union Act 2011? The Act was passed to prevent a government allowing further European integration without agreement in Parliament AND a referendum of the public. However, the wording of Section 4 means that, because the ‘deal’ may have a change in the obligations on the United Kingdom, there must be a referendum before the deal can be accepted
(i) the conferring on an EU institution or body of power to impose a requirement or obligation on the United Kingdom, or the removal of any limitation on any such power of an institution or body;
(j) the conferring on an EU institution or body of new or extended power to impose sanctions on the United Kingdom.
The act of imposing customs duties on the UK exports to the EU would probably trigger this. Unless that Act is repealed I feel the government has no choice but to hold a referendum. Rejection of that deal would also mean withdrawal of Article 50 for the very same reasons as no deal would also need agreement of the people.
I’m not so sure about @ethicsgradient silent majority waiting for Britain to leave. There is a very vocal (and vicious) minority on both sides but the leavers I talk to are annoyed more that they were lied to. They were told how easy it was going to be and think it hasn’t been properly thought through. A lot of them are saying their heart still wants to leave the EU but there head is saying otherwise. The longer the arguments go on the more the head is ruling the heart. Labour supporters seem particularly bitter.
You’ll just get ripped off and it won’t be a success at all!
Depends on how you define ‘success’.
Imagine a couple one of whom wants to move house, the other doesn’t. The one who wants to move lists their house on the market. But every time someone comes to view it, the one who doesn’t hangs around amking comments about how they are desperate to move, how terribel the area is, how they suspect the house has subsidence issues but don’t want to get a survey, etc etc.
As a result all the offers they get are way below the market value.
The reluctant mover then says to the other, ‘See? The house isn’t worth as much as you thought. We can’t afford to move. We better stay here.’
So they end up staying, miserably.
That was a successful outcome, wasn’t it?
Ethicsgradient: So you’re not a democrat then? Democracy, act least as I understand it, means being able to change your mind. So if leavers resorted to civil disorder if a referendum on the facts rejected the government’s deal (or non-deal) what would that mean. Of course the anti EU people never accepted the 1975 referendum and eventually persuaded Cameron to have another one. Now they want pro EU people to accept as ‘forever’ the 2016 referendum. Sorry, democracy doesn’t work like that. If it did we’d still have hanging, homosexual acts would still be illegal, divorce would be almost impossible and abortion would get you a prison sentence.
Only the truly blinkered can possibly believe that Brexit will be good for the UK, but if it is going to happen, then it would be better for democracy for the people to endorse or reject the eventual deal the government gets. If they rejected it, then leavers would have to accept the result, just as they want remainers to accept the 2016 one.
Bless even with all the experience of the government caving into the EU at every turn and Galileo and the Medical Authority and the Banking Authority the brave Brexiteers still think we have a hand to play. i suppose they have to, other wise they’d have to justify the buying of a pig in a poke. So they will say it isn’t over yet, we have games theory we have unicorns and what ever deal or no deal they get they will declare as a victory. History my dear Brexiteers look at how history judges Iraq and the Coalition and I think you know your future. You can indulge to your hearts content in whatiffery but it won’t change the outcome (and I think the brighter of you know that and fear the judgement).
@ Dav,
At first, was expecting more of a remain argument. But then you’ve said
“We can’t afford to move. We better stay here”
Which I suppose has been a remain argument, and the only one that anyone took much notice of, but not one to fill anyone with enthusiasm for the EU!
@Peter Martin – I agree with Dav it all “Depends on how you define ‘success’.”
However, what is important is to define ‘success’ and what that might mean before you start negotiating.
For example, I had a car on my drive that I wanted “off the drive”, however, it would cost me time and money to move to a garage and get repaired, thus given my understanding of its value and the cost of the work needing to be done, I defined success as having someone else pay me to take the car away; which is what I achieved and was able to feel good as I got more than webuyanycar. Yes, I still had to effectively write off a few thousand pounds, but in defining success I understood why I was writing the money off and hence could feel good about what I did achieve with my resolution.
What is important is that if I had defined success as simply having the car “off the drive” then going through the “Yellow Pages” and finding someone to take the car away at a price was an option. However, because I understood my car had a scrap value, the negotiation became one of finding someone who was prepared to make me a good offer.
So with respect to Brexit, we have the emotional “just leave” criteria, but what is still missing is the ‘feel good’ factor.
Ethicsgradient “have any notion of the angry backlash that would be unleashed”
Yes, I do. A lot of Brexiters issue this threat to be angrier than everybody else. That is not how we do things in a democracy, and I will meet your anger and I will fight you tooth and nail for the good of this country. Don’t underestimate the courage of remain voters just because we don’t feel entitled to issue all sorts of baseless threats.
Peter Martin “There has always to be the possibility of “no deal”. It’s Game theory 101.” It’s a terrible application of game theory. The EU knows perfectly well what our options are and how damaging each of them will be. They know we are threatening to shoot ourselves and everybody else in the foot. They do not believe that we are stupid enough to do that, and, even if we are, that will not make them waver from the principles they rely on. If we are that stupid, they will take the hit, and then repair themselves and move on while we sink into social and economic decline and fracture.
And “enthusiasm for the EU”, well, you’re right, Remain has not always given a good account of itself in that regard. But I want to remain part of a movement for peace, prosperity and co-operation that has survived for seventy years, that has helped to keep peace and to minimise violence for all that time, an organisation that has always protected my human rights agaisnt the depradations of states and corporations (rights that the Brexiters want to take away), an organisation that has provided a platform for movement and action on issues like climate change that nations cannot tackle alone, a movement that has brought countries like Spain and Portugal out of dictatorship, and countries like Poland and Hungary out of the grip of Soviet Communism. Why would we not want to be a part of that?
Why would we not want to be a part of that?
Quite simply, because its goal (and the only way it can be stable) is to become a United States of Europe, with the UK reduced to the status of a mere province, no longer sovereign, operating under authority devolved from a central EU government and with its laws subject to the Parliament and courts of the EU, and that is utterly unacceptable to anyone proud of Britain’s long history as an independent nation.
If it weren’t for that then yes, absolutely, we’d want to be part of it.
We didn’t have a “best out of three* referendum process in 1975 and it isn’t democratically appropriate now.
It will take at least ten years for the consequences of the people’s decision to manifest and that should be the first suitable fe-run.
I voted to enter in 1975 and remain now but, unlike many, I respect the considered views of others. The only counter to unelected peers obstructing their will is for the government to appoint a few dozen equally unelected peers of the opposite view. Utter nonsense, of course, and no wonder the House of Lords is widely despised and should be quickly abolished. That’s no way to run a second chamber.
I disagreed with many of the leave arguments but the prospect of a peaceful discussion of the facts (whatever they are) at a second referendum is zero considering the stream of abuse and insult directed at 17 million people now. I am not sure it would be non violent considering the amount of petrol being thrown into flames.
@Rob Parsons @Mick Taylor
Hi, you mis-interpret my post.
I am very much a democrat and a libertarian to boot. I would have no problem if there had been a great groundswell to reverse the brexit decision.
My post is to give warning that outside the political bubbles and echo chambers people can get themselves into there is (in my view with is of course subjective) a quiet majority waiting for brexit to be completed and are relatively comfortable with the UK leaving the EU.
I was suggesting that the public being told they voted ‘the wrong way’ and that the result of the referendum was not being respected would result in a large surge in support for the vote leave position. Beyond that there would be huge anger and feeling of betrayal if were seen as the referendum result not being honoured.
The notion of anger and civil disorder are observations of what might occur rather than threats that this would occur.
As others have posted on brexit threads before, the most logical position, is for brexit to happen and then campaign to re-enter the EU. That would be respecting democracy.
When people get poorer and the cuts roll in don’t you think there will be a tidal wave of anger? No of cause not the “will of the people will be respected. I’ve lost my job and home but that’s OK the nice Brexiteers laid it on the alter of the “will of the people” , I must find a new job to help keep them, do you think that will be the reaction or will it be “Feck em and the horse they rode in on, let them suffer too”. Tick tock soon the decision will come in and it isn’t looking good for the brave Brexiteers, no unicorns just hard times.
What preparations, if any, is the party making for a No Deal Brexit?
Like all of you, I hope it never happens but, in my judgement, it would be wrong not to prepare for such an eventuality. The reason I say this is that the government doesn’t appear to agree amongst itself what a post-Brexit deal should look like let alone what they are able to get from the EU themselves and, with the clock ticking down to the 29th March deadline for completion of Article 50 negotiations, a no deal outcome could happen as much by accident as by design.
It seems to me that the party should really be beginning to think to itself how it would put the economy back on its feet after the economic shock that would undoubtedly result from a disorderly EU exit so that if such a scenario was to occur we would be ready to campaign on a programme of economic revitalisation together with the political reform that would be needed to prevent such an outcome from ever happening again.
I realise that there maybe some in our party who do not want to contemplate a no deal outcome but I think it is something the party should prepare for so if it were to happen we would all know what to do.
What do people think?
@Dav – “with the UK reduced to the status of a mere province, no longer sovereign, operating under authority devolved from a central EU government and with its laws subject to the Parliament and courts of the EU”
Its going to happen, Brexit or no-Brexit, just like a modern Englishman’s home bears little resemblance to a castle; the only questions being when and in what form…
Innocent Bystander, nbody is suggesting best of three process. First of all, people do change their minds and are changing their minds. Is it democratically appropriate and in fact necessary to allow them to say so. And we are not asking for a rerun; we are asking for a vote on the terms. It’s a completely different thing.
And, if you’re going to argue about what is democratically appropriate, the more we find out about the leave campaign, the less democratic it looks. We always knew it was made up of a mountain of lies, founded on twenty years of softening up by unchallenged lies from the right wing media. And every day we find out more about dodgy money and the influence of foreign powers. I’d say its democratic legitimacy has ben shredded.
Its going to happen, Brexit or no-Brexit
Maybe. Everything does end, eventually.
Still, let’s not go gentle, eh?
Dav “the UK reduced to the status of a mere province, no longer sovereign”
Dav, that’s just laughable. We haven’t lost any sovereignty. We share it with a whole load of other people, which actually makes us stronger. And the laws are made by the Council of Ministers, composed of the democratically elected ministers of the member states, the European Parliament composed of members directly elected by the populations of the member states, and the Commission, appointed by the democratically elected governments of the member states. Can you tell me which bit of that is not democratic?
We haven’t lost any sovereignty
Really? So you think California is a sovereign nation? Maine? Even though their laws can be overridden by the Congress and the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C.? Even though they don’t have armies of their own that can’t be requisitioned by the President of the USA? Even though they have no representation of their own on international bodies?
That’s an odd definition of ‘sovereign’ you have there.
” nbody is suggesting best of three process.”
Whichever side loses the next one will suggest it.
What on earth could the second referendum ask?
1. The deal
2. Leave on no deal at all
3. Revert to where we were
So if the Remain campaign ( in Referendum II – “The Nightmare Returns” at a cinema near you) splits their vote between those who want the deal and those who want it all to go away, then no deal wins easily?
Brexit voters are mostly older and less full of youthful revolt. The chances of them rioting are thus slim. Look at any examples of civil unrest and you see lots of young. people. They are much easier to whip up and organise into a street level protest movement. On the other hand older people tend to turn out to vote more often and more reliably than young people. Realistically, they also tend to be more conservative. Any backlash would come via the ballot box. Supporters of the somewhat revolutionary concept of supranationalism try to depict Brexit as an angry populist howl of protest, but really it’s more based on a traditional small c-conservative view of the nationhood. This is why the Conservative party are conflicted about the way forward.
Richard Whelan,
I think yours is the most sensible post on here (including mine) but what we are seeing is the sort of ever growing bitterness and faction that leads to trouble. People are people and they can easily end up fighting, first verbally, then physically. The language being used is all wrong. There is no respect for other views and it’s become a “winner take all battle”.
I heartily agree with you that we must somehow focus on the future and not the past.
Brexit voters are mostly older and less full of youthful revolt. The chances of them rioting are thus slim.
‘Because half a dozen grasshoppers under a fern make the field ring with their importunate chink, whilst thousands of great cattle, reposed beneath the shadow of the British oak, chew the cud and are silent, pray do not imagine that those who make the noise are the only inhabitants of the field.’
Dav, you need to compare California with Yorkshire, not with the UK.
Dav, you need to compare California with Yorkshire, not with the UK.
Exactly. Yorkshire is not an independant sovereign nation. It is a part of a bigger country; its government operates by delegated authority, having only as much autonomy as Westminster allows it; it does not have its own army, it cannot make its own international treaties, it is not represented in its own right on international bodies; any by-laws it makes can be ruled ultra vires by the UK Supreme Court; and so on, and so forth.
If the UK were to remain in the EU while it completes its transformation, always intended, into a United States of Europe, then the UK would become like Yorkshire: a mere region of a bigger country, operating by delegated authority, with only as much autonomy as the EU allows it.
Instead of being a fully independent country called the UK, able to stand in our own right ont he world stage, we would be reduced to a mere region of a country called ‘Europe’, just like Yorkshire is a mere region of the UK.
This is clearly unacceptable.
Thank you for making my point for me.
Given that the Lib Dems wanted an In/Out referendum on EU membership for such a long time, and given that even by 2015 the party was still proudly promising that “any referendum triggered by the EU Act is on the big question: In or Out”, two years after just such a referendum it is really disappointing how ill-prepared the party was for it and how ineffectively it has responded to the outcome.
Regardless of how poorly Labour and the Conservatives have reacted to something that Lib Dems used to criticise them for trying to avoid, just like coalition government, the Lib Dems should have been the best prepared for it but were not.
I guess the moral is “be careful what you wish for”.
OK, Dav, let’s But let’s take the analogy at face value. California is not exactly oppressed by being in the USA is it? California shares its sovereignty and its ownership of the Supreme Court with all the other states. it is in California’s interests for the Supreme Cout to interpret law and adjudicate logically and fairly between competing interests. Sometimes things don’t go California’s way, that is what happens in democracies. Mostly Califnornia is just fine wth Supreme Court rulings and oftens ecures advantages through them. It is the same with the UK and the ECJ. Shared sovereignty is not lost, it is strengthened.
@ Dav “Brexit voters are mostly older and less full of youthful revolt. The chances of them rioting are thus slim”.
Well young man, I can assure that as a Liberal Party member since 1961 I am full of youthful revolt. I was in the 1960’s and I am now.
The trouble with the last ten years of the Lib Dems is that they gelded themselves after Charlie Kennedy’s time and settled for the baubles of knighthoods and peerages and implementing policies on the NHS and Welfare straight out of the Maggie Thatcher hymn sheet. Some of them even have the brass neck to deny it.
California is not exactly oppressed by being in the USA is it? California shares its sovereignty and its ownership of the Supreme Court with all the other states
Yes, and that’s fine because it’s all one country, America, and its citizens are all Americans.
The UK is a separate country from France, Germany, Italy, and its citizens are British, not French, German, Italian, etc.
Only about 15% of Britons, when given a free choice to pick any words they want to describe their identity, even mention ‘European’.
Sometimes things don’t go California’s way, that is what happens in democracies
The point about democracies is that it means rule by the demos, the people (that’s ‘people’ in the singular, not the modern sense of the plural of ‘person’). Ther eis no EU-wide singular people.
2 years have passed since the referendum, and maybe the People’s Vote will take place late this year or early next. We now have a cohort of new voters who were 16 last time and are now, or soon will be 18. Now is the time to mobilize to make sure that all these young people are ready to vote, if and when that vote comes. Also let’s make sure that all the expats are signed up for the postal vote and that their vote counts. At the last referendum many, many expats got their postal vote too late for them to send back in time for the vote! To ensure that their vote counts this time, can we make sure that expats can also votes in their country’s embassies, please!
@ Dav “Yorkshire is a mere region of the UK”.
You’re living dangerously young man. Be my guest at Headingley Cricket Ground or the John Smith football Stadium in Huddersfield – then utter those words – and see if you get out alive.
You seem to be full of what the Scots call ‘blether’.
@Peter Watson “Given that the Lib Dems wanted an In/Out referendum on EU membership for such a long time …”
It also occurs to me that the party’s position on the EU Act (and before that, its position on the Lisbon Treaty) is and was opposed to a referendum on the “deal” and instead was all about the “big question: In or Out”.
We need to remain in the single market for goods to keep what’s left of our manufacturing service. I think we could cope with leaving it for services though I am far from being an expert. If the eu can soften its immigration policy there might be an opportunity for a deal. Perhaps a certain amount of independence over say defence budgets, immigration from outside the eu, farming and support for emerging industries might benefit us if we can afford the associated research and development costs involved.
@Peter Watson
As far as I can remember there was never a call from the Lib Dems for an “in or out” referendum before Nick Clegg became leader and it was his policy to call for one. Back in 2008, I seem to remember that there was a significant minority of Lib Dem MPs who wanted a referendum on ratifying the Lisbon treaty and Alistair Carmichael, Tim Farron, and David Heath resigned from the Shadow Cabinet over it.
Dav, no country has one people with one shared set of interests. There are always negotiations and compromises and a variety of identities. The EU is indeed ruled by its peoples, just as the UK is ruled by its peoples. As I said above – council of ministers, European Parliament, Commission. You have not answered the question about which part of that is undemocratic.
You have not answered the question about which part of that is undemocratic.
Because it’s not relevant. The point is not about democracy, it’s that if the UK stays part of the EU as the EU turns into a United States of Europe, then the UK ceases to be a fully independent sovereign nation, and becomes merely a region of a larger country, subject to the larger country’s parliament and courts, like Yorkshire or California.
I mean, you accept that’s what would happen, right? In a United states of Europe, the parliament of Westminster would no longer be the supreme power in the UK: it would operate only within parameters set by the federal USE parliament and courts, just like local councils operate within parameters set by Westminster, just like California’s state laws can be overruled by the federal Supreme Court?
You do understand that?
And that is not acceptable.
Almost everyone has heard about quantum theory and many know clever quantum phenomenon are built into many of the technologies we use every day but very, very few have any expertise whatsoever. Even most physicists probably only know small parts of the theory and its applications.
So also, with international trade: it’s so big and so complicated that even experts with lifelong experience wouldn’t want to pick it apart and put it back together again in a new form, and certainly not in the context of messy divorce proceedings.
Yet that is the task that the most incompetent and badly-led Cabinet in living memory has set itself, blinded by its prejudices and hyped up with emotion that all the UK’s problems are the fault of the EU. (Actually, our problems are primarily domestic, the result of 40 years of misguided policy.)
And now, belatedly, they’re discovering that they have promised the electorate all sorts of mutually incompatible things without pausing to check whether they make sense or are technically doable or are compatible with the other side’s red lines – or even, come to that, with the Tories’ own domestic business ‘constituency’.
Hence, according to a recent article in the New Statesman, even some Tory Leavers now concede that the UK already has the best model – EU membership and that any other solution will be inferior.
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2018/06/brexiteers-are-discovering-uk-already-had-best-model-eu-membership
Moreover, for around 30 years the UK’s main industrial strategy has been to attract international investment, selling the UK as an English-speaking bridgehead to the huge EU market. And that’s worked well, but, in leaving, the Tories are abandoning that ‘business model’. Firms like Nissan, Toyota and others from every corner of the world face the certainty of huge losses just at a time when they have to navigate Trump’s protectionist turn. The welcome mat certainly isn’t going to be out when British firms come calling for new export business.
But even the concept of ‘British’ firms is questionable. So successful have efforts to sell off the family silver been that most are now the local subsidiaries of US and other foreign companies.
So also, with international trade: it’s so big and so complicated that even experts with lifelong experience wouldn’t want to pick it apart and put it back together again in a new form
The brilliant thing about trade, though, is that you don’t have to ‘pick it apart and put it back together again’. And indeed it’s only if you try to control trade that you have problems.
If you just get out of the way of trade, and let people find the things they want to buy from the people who want to sell the things to them, then it all just works.
We knew this back in the twentieth century. It’s why that soviet official who came to London wandered around astonished, finally to ask: ‘At home, we are starving, but here, every shop is overflowing with food — please, take me to the man responsible for co-ordinating the bread supply to London, so that I can learn his secret!’.
How did we forget?
Laurence Cox “As far as I can remember there was never a call from the Lib Dems for an “in or out” referendum before Nick Clegg became leader”
I think so too. In 2005 i think the party wanted a referendum on a constitution, and before that I think it wanted a referendum on any transfer of power to the EU, which would be consistent with the position of Farron et al in 2008. But by then the official policy had changed (surely the party is too democratic for it to be down to Nick Clegg alone) and for several years the party seemed to favour an In/Out referendum over a referendum on the “deal” of any particular treaty, berating Labour and the Conservatives for not wanting to “give the people a say”. This all seemed to change when such a referendum became a reality, which does not look good to say the least.
Consistency seems to have been sacrificed as the party swung from opposing UKIP’s in/out referendum before Clegg, then wanting one, then not wanting one under Farron (and definitely not another one, a “neverendum”, when it looked like 2016 would see a win), and then wanting another one because of the result. This just added to the already damaging narrative about the party after 2010.
for several years the party seemed to favour an In/Out referendum over a referendum on the “deal” of any particular treaty, berating Labour and the Conservatives for not wanting to “give the people a say”. This all seemed to change when such a referendum became a reality, which does not look good to say the least
Apparently the reasoning was:
‘that any referendum limited to the Lisbon Treaty itself would be a false one. It would inevitably turn into a ‘Do you like the EU or not?’ referendum, so the question asked should be the fundamental in/out one. ‘
https://www.libdemvoice.org/the-surprising-truth-about-that-lib-dem-inout-eu-referendum-leaflet-32686.html
Surely one would have to be incredibly cynical to think that the real reason was because they were scared that in a referendum on a new EU treaty, where the public could express their hatred of the EU with very little consequence as rejecting the treaty would just result in the status quo being maintained, there would inevitably be a 80%-plus majority against the treaty; whereas if they made the question on whether to leave the EU entirely, a lot of people who really, really dislike the EU, and would have liked to give it a kick in the teeth, would nevertheless vote ‘Remain’ out of fear of the economic consequences of leaping into the dark.
But it would be really, really cynical, to think like that, wouldn’t it?
Dav (comment 28th @ 4:00pm) – You are conflating two very different things – the Soviet model of central planning (which Is certainly not a good idea) on the one hand and the regulation of goods, services and trade, specifically international trade, on the other.
International trade is almost invariably regulated and for good reason. I can think of only two substantial exceptions. Firstly, when it’s of drugs, guns etc. by mafia cartels and secondly when it’s new sectors, the example here being the likes of Facebook and other new-tech companies. As problems emerge with the ‘Wild West’ approach (and they already are), law makers will slowly catch up and fumble their way to ways to contain them. You may be able to think of other examples, but they will, like these, be the exception, not the rule.
The Grenfell Tower tragedy shows that very often people do want to buy and sell things – inflammable cladding in that case – that they shouldn’t. That regulation failed in that case is not an argument against regulation but for intelligently made and applied rules.
I suggest you read the following link then reconsider whether you really want to live in an inflammable tower block (because cheaper) or fly the Atlantic in an aircraft made and maintained with off-spec bootleg parts (also because cheaper).
http://peterjnorth.blogspot.com/2018/06/free-trade-is-just-slogan.html
I don’t completely agree with the author but he’s mostly right. The libertarian nirvana is fantasy. International trade is ALWAYS tightly managed, which is why ‘Free Trade’ agreements are typically thousands of pages long. They also favour (even to the extent of being largely dictated by) the larger, stronger party which in the nineteenth century was Britain, then the global superpower. Folk memory without understanding of context is misleading.
I think that Rob Person’s definition of Europe as a single country fails again at the test “Well how big would it have to grow before your ‘one country ‘ is unmanageable? Say Russia, India and China all became full members of the EU ? What would the British feel about being involved in their own futures then?”
Some will say that the EU would never be that big but others would reply that their own line of too big has already been crossed.
@ Richard Whelan
“What preparations, if any, is the party making for a No Deal Brexit?
I expect the answer is none. It seems that Federal Policy Committee dictates that our policy should be made on the assumption we are not leaving the EU (see terms of reference for the recent Immigration Consultation Paper).
If we were considering an economic policy for post Brexit with no deal it should include ensuring we have high tariffs on finished good (in line with the EU) from the EU and none on parts and having a mechanism to assist companies to provide British made parts rather than sourcing from outside the UK. Plus free life-long training for all people in the UK. As well as policies to encourage UK employers to employ people here who are not working rather than recruit people from outside the UK.
Dav, no, I don’t accept your fantastical vision of a United States of Europe.
Innocent Bystander, I didn’ t portray the EU as a single country. I was pointing out the fact that the unitary idea of sovereignty is a fiction.
Lawrence Cox (Comment 28th @ 2:57pm) & Peter Watson (4:20pm)
I also recall that back in 2008 Nick Clegg, then the very new leader, rammed through opposition to a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty against several of the front bench. We had 63 MPs at the time, enough, IIRC, with some Labour rebels and the Tories to get a referendum which polling showed would have been lost. (Actually, I doubt a referendum would have happened because it would have been pulled and the Lisbon Treaty would have been lost with it.)
In other words, despite being a small party, the Lib Dems were briefly in a position to force a critical change of direction for Europe, but Clegg fluffed it.
I remember thinking at the time that this was a catastrophic error of judgement by Clegg, one that lead to months of mental gymnastics on LDV and elsewhere as some tried to convince themselves that this was OK when clearly it wasn’t.
In particular, it committed the Lib Dems to a path (already established by then to be fair) of uncritical cheerleading for whatever the Brussels establishment wanted to do – which like any bureaucracy was and is to increase its own power and prestige. There is no way that squares with the Lib Dems alleged (but entirely invisible) commitment to devolution. Also, as Peter hints, it implies the party’s internal democracy is woefully deficient.
The lesson must be that politics doesn’t stop at Dover. The EU is racked with problems (not just Brexit) largely stemming from its dodgy political arrangements. It must reform to survive or risk failing with incalculable consequences for all Europeans.
I see yet another of the Brexiteers leaders has sugguested getting out of Dodge, Lord Ashcroft prefers Malta, wee Mogg Dublin, John Redwood anywhere but here. Still as long as our brave Brexiteers blame the remaniacs and ignore their leaders actions all is well. Truly the loyal Brexiteers live by the motto of their leaders “Do as I say, not as I do”.
It may not all be over but all Lord Wallace puts forward is a series of ways in which it goes wrong and wronger. Turning that into stopping Brexit is a different matter.
That can only happen by a vote in Parliament. Even if Corbyn Labour come out and oppose Brexit he won’t be able to get all his MPs to vote for that. Nor can the Lib Dems rely on Stephen Lloyd.
So Labour (minus say 5 – which is perhaps optimistic), 11 LIb Dems, SNP, PC, Green and non DUP Northern Ireland gets you to 309 when you need 321 at a bare minimum. For this to work you need 12 identified Conservatives to vote against the government (or 18 to abstain.
Alternatively the government is so riven by controversy that it falls apart and there is an election. Which would still need a parliament with an anti-Brexit majority to stop it. Which could happen but we are probably talking serious political realignment for that to come about.
What is more likely to happen is that at the last minute there is an agreemen that the UK leaves in March 2019 with all the decisions about what is to come afterwards being kicked down the line as neither the EU nor UK want to have a no-deal Brexit. That is the worst of all worlds as the UK has left but all the decisions are to be contested over years and decades. May however will be portrayed as a great leader for having grabbed a victory from near certain defeat (see every other EU treaty negotiation ever!)
A second referendum is pretty easy to conceptualise. Two questions:
1) Do you agree with the deal? Yes/No
2) If the deal is rejected what do you think the alternative should be: Remain in EU/Leave with no deal.
Nobody seems to be mentioning that even if a second vote is gained or exit from brexit achieved what will the EU look like in 12 months time? If appears very conflicted at the moment and faces its own internal contradictions. Still they have not seemed to fully resolved the need for fiscal structures/ eurowide budget to save the Euro and some are talking about ever closer political union and steps towards US of E. At the same time populists in various countries are pursuing their own agendas.
To those who feel if we stay we could contribute and mediate the debate on future EU direction i fear we may have lost what little voice and influence we had. Certainly there would also be a question of rebuilding trust in our present and future actions.
Will the pluses be worth the negatives?
I don’t know the answers but welcome the debate beyond the simplistic everything Brexit bad everything EU great.
@Oncealibdem – I can see 4 options on the ballot paper, with AV being used as the voting system (somewhat ironically):
a. accept the deal the government has negotiated, thus leaving the EU.
b. reject the deal and leave the EU immediately without an agreement. WTO rules.
c. reject the deal and re-start Brexit negotiations all over again (if the EU agrees!)
d. reject the deal and abandon Brexit, thus staying in the EU.
It would be an interesting campaign – really splitting the two big parties this time. Imagine for example if the deal is a compromise too far for the hardliners. Who would lead the campaigns for the various options?
a. Theresa May, Philip Hammond, Kate Hoey, Frank Field?
b. Nigel Farage, Jacob Rees Mogg, Boris Johnson, David Davis, Michael Gove.
c. Jeremy Corbyn? Maybe Boris, depending how he sees it.
d. Sensible Labour (Benn, Cooper, Umuna), Ken Clarke, Anna Soubry, the LibDems, Greens and possibly SNP.
The result? I think d would be ahead in the first round, c would be eliminated, d would still be ahead with b narrowly beating a to 2nd place, then d would win quite comfortably. If it was a vs. d in the final round, then d would still win but it wd be close.
And then of course the real fun would begin!
Anyway. Interesting to speculate. It’s not like there’s anything good on the TV tonight. 😮
Sean,
In all likelihood the EU will muddle through, but you are right we will have no input. What the EU decide as our biggest and most powerful neighbour will affect us, but we will have no input. As has been pointed out to us the UK and EU’s dealing is not based on negotiating between equals, it is 66 million versus 500 million and it doesn’t take a genius to work out 500 is much much bigger than 66. So next time someone spouts they need us more than we need them, just ask yourself which is bigger 66 or 500+.
frankie
Thanks for the reply and fully accept the contest between numbers unwinable.
Was looking more in the context of If things suddenly changed and we remained in EU. Given the present internal issues exercising the EU separate to brexit is there are a risk that it may become something we may not want to be part of. Beyond trade is there a risk that the values and achievements of the EU that people want to remain part of will be fundamentally changed and no longer have the same value to us. Is the EU at risk of failing? Don’t believe it will fail but genuinely believe it will be but in a different form.
Mrs May cut a poor spectacle in Brussels yesterday, as was to be expected with the shambolic government she is leading. The worst of the shambles is that any agreement on the deal has been put back now from June to October, imperilling the possible timetable for another referendum. Meanwhile the EU is riven over immigration, with the new Italian government refusing to take more migrants, and the Bavarian wing of Mrs Merkel’s own party demanding a change of policy. Everything seems up in the air regarding the Schengen borders and the Dublin Accord. Would it not be a shrewd move for Lib Dem peers and the party spokespeople now to suggest proposals for modified freedom of movement within the EU, which might allow us to accept the Four Freedoms without causing outrage among Leavers?
Small chance of any substantial work going on in this divided EU towards a United States of Europe.Besides the immigration crisis, they can’t agree on further economic integration, and democratic principles are being threatened by the government of Poland.
@ pmknowles. I fear your ingenious idea of using the European Union Act of 2011 couldn’t work once we had left, as far as I can see. We just must not leave. No point in working out how our doubtless excellent economic policies could be offered after Brexit, I believe, until we have fought for the country’s future in the all too few vital months left to avert it.
@ David Raw. Come come, David, we have had one excellent leader since Charles Kennedy who most certainly did not ‘geld’ himself, and whom I still hope to see a distinguished member of a future Coalition government. Not that that has anything to do with the current discussion! I hope you and family are keeping well.
@TonyH
Many things may come to pass. That there will be a second referendum using AV will not be one of them.
@ Rob Parsons
” ……..a movement [EU] that has brought countries like Spain and Portugal out of dictatorship, and countries like Poland and Hungary out of the grip of Soviet Communism.” ???
This simply isn’t true.
The EU didn’t even exist at the time time of Portugal and Spain restoring their respective democracies. It’s more more successful, and better organised, EEC did exist but Spain and Portugal weren’t members.
The fall of the former Soviet Eastern bloc had little, if anything, to do with the EU. The EU hasn’t done much on the international stage but when it has dabbled, like in the former Yugoslavia and more recently in Ukraine, the results haven’t been too good!
@ Katharine Happy to accept your comments. Sad that Ming left it too late – but there were good reasons for that…. Feel sorry for the current son of York who’s having to climb a mountain, and still have affection for Tim as a good and decent man. No obvious successor to Vince at the moment.
Yes, now minus crutches after receiving shiny new hip – truly a miracle of the NHS but will pass on turning out for the Terriers next season. Organising the unveiling of a blue plaque to Catherine Marshall at 2.00 on 13 October at Hawse End in Keswick – you’d be very welcome.
The EU will fail over immigration chant the brave Brexiteers. Damm they have muddled through again, still never mind there will be another reason they’ll fail along tomorrow. They keep muddling through because they fear a failed EU more than having to fudge and compromise, it also explains why they won’t give us a good deal. They rather accept economic harm than the risk of saying the UK thrived outside. Such is the disparity of power that we get a bad deal or a deal they give us, no one looking at the final result will be able to spin we won for long. Tick tock my dear Brexiteers.
@ Katharine,
Instead of “suggest(ing) proposals for modified freedom of movement within the EU” which, on the face of it, is profoundly il-Liberal, why not suggest that the EU does something about the causes of highly asymmetric migration levels? Parts of the EU are being depopulated which only elderly residents remaining, and parts are suffering the consequences of not having enough housing and other social support for new arrivals.
There’s nothing wrong, per se, in the idea of freedom of movement. It works perfectly well in America. But there you don’t have the same huge differences in unemployment rates between States. There are differences and there will always be some net migration from the poorer to the richer states. The difference is controllable by the Federal government and arguably it should do more than it does but, even so, it does much more than the EU.
I find myself in the odd position of defending the USA and criticising what many consider the much more socialist EU! The socialist EU is a myth. The Federal Govt in the USA doesn’t expect states like Mississippi to survive on loans. They know they can’t be repaid and that the money has to be in the form of direct expenditure. This is what has to happen in any single currency zone but the supposedly much more sophisticated Europeans just can’t see it.
“you need to compare California with Yorkshire, not with the UK”
In the old EEC this was true. The EEC was a collection of different countries all with their own separate currencies which could vary in value against each other. The mistake is to think the EU is just the EEC by another name. It’s the common currency that changes everything.
It’s moving in a direction where France, Germany, Italy and all the euro countries won’t be a separate country and they will end up with the same status within the EU as California has within the USA. Not Yorkshire and not the UK, though, unless we remain members and end up adopting the euro.
@ Peter. You have a point about ‘modified freedom of movement’ sounding illiberal, and ‘managed freedom of movement’ would be slightly better if carefully defined. I only meant that we should concur with the limitations that are already there within the EU, that people who move should find a job, and have to return home if remaining unemployed for some time and having no private means of support, with restrictions on welfare provision for incomers as well. Since we want the Four Freedoms, we have to think how we see freedom of movement working, and how to reassure our own. people about it. However, this would be no time to begin lecturing the EU on asymmetric movement within the bloc, or indeed anything else!
@ David. Thanks, David, pleased to hear you are recovering well from your hip replacement (which I only knew of from a mention by Lorenzo), and I hope the babies are thriving too. I shall certainly note the date of the Catherine Marshall plaque dedication, and would very much like to come along. It will be a pleasure to meet you, as well as celebrating the Marshall family which founded and whose current bearers of the name contribute considerably to my Keswick church of St John.
As has been pointed out to us the UK and EU’s dealing is not based on negotiating between equals, it is 66 million versus 500 million and it doesn’t take a genius to work out 500 is much much bigger than 66
If size was all that mattered, the world would be ruled by Canada.
Dav, no, I don’t accept your fantastical vision of a United States of Europe.
You don’t think that the goal of the EU is political integration? Really?
Of course it may not get there. not all plans succeed. But that is the plan. And the current form of the EU is, as the regular Euro crises demonstrate, unsustainable. Either it must move towards greater centralisation, or fall apart. I suspect it wll do the former (in fits and strars); it might yet though do the latter; but the status quo is not viable in the medium term.
@ Katharine you’ll be pleased to hear Catherine’s great nephew, Simon, is coming. We went to the unveiling of the Millicent Fawcett statue in Parliament Square recently where Catherine features as one of the portraits surrounding the base.
Catherine herself became a member of the Society of Friends. It’s not generally known that she sheltered children from the kinder transport in the late thirties at Hawes End. We’re hoping to arrange a reception in the house with a couple of speakers.
Bless Dav Canada has a population of 36.29 million, or can’t you tell the difference between the area of a country and it’s population? Even for a Brexiteer that is worrying.
The population of a country coup[ed with the wealth of it’s inhabitants is a good if rough guide to the power they can exert in trade talks. Now we have a population of 66 million and the EU have one of over 500 million. The average GDP per person in the EU is 35632.22 USD ours is 38901.05 (slightly more as of 2016). Give the pound has tanked it is probably fair to say our GDP per person and the EU’s is probably broadly similar. So we come back to the equation that 500+ is much greater than 66, at which point I’d love to see one of the Brexiteers argue this is an even negotiation. Of cause it isn’t but I’d like to see you try to argue it is.
The population of a country coup[ed with the wealth of it’s inhabitants is a good if rough guide to the power they can exert in trade talks
Only if you approach them completely wrong. Which, to be fair, the EU does consistently, as it seems trade as something scary to be managed (in case French winemakers, or Italian clothes-makers, have to compete on anything like equal terms with the rest of the world rather than having a captive market forced to pay for their overpriced rubbish like an entire continent trapped at the cinema kiosk paying a tenner for a tiny amount of popcorn that is slightly less tasty than the carton it comes in) rather than, as Britain has realised throughout its history, as something to be embraced.
“The population of a country coup[ed with the wealth of it’s inhabitants is a good if rough guide to the power they can exert in trade talks”
Probably this is true to some extent. But while trade is important it isn’t everything – otherwise the countries with the largest populations would also end up with much greater wealth per head of population than smaller ones.
If we look at a list of countries in terms of GDP per head of population the first 12 are all relatively small. The USA, the first big country on the list comes in at 13th.
Iceland is slightly poorer than the Netherlands but richer than Sweden and Germany.
How much clout does Iceland have in world trade talks?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita
In fact, this idea that trade talks are about ‘exerting power’… you know who thinks like that? That trade talks are about using your ‘power’ to in some way extract concessions form the other side, so that you come out ‘on top’?
That’s the Donald Trump philosophy of trade. And it’s dead wrong.
If the house of lords, parliament and monarchy were gone and the four regions had individual parliaments to run England, Wales, Scotland and NI, whilst being part of the larger EU and Euro, there would be quite a good chance that individuals would be better off, the areas more able to reflect their character (Scotland moving towards a socialist paradise and England becoming hardcore capitalist)… the only people who would lose out would be a heap of politicians who suddenly found themselves unloved and unemployable.
You don’t think that the goal of the EU is political integration? Really?
Dav, I think political integration is the goal of some people within the EU. Just like having a European Army is the goal of some people within the EU. There will always be a range of opinion in any body of people. Eg there are people in the UK who want us to recognise that the earth is flat. I reckon the chances of a European superstate are about as likely as that happening.
I notice that Germany didn’t quite get the outcome they were hoping for on Wednesday. Maybe they should have a replay? There’s a good chance it would be different next time.
Or perhaps they could argue that the result was just advisory and FIFA should ignore it? 🙂
I think political integration is the goal of some people within the EU
It’s not just the aim of some people, it’s how the organisation is explicitly set up. It’s why, for example, the acquisition of powers by the EU is set up as a ratchet: powers can flow to the EU, but never be returned to the member states.
The founder of the EU knew that if ever the peoples of Europe were asked, ‘Would you like to be part of a superstate?’ they would reply with a resounding ‘Nein!’.
I think that’s why you think such a thing is implausible, am I right?
But they were sneakier than that: the EU is designed to become a superstate by slow frog-boiling. Every treaty change, every new directive, it takes a few more powers from the national governments, and — crucially — it never gives them back. Once the EU has legislated in an area, that’s it, the EU legislation in that area now over-rides all national legislation, for ever more.
So in this way it doesn’t matter that only some people in the EU want a superstate, because the ratchet only turns one way. The superstate-supporters can turn the lever their way, but the ones who don’t want it can never turn the lever back.
The moment I was sure I was voting Leave was the moment that Cameron’s renegotiation came back with that ’emergency brake’ on immigration, that a state could pply to the EU for permission to use. Not the detail — I’m solidly pro-immigration, I don’t think the emergency brake was the right thign or should have been used — but simply the principle that a sovereign state might have to ‘apply’ to the EU for permission to vary its own laws, like a child having to ask its parents’ permission to leave the table.
@ Rob Parsons,
“I reckon the chances of a European superstate are about as likely as that happening.”
You could be right. It all looks too hard to get the necessary agreement. The problem is that the EU is stuck in an impossible situation. It could move forward to the United States of Europe. That would work but you’ve said that is unlikely.
It could move backwards to the EEC. Everyone with their own separate currencies. We already know that works. But the EU PTB don’t want that.
So if it can’t move forward and it can’t move back it will have to self destruct. The Target 2 imbalances will soon tear it apart. Probably starting with Italy.
http://speri.dept.shef.ac.uk/2018/02/08/target2-imbalances-and-the-stagnating-political-economy-of-europe/
Dav replied to
“The population of a country coup[ed with the wealth of it’s inhabitants is a good if rough guide to the power they can exert in trade talks”
with
“Only if you approach them completely wrong. Which, to be fair, the EU does consistently, as it seems trade as something scary to be managed (in case French winemakers, or Italian clothes-makers, have to compete on anything like equal terms with the rest of the world rather than having a captive market forced to pay for their overpriced rubbish like an entire continent trapped at the cinema kiosk paying a tenner for a tiny amount of popcorn that is slightly less tasty than the carton it comes in) rather than, as Britain has realised throughout its history, as something to be embraced.”
well bless Dev they get to make the rules and they seem to be the rules that the other trading blocks in the world run by too. In fact you know that because you said
“In fact, this idea that trade talks are about ‘exerting power’… you know who thinks like that? That trade talks are about using your ‘power’ to in some way extract concessions form the other side, so that you come out ‘on top’?
That’s the Donald Trump philosophy of trade. And it’s dead wrong.”
I know reality is frightening and doesn’t it suck that “might is right”, but it is the case and no matter how much you close your eyes and whistle a happy tune when you open them reality is still there and by ignoring it, it has actually got worse. Until the option of moving to alternative reality where your rules apply, reality is all you have got, deal with it or whinge about it, it matters not it is still there.
The size of a market is the population size times the individual GDP
Um. Individual GDP is just GDP divided by population size. So all you’ve said there is that the size of a market is equal to GDP divided by population size multiplied by population size.
In other words, you’ve just said that market size is just GDP.
It has nothing (according to your definition) to do with population size at all, because if you multiply by a term and the divide by the same term it just disappears.
So why do you keep going on about population size if by your own definition it is irrelevant?
when you open them reality is still there and by ignoring it, it has actually got worse
Actually I think you’ll find it is currently Trump and the EU who are ignoring the reality that any time a country imposes tariffs, it harms itself and its own economic prospects far more than anyone else.
… and, looking it up, the Eurozone’s GDP is 11.8 trillion dollars while the UK’s is 2.6 trillion dollars.
And, well, I guess it is true that 2.6 is less than 12. But it’s a lot closer than 66 to 500, isn’t it?
Dav, you have mixed up the EU and the Eurozone. The population of the Eurozone is around 341 million, not 500 million.
Per capita GDP for the UK is slightly higher than for the Eurozone, but not by much.
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/gdp-per-capita
https://tradingeconomics.com/euro-area/gdp-per-capita
Ah, I couldn’t find a GDP figure for EU-not-including-Britain so I assumed that the Eurozone would be close enough on the grounds that Bulgaria etc aren’t going to make that much difference.
Do you have the GDP figure for the EU-minus-UK?
(Per-capita GDP is a pretty meaningless figure anyway: there’s no obvious reason why GDP and population should have a linear relationship, which is the only way it would make sense to divide one by the other).
Dav, in 2017 EU GDP was $17.1 trillion, UK was $2.624 trillion, so EU minus UK would be $14.476 trillion.
GDP per capita is sometimes used as a measure to compare economic performance.
Dav,
I’m making the point (nay labouring the point) that when the individual GDP is the same (which the UK’s and EU’s are roughly). The bigger market is the one with the most people. Now 500+ is much bigger than 66 so who do you think other trading blocks will want to deal with? Now I have to make the point about individual GDP because if I don’t one of your colleges will pop up (cue Peter) and say, but Indonesia has a much bigger population than the UK but lacks the clout of the UK (UK GDP 2,936,286 MM, Indonesia 1,074,966 MM in dollars source IMF 2018).
We have now ascertained the EU market (19,669,743 dollars MM) is much bigger than the UK’s (2,936,286 dollars MM). which is bigger than Indonesia (1,074,966 dollars MM).
So here is the question for you it’s in three parts
Which trade group has the most power?
Which group has the least power?
Who would you prioritise trading with?
Now I’ll give you a clue all things being equal i.e there isn’t some political reason or you are next door to Indonesia none of the answers are the UK and only one is Indonesia.
P.S I know the EU figure includes the UK but lest be honest even deducting the UK the EU is miles ahead in size.
who do you think other trading blocks will want to deal with?
Why on earth would it be an either/or choice? The answer is, of course, ‘both’.
And if Britain is a low-tax, low-regulation economy where they can set up shop with a minimum of fuss, as opposed to the EU with is decades-long negotiations of deals, and millions of pages of regulations, and general protectionist attitude that means the lowliest farmer in Belgium gets a veto over anything he thinks might mean he’s competing with better, cheaper produce form elsewhere, then we start to look a lot more attractive, don’t we?
The last thing the EU wants is a Singapore off the coast of Calais, attracting all sorts of investment because it’s a much easier, cheaper place to do business than the EU.
Dav (comment 29th @2:20pm)
“the EU is set up as a ratchet”
Yes, I’ve said that on multiple occasions using near enough those exact words.
Obviously, no party that says it believes in devolution and returning power to the people could possibly put up with that! Oh, wait …
In fact, I think it’s a pretty widely held view across Europe and not just in Britain. The EU is first and foremost a POLITICAL project, so it behoves political parties, especially those claiming to believe in devolution, to campaign on this, to build alliances with others of a like mind and to find a way to abolish the ratchet. (Hint: it’s actually not that difficult once you put your mind to it).
However, I fear that leaving will do nothing to advance the cause of killing the ratchet. It’s very difficult to imagine a scenario where we escape the gravitational pull of the EU27, ratchet and all, so all we will probably achieve is making ourselves a kind of economic colony.
As for “the Donald Trump philosophy of trade”, it may be wrong but that’s how it works, it’s how it’s always worked. The world is not run by Mother Theresa types.
“The moment I was sure I was voting Leave was the moment that Cameron’s renegotiation came back with that ’emergency brake’ on immigration, that a state could pply to the EU for permission to use. Not the detail — I’m solidly pro-immigration, I don’t think the emergency brake was the right thign or should have been used — but simply the principle that a sovereign state might have to ‘apply’ to the EU for permission to vary its own laws, like a child having to ask its parents’ permission to leave the table.”
But, Dav, that whole thing was entirely ridiculous, and exposes just how badly the UK misunderstands the EU – because we never used the brakes we had within the constitution of the EU to limit immigration. To come back pretending that he’d got some kind of break through that he never needed in the first place just shows how much of a charlatan Cameron was.
Probably an unwelcome question – (but from a Remainer).
Has it ever occurred to anybody – especially Lib Dems – that rightly or wrongly the subject of BREXIT absolutely bores the pants off the vast majority of the electorate ?
Four local by-elections yesterday (discretely unreported in LDV ?) – about 10% in three, 5% in the other (one in a Lib Dem target seat). Is anybody listening out there ?
Isn’t it time to play a few different records ?
How about zero hour contracts, the failure of PFI’s, the rising use of food banks (1.3 million last year), the need for more social housing, the need to stop the roll out of universal credit and PIP, the lousy state of the railways………… add more to the list….
There’s a whole host of bread and butter issues that affect ordinary families and folk in this country that need tackling and all we get is Brexit, Brexit, Brexit and a few other pet Lib Dem preoccupations………..
If the party doesn’t wake up there won’t be any coffee left to smell.
Indeed David all very important topics and I’d hope the party has policies on them. In fact I’d go as far as to say I’d like to hear what they are. But and it is a big BUT Brexit consumes all. It isn’t the Lib Dems who are failing to tackle the issues or pass laws in parliament, it is the government why because Brexit consumes all. It isn’t the Lib Dems failing to act as an effective opposition it is Labour, why because Brexit consumes all. It isn’t the Lib Dems who place the Brexit story on the front page, it is the media, why because Brexit consumes all. We are as a nation stuck in the headlights of an oncoming HGV, only the odd football result or royal wedding drags our sight away and then it is back to staring into the headlights. We all want Brexit to end but while the Brexit process rolls on it will consume the attention of the nation. The only quick way to end Brexit is to stop it, failing that it will consume the nations attention.
As to the byelection results didn’t the independents do well. There’s a thirst for alternatives, sometime that helps us, sometimes we get trampled by third parties. The task we face is to become the default option.
David Raw
Yes, It occurs to a lot of people.
@ David Raw,
“….the subject of BREXIT absolutely bores the pants off the vast majority of the electorate”
You’re absolutely right. My wife kicks me under the table if I stray on to the topic when we are out with friends!
Labour canvassers were under instructions to avoid the topic during the ’17 election. Partly that’s why they did so well. Most people felt that subject had already been done to death the previous year, the government had asked the question, the voters had given their answer and it was time to talk about something else.
And yet much as people might like Brexit to go away it still dominates the headlines and the poltical debate. Tick tock my brave Brexiteers wishing a bad decision away seldom works. Wishing it away is afform of denile, perhaps you are truly passing through the stages of grief.
@ Frankie,
“denile” ?? Is that a river in Africa ? 🙂
Peter Martin.
I’ve got friends and family members doing the same sort of thing. But this is LDV and the EU is a big ideological project for a lot of Lib Dems. So it’s fair enough for them to keep plugging away. I do sometimes wonder how the Lib Dems will adapt to the political shifts post 2019.
If I hear any more about Tinkerbell or the brave Brexiteers I’m going to pull the curtains and hide under the bed until next March. I suppose I could always watch repeated versions of ‘A very English Scandal’ on the iplayer as a form of escapism.
Not necessarily Peter, de’nile is also something brave Brexiteers love to bath in. As they say de’nile is not just a river in Africa. As time goes by more and more of the Brexiteers delusions go puff.
Why only yesterday my father-in-law ( he who opinioned that Brexit was worth it, even if he got poorer) told me I didn’t know how much of the Mini was made abroad. In my day when they built a car he said all the parts where made locally, now it comes from all over the shop. He then proceeded to tell me that if they had trade barriers Mini would be in trouble and finished off by saying the EU couldn’t give us a good deal because everyone would leave if they got a better deal outside. As you can imagine it wasn’t the news that shocked me, it was the person telling me it (bit random really he’d been talking Rugby and then just went on about Mini), he then said he didn’t think Brexit was working out and it would probably go wrong. I had to bite my tongue and resist the temptation to say “no sh?t Sherlock” and just agreed before saying how well Saints where playing and could Warrington step up.
Now this dawning of reality isn’t widespread amongst the Brexiteers I know. Most have moved onto other things mostly football, and one still fly’s his Union Jack in the garden convinced the council will be along to take it down on the grounds of political correctness any day now, but it’s a start and as bad times roll expect people to forget how they voted and indeed state “They always knew it was a bad idea and it is all the fault of the (insert scapegoat)”. Shades of Iraq try finding someone who owns up to thinking that was a good idea. Why in the case of Iraq it appears it was only a few Labour MP’s that thought it was a good idea, I must have dreamed the widespread support and the backing of the Tory Party, but then my memory isn’t what it was and who am I to think otherwise.
@Peter Martin
And we have less than 2.5% of world trade – how much clout do you think that gives us? It took the EU (14% of world trade ) years to negotiate deals with Japan and Canada. They were negotiating from strength – we are insignificant and the sooner we realise it the better.
Alas David, even if I stopped Brexit would still carry on. It’s the likely to be the longest running farce since Brian Rix hung up his underwear. The only thing that can stop Brexit is well stopping it. I also hate to break it to you March next year doesn’t bring an end to it this farce will run and run. So if you are tempted to hide under the bed take creates of supplies you’ll need it.
frankie,
What we are all trying to tell you is that while it is obvious that Brexit is consuming all your waking seconds it isn’t having the same effect on the majority.
You may be right about the impending economic apocalypse and can’t understand why the nation doesn’t share your appalled horror.
But it doesn’t.
It is just waiting to hear how it all turns out and life will go on.
For an ‘eloquent’ resumé of where we stand at present, may I recommend the recent outpourings of one Mr Danny Dyer? In particular, I echo his question, where is the ‘geezer’ who started it all off? And I don’t mean the former Member for Sheffield Hallam!
I suppose if things get really bad after Brexit, with no-one wanting to sell us anything and no-one wanting to buy anything from us, we’ll have to develop an economy based on self sufficiency. We won’t have many bananas or oranges, but on the other hand we’ll have plenty of apples, pears, lamb, fish pork etc.
I very much doubt Brexit will make much difference but, if we have to, we should be able to get by.
The word, incidentally, for a self sufficient economy with no international trade is autarky. Which isn’t much used and the spell checker doesn’t recognise it!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autarky
Innocent bystander,
Off cause it isn’t consuming the attention of everyone, that is the job of football. It is consuming is the ability of our ruling class to govern and our businesses to plan. I’ll tell you a story why people are not worried well . Years ago I had the misfortune to be a civil servant. Now the most of my colleagues liked being civil servants (it was a nice structured, not overly demanding existence, keep your nose clean and you’d retire as an SEO and even a Grade 7) but an election loomed and if the Tories got back in a life of privatisation awaited. My bosstold us all to vote Labour you didn’t want to be privatised, but many voted Tory. The day after the election one of them called Paul replied after I said “We are doomed” “Well at least my taxes won’t go up”. The market testing commenced and 300+ poor souls went into the pot, but did my colleagues on the whole say “We are doomed” O know they said “we can bid and we have a proper Grade 5 to lead us nothing will change”. As time dragged on bidders dropped out, eventually only the in house bid and one private one where left. The Grade 5 announced they had a new job and left in a cloud of dust, at which point a few more joined the moaning Minnie’s like myself (I’m sure your shocked I was amongst them) who had long proclaimed we are “Doomed all Doomed”, but most began to chant even louder “We will be fine”. eventually the day of the decision was made and surprise, surprise the in-house bid was a strong second but off we needed to go to the private sector. The first thing the new supplier did was gift a third of the staff back to the civil service to manage the contract, a third they kept and a third they bin bagged. Now amongst the bin bagged was Paul and I’m afraid I couldn’t resit saying to him “Well at least your taxes won’t go up”. Now many years later of the 300 plus staff I believe six or seven hung on as the years rolled by the bin bag became more and more prevalent, the work harder the rewards less. Now if you run into my ex-colleagues a few will say it was the best thing that ever happened, but most say it was a pity about what happened we got terribly shafted. I expect that will be a similar sentiment to Brexit after it happens. So no I’m not surprised that people are not panicking. Most have to go over a cliff and face Paul’s fate before they react, they hope for the best and fail to prepare for the worst.
Peter Martin,
Autarky in North Korea is called Juche (translated as “self-reliance”). It is the official state ideology described as Kim Il-sung’s “original, brilliant and revolutionary contribution to national and international thought”.
Based on Ithe postulation that “man is the master of his destiny”, the North Korean masses are to act as the “masters of the revolution and construction” and that by becoming self-reliant and strong a nation can achieve true socialism.
The ideology incorporates the historical materialist ideas of Marxism–Leninism emphasizing the individual, the nation-state and its sovereignty. The principles of Juche have beed used to justify its policy decisions from the 1950s onwards.
The practice of Juche is firmly rooted in the ideals of sustainability through agricultural independence and a lack of dependency. Ideals that led to the North Korean famine in the 1990s, just as it did with Mao’s great leap forward in the 1950s/1960s.
@EthicsGradient
I think we are all getting rather tired of the threats of civil disorder if Brexit doesn’t happen, or if one or other of the preferred Brexits that ‘everybody voted for’ doesn’t happen the way should.
As I see it, that is the main argument in favour of a further vote. If in fact it is a resounding endorsement of the leave vote of two years ago it shouldn’t be a problem for the revolutionaries in the Brexit movement. Nor can I see the remainers taking up arms, so no civil unrest.
If the vote goes the other way it will clearly be seen that it is no longer the will of the people to leave so surely the little dears will suck it up like the good little democrats they are?
O know, off cause we are all doomed, just as Frankie implies and I believe him, if Brexit happens. But we can at least have a laugh on the way – thanks, Frankie!
@ JoeB,
It’s quite unlikely that the UK will be anything like an Autarky in the foreseeable future. But, if the rest of the world will want nothing to do with us after Brexit we won’t have any choice in the matter. That’s the impression some Remainers like to present. That’s just more ‘project fear.’
And how does it all work? You link all this with so-called ‘Marxist Leninism’ , Mao’s policies in the 50s and 60s, Kim Ill sung, and North Korea (not forgetting to mention the famine of course) !
But then when accused of indulging in this ‘project fear’ you act like a footballer who has just hacked down an opponent from behind. You raise your hands, put on the most innocent expression you can manage, as if to say to the world “Not me, I didn’t do anything” 🙂