After last week’s General Election, we face arguably the most uncertain period of our post-war political history. As the clock ticks down to our exit from the EU on 29th March 2019, the question of how we conduct these negotiations effectively alongside the profound instability of our domestic politics remains unresolved.
Neither the Conservatives, nor Labour, have the strength to take the lead in this process by themselves. Labour, although performing much better than expected, has won too few seats to be able to act alone, and the Conservatives remain so divided over Europe that even a confidence and supply agreement with the DUP cannot hope to paper over the cracks.
Such is the tribalism of those parties, however, that the leadership of both still wrongly assume that they can only do this alone through some form of single-party minority government. This will not only lack credibility with voters at home and our negotiating partners in Europe, though, but threaten to deepen further the divisions in our country that the EU referendum has already opened up.
Serious thought now needs to be given instead to the possibility of some form of national unity government in this Parliament, or at least substantial cross-party collaboration, to address the pressing challenges ahead. Although Brexit negotiations are clearly the most urgent task, collaboration of this kind is now very badly needed to agree long-term solutions to the NHS and our social care system.
Such a cross-party approach would make a second referendum on the Brexit deal all the more necessary. The new composition of the House of Commons makes it unlikely a cross-party negotiating group would tolerate the economic consequences of no deal being reached with the EU. But the notion that it will somehow be possible to reach a bespoke agreement with the EU in which we get ‘frictionless’ access to the single market, the ability to strike our own trade deals with other countries and an end to the freedom of movement is a fantasy that will not survive the first real contact with EU negotiators. Yet, to those who believe that the only real Brexit is one that achieves all three, any cross-party negotiation that fails to deliver this will look like politicians subverting the of the 52%. Far from being a back-door route back into the EU for ardent remainers, we will need a second referendum to ensure that every voter (including the hardest of Brexiteers) feels that they still have the ability to shape this process.
Whilst painful for many Liberal Democrats, the results of last week’s election suggest that there is no appetite amongst voters for a wholesale reversal of the Brexit decision and the option of remaining in the EU can no longer feature in a second referendum. What such a referendum can do, though, is present voters with a clear choice between a hard Brexit (with no EU deal) and the best deal that a cross-party team has been able to achieve (probably involving EEA or customs union membership).
As two-party politics appears to have returned with a vengeance in the recent General Election, the future role of the Liberal Democrats might be seen as called into question. But if the Liberal Democrats can make the case for a politics beyond tribalism at our current time of national crisis, we will make a profound difference to our national life. Far from being a fading force, the Liberal Democrat recognition of the value of collaboration, inclusiveness and compromise has never been more relevant.
* Gordon Lynch is a Professor at the University of Kent and member of the Liberal Democrats.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The shame of Liverpool Labour councillors taking their allowances but not turning up to do the work
Should Labour reconsider the Brexit red lines?
Raising a flap about letterboxes
Arriving at one of East Finchley's ghost platforms
Restrained
Chase Park fair photos
Peter Hirst
29 Comments
Do we really want to be suckered into a new, Tory dominated, coalition for something that will turn out badly or very badly?
Does anyone have a handy two letter answer?
Nope get popcorn and watch the Tories and Labour if they are daft enough dance with Nelly.
No coalition, there simply aren’t enough Lib Dem voters or MP’s to make the argument for substantial posts or policy impact. I wonder though whether the offer should be made to the Tories (or Labour if they can get the rest of the votes) to allow a limited agenda to progress, i.e. To vote through a Queens speech and to allow a budget through if, and only if. There is substantially more funding for the NHS, an end to the pubic pay freeze and a referendum on any Brexit deal. No guarantee to vote through anything else.
This would effectively shoot some of Labour’s foxes and hold the Tories back from their destructive agenda. Perhaps this would be looked upon favourably in the next election. The Lib Dems would be the Party that got real benefits for people and stopped the DUP having too much influence on the UK…
I’m certain there are a million reason not to do the above, but I fear a further loss in perceived relevance if nothing is done. Labour want another election now and if nothing is done to improve th perception of the Lib Dems before it happens I fear shrinkage of MP numbers is the only likely outcome.
Completely agree with your theme, Gordon, but not with your ensuing argument. For one thing, a group can’t negotiate. The best we can hope for is a consultative inter-party group, which others in our and other parties are indeed asking for.
You focus helpfully on the most sought-for but conflicting needs, for unfettered access to the single market, the ability to make our own trade deals, and an end to freedom of movement, and say that it is fantasy to suppose these can all be achieved. However, your conclusion is that a future referendum should give voters ‘a clear choice between a hard Brexit (with no EU deal), and the best deal that a cross-party team has been able to achieve (probably involving EEA or customs union membership’. With respect, I see no clear choice there. My conclusion is the same as our party’s: if indeed it proves impossible to achieve all the desirable ends, we should offer the public a second referendum with a choice of accepting some undesirable ends OR of rejecting Brexit.
Translated into English this article states :
“The Nation needs The Liberal Democrats to complete their ordained Role as a Human Sacrifice.”
After The Coalition we should ask a grateful Nation for another thrashing ?
I just cant think of a rude enough response to this.
Tim has already called for a Joint Cabinet Committee involving All Parties to oversee The Brexit Negotiations, I wish he hadnt, we cant risk even the whiff of Coalition again.
We should respond to the “Emerging Consensus” for a Soft Brexit by putting clear Blue & Gold water between us & the Other Parties. We should call for Brexit to be dropped altogether.
Welcome cross-party discussions outside formal agreements, but the idea of proposing a referendum between a hard and soft brexit in cohorts with the government is madness – the libs would be finished. This was not the lesson of the election – the first message was an anti-austerity one and secondly against a hard brexit or at least no firm support. Its referendums that people don’t like – ask the scots nats, the remaining bit is likely to fluctuate depending on how the negotiations and economy go, which wont go well. Stick to the cause of remaining and advocate it – it will look a more tempting option in 2018.
What such a referendum can do, though, is present voters with a clear choice between a hard Brexit (with no EU deal) and the best deal that a cross-party team has been able to achieve (probably involving EEA or customs union membership).
On the face of it, that means a choice between leaving the EU, or staying in it with no influence whatsoever over the rules it imposes on us. Under such circumstances, the option of the status quo might start looking more attractive. Given what has happened in the last two years of British politics, it would be very brave to make certain pronouncements about the next two.
I agree with Paul. Any involvement in the stupidity that is Brexit will be a membership-card-tearing-up moment for me.
Agree with Paul. Advocating a soft Brexit is like supporting a soft bank robbery where less money is taken. Brexit is a crime, like Macron said. No virtue in pursuing lesser crimes. Best go straight.
If we made a mistake on the election it was not stating our total opposition to Brexit and our determination to stay in the EU as the best thing for our country. We watered down that message and suffered accordingly because we didn’t convince remainers, many of whom voted for Hard Brexit Labour in the futile hope that Corbyn didn’t really mean it.
It would be utter folly to take any responsibility for Brexit. If Labour were crazy enough to join the Tories in negotiating Brexit, it’d be an enormous political opportunity.
We need to go for a soft brexit and an EU-wide concession on free movement. Anything else will be fragile and anger too many people.
We also need to kill the myth that the Lib Dems did badly because the party wasn’t pro-EU enough. There seems to be two post election narratives:
1. We need to cancel brexit without a referendum.
2. We need to embrace soft-brexit.
I see little support for a 2nd referendum of any kind, even on this site.
Parliament cannot bind its successors, and neither can a referendum bind a parliament elected later.
If there is still a remain majority in the Commons (is there?) then it is up to those MPs to make it clear somehow that there is a basis for a multipartisan government with the confidence of the House. Sort of Clarke, Benn, Cable.
There is still a role for Liberal Democrats – the one we were good at before Brexit consumed all our energies. Developing policies for the economy, hoiusing, health and social care, education and all the other issues which are the primary concern of the vast majority of the electorate – and also those coming up. We had a brilliant programme for governing this country which has been over-shadowed by a referendum now a year old and past its sell by date. I am a firm believer in the EU, but what we need now is not how to remain or to get back in, but what we Liberal Democrats over the coming months and will do once we have left. Time to be grown up and move on. The country voted for the message of hope from Labour. I could agree with a lot in their manifesto but it was an economic car-crash. There are going to be a lot of disillusioned voters out there in the next few years.
I cannot agree more with Cllr Ron Tindall. The Brexit issue drowned out the great policies the Liberal Democrats have on the economy.
I can see Brexiters trying to set up a ‘nobody’s fault narrative’, when it becomes clear how damaging and ill conceived Brexit is. The story will be that everyone accepted it, the problems were much bigger than anyone had anticipated.
Ron Tindall (is that ex Bermondsey agent Ron?):
Time to be grown up
Brexit is the very antithesis of ‘grown up’ and with Brexit there can be no “brilliant programme for governing”. If Brexit could go away by ignoring it, I might agree with you, but putting your head under a blanket and hoping reality will go away is kids’ stuff. What policy for health and social care faces up to an increasing loss of personnel?
The logic of a ‘hard’ Brexit is long term, severe economic damage; the logic of a ‘soft’, stay in the Single Market and continue with cooperation on geo-political issues, Brexit is that it would be better to be a leading voice in the room, i.e. no Brexit at all.
With the Leave campaign facing possible prosecution for electoral fraud, anyone collaborating with Brexit negotiations is essentially aiding and abetting a felony. Clear opposition to Brexit in any shape or form is the Lib Dem’s unique selling point. let us not be the ones who sit on the fence, like labour. The moral choice is clear.
Martin,
The last election was the personification of reality denied. The country collectively put it’s head under the blanket and chanted there is no elephant in the room. Well if you vote Labour to stop Brexit or even get a soft Brexit you’re wrong and if you thought the Tories could get a good Brexit you’re wrong too. Nelly is dancing at the end of it Nelly might be happy but we will be battered, bruised but hopefully so much wiser. So thank you very much for you’re kind offer to come dancing with Nelly, but thanks very much I’ll give it a miss and mind you look out for those feet, tusks and trunk they can cause you a nasty injury.
I can only add my voice to the sentiment above. Brexit is not the the answer to the problems giving rise to the Leave vote. To the last, I will never stop fighting to save my country from this Brexit vandalism and ultimately national humiliation and diminution.
“Brexit is the very antithesis of ‘grown up’ and with Brexit there can be no “brilliant programme for governing”.”
Exactly this.
I agree fully with John King, Mick Taylor and Martin.
We already watered down our commitment to brexit too far in the manifesto. Any acceptance of brexit in any form is a monumentally bad idea, and will doom us as a party. I cannot believe that Tim is throwing away our USP like this.
“We should respond to the “Emerging Consensus” for a Soft Brexit by putting clear Blue & Gold water between us & the Other Parties. We should call for Brexit to be dropped altogether.”
Precisely this, Paul Barker, thank you.
I’m very sorry,Jennie, but I don’t think anybody is listening to your favourite USP. My view is that Tim is very sensibly and realistically listening to the public mood. We’re on the brink of being an obscure sect not a major political party.
As Ben Andrew writes in an article above, “Compared with austerity and the decline of our public services, Brexit seemed like a side show. Corbyn’s vision was much more in line with the public mood – and he gained momentum at our expense”.
The Corbyn speech in Hebden Bridge was an eye opener – and he said many of the things we should have been saying. I’m really sad about this, but I’m afraid the days when my old friend David Shutt could poll over 16,000 votes (30%) in Calder Valley are long gone. I believe Janet got about 3% this time. You should ask yourself why.
The real issues are about inequality in a very unfair society. Go and watch ‘Daniel Blake’. We are still being punished for the failure to respond to all of that, and indeed we worsened it in Coalition…… If we don’t respond now, then it really is Kaput.
I’m not going to post any more for a day or two………… the London fire business is appalling, and having seen the Jo Cox documentary last night, I’m still grieving for poor dear Jo and think a bit of quiet thinking is in order just now.
Just when public sentiment seems to be turning in favour of the EU, we have a string of people on Lib Dem voice saying we should abandon our anti Brexit stance. It is typical of our party to keep our European credentials under wraps for fear the EU is toxic. We fought EU elections for years without ever mentioning the EU. Madness (and it never did us any good). Now people advocate us joining with the Brexit idiots to negotiate what we know will be a disaster for our country. IF Tim does take us down that road then. I will not support him as leader and will campaign for a candidate who will continue to oppose this suicidal nonsense. We got hammered for the coalition. If we join in this nonsense we will be destroyed.
“The real issues are about inequality in a very unfair society.”
And destroying jobs, destroying tax revenue to pay for the welfare state at precisely the same time unemployment and inflation both go up, and devoting huge amounts of government time and resources to a stupid project of the Tory fringe, all of which are inevitable consequences of Brexit, can only make that inequality worse. It’s *because* we care about that that we care about Brexit.
Whatever we may say I reckon we owe Mrs May a great depth of gratitude. Simply for calling the election. We may have made as bad a campaign as the Conservatives but at the end of it there now is the prospect of Brexit ( I hate that word), not happening at all.
When all seemed lost Mrs May made the decision that may be seen as inadvertently saving the future of this country. One can now say that it is more than possible that common sense will prevail.
“at the end of it there now is the prospect of Brexit ( I hate that word), not happening at all.”
Not if even we are talking about “owning” it, “the will of the people”, and “a Brexit that works for the 100%” there isn’t, We need to oppose the Quitlings, not join them.
“Quitlings” !!! – He, he, – is that your invention?
I can’t remember if it was me or Sarah Brown (Cambridge) who came up with that one. We’ve both been using it around the same length of time.
As I understand it, the EU position is that we cannot stay in the single market without accepting freedom of movement and paying contributions and we cannot stay in the Customs Union if we want to negotiate our own free trade deals with the rest of the world.
I’m not quite clear just how the term soft and hard Brexit covers these options.
There’s actually three kinds of Brexit. Staying in the single market (complete with freedom of movement) and the customs union. Staying in the customs union only. Or leaving both entirely.
So maybe we should be talking about soft, medium, and hard ?