The following quote from Tim Farron’s recently published plan worried me slightly: “We demand that the British people should have their say on the final deal in a referendum.”, the idea being to have a referendum at the end of the 2 year negotiation period dictated by Article 50.
On paper, this sounds great.
I am however afraid this is not feasible because no-one actually knows for sure whether we can pull out of the Article 50 process once it is started, even if some reputable sources ‘think’ it is possible. The ‘think’ part must not be ignored. We do not want to find out when it’s too late. It is hence vital that we check and get any possible assurance from the other 27 EU states, in writing, before we trigger A50.
Additionally, the Article 50 process doesn’t cover much. Don’t forget that it has a time limit. Whatever is not covered will be left to a default position, and that is likely to be costly. Things that will be discussed involve balance of payments, involvement in shared cooperation projects, the status of EU residents here and British residents in the other 27 states. It is pretty unlikely talks will treat trade in detail as these take 5 to 8 years if not more, and that is ONLY if the government has made up its mind (or extinguished its internal feuds) about being in the single market.
Of course we want to be in the single market, but then again we Lib Dems didn’t want to leave the EU in the first place.
The conclusion of this is that any referendum at the end of the 2 year Article 50 period would be meaningless, because there would be little to vote on: the real deal would be clearer 5-8 years later, once we’re truly out of the EU, and the choice then would only be between whatever dodgy deal we’d have struck with any country taking advantage of our despair, and nothing in the form of a default WTO position. For this and the fact that we probably won’t be able to pull out of our notice period, Tim’s plan is unfeasible.
So what are we left with? Where is the hope? Well, the answers are ‘not much’ and ‘in us’.
We must fight really hard for the parliament to have a vote on whether or not we should invoke Article 50. We must force Theresa May to ‘show her hand’, because she is playing poker with our assets, our future. Mostly we must force the government to choose whether or not they want to be in the single market. We must be relentless about highlighting the lies of the referendum campaign, the incompetence of the brexit leaders and the massive logic flaws in brexit rhetoric.
The opposition in parliament is currently nonexistent, so maybe creating a pro-eu parliamentary group might be an idea to get Lib Dems, SNP, Greens, some Tories maybe, some NI MPs and hopefully most of Labour, might be a way to get some proper checking done on this government, and some media exposure as well. We must make sure any crazy plan is costed and exposed for the folly it is. This is a critical juncture in history and we can’t sit still!
Because the referendum vote cannot be undone by wiping it away, our only hope is to ensure brexit is seen for what it is – that is, a disaster – and get people to vote again, in a new referendum. Before Article 50 is invoked of course. Indeed, once that demon is released, putting it back in its box may take decades, decades of low growth, poverty for many, and loss of opportunities for our children.
* Thibault Jamme is a web developer currently working for an environmental charity in Surrey
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
A medieval street at the heart of Swansea's social life
Latest voting intention and leadership ratings opinion polls
More missing scientists: Remembering the GEC-Marconi deaths panic of the late Eighties
Makerfield: we can breathe again.
John Bicknell
expats
Andrew Tampion
David Le Grice
nigel hunter
50 Comments
But what possible reason could there be for demanding another referendum, before article 50 is triggered ? The only reason we could give, would be that we didn’t like the result of the first one, and want to keep trying until we get the “right” result. This would make us look undemocratic and ridiculous
Can you honestly imagine the EU being that nasty that they’d deny us a referendum on the final terms of withdrawal? I just can’t see it personally, what democratic grounds would they have to deny us of this? Do they want us gone that bad?
Sure, stopping this whole ghastly mess before then would be great, but if that’s not possible, then don’t give up hope.
We cannot wait 5-8 years after leaving before having a second referendum, because that would mean having to rejoin the EU under the terms of Article 49. The EU could quite legitimately demand that we join the Eurozone and the Schengen area and I doubt that we would get any rebate.
The demand that Parliament should have a say in invoking Article 50 is right, but we cannot ignore the democratically-expressed will of the people, just because they didn’t agree with us. I am with Tim on this; Parliament should write into the approval to invoke Article 50 a binding referendum on the outcome with the two options to remain in the EU on our present terms or leave on the terms agreed. While we won’t know the full economic consequences, we will know if we are still in the single market or not by the end of the negotiations.
Parliament is sovereign in this country and the answer to brexit is to get rid of this government and get one that will stop it happening.
Matt, if it were up to the EU in some corporate sense, you are probably right. If it comes down to a decision that has to be agreed by all 27 remaining members, I would be less confident.
The problem is that the process is unclear, and I think we need that clarity before invoking article 50. Parliament has a duty to ensure that clarity before allowing A50 to go ahead.
If there was another referendum before invoking article 50 the leave side would win by a country mile. Look at the last pro-EU protests – I’ve seen more people at a non-league football match. The leave side haven’t changed their minds and many on the remain side have accepted the fact that we are leaving. Better to put your efforts into getting a good brexit deal for the UK, because whether the Lib Dems like it or not – and I voted remain – we will be leaving.
@ Joe Otten I agree with you on this, Joe.
Part of the trouble is that although we know there are adverse effects of Brexit the sky doesn’t feel as if it has fallen in yet. The only moan I have heard from a Brexit voter was that they got less Euros to the pound on holiday recently and regretted their vote but still had the same feeling about the EU. Otherwise nothing much seemed to have impinged outside the chattering classes as yet.
What would help – through your good offices with your local Member – would be a bit more urgency and appearance of activity in the Commons on any Brexit debate. John Pugh looked awfully lonely during Davis’s statement.
Article 50 allows to extend the negotiating phase over 2 years – but only if ALL 27 other member states unanimously agree. So, there is a risk that some states will – for whatever reason – not want to do that. But it is possible.
However, once the phase is over, the UK drops out of the EU, no matter if there is a result or not. That is made very clear by article 50. Also, don’t forget that whatever deal is to be made need to be ratified by a majority of the EU countries and the EU parliament as well. These things all can take some time, so personally I doubt that there will be a treaty in place when the UK drops out. Which leaves me wondering how both sides will handle the sudden lack of rules in many areas of daily / business live.
The House of Lords investigated the whole area of Article 50 and concluded that we could withdraw an article 50 application at any stage before finally leaving the EU. In any event, any agreement under article 50 requires all sorts of agreements by the council of ministers, the parliament and all 27 states. It would be quite legitimate once a deal has been thrashed out to say to our EU colleagues ” we have to get parliamentary approval for this before we sign off on it and we intend to have a speedy referendum as well”. [Though actually, since parliament is sovereign the actual final decision is theirs]
During the Brexit process how would the UK vote on the suspension or expulsion of Hungary?
Lord Ashcroft has done focus groups and published the results in the Daily Telegraph. He concludes that the British people know what they want, but achieving it will be a tall order.
Nick Clegg has been doing a vital job of detailed scrutiny as we can see in his Brexit challenge papers
#1 Access to the Single Market https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/libdems/pages/12502/attachments/original/1469629297/Access_to_the_Single_Market.pdf?1469629297
#2 What does Brexit mean for the UK’s Trading relationships
http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/libdems/mailings/4093/attachments/original/International_trade.pdf?1473331526
I will refuse to give up on this. It may be “clear” that the UK electorate want to exit the EU, but there is evidently no single model for the UK outside the EU that will be capable of satisfying them all. Some want a halt to immigration. Some acknowledge that immigration is essential for our economy. Meanwhile the lies of the Leave campaign are swept under the carpet and we’re told to “move on”. I for one will not move on. And to make it worse, the country seems content to permit the architect of all this madness to slink quietly off, no doubt to take his place in the House of Lords. David Cameron should be hounded into an ignominious and disgraced retirement.
We should be fighting Brexit in every way we can, in The Commons, in The Lords, in The Courts & with campaigning. We dont agree with Referenda except in cases where Democracy doesnt work, Northern Ireland for example, why should we accept the results when they are called.
I agree with Paul Barker, Mark Scott and Christopher Lyddon, we are in a fight on this and must not give up. I have never accepted the vote as the voice of ‘the British People’, as it was only 37 percent of the eligible electorate and millions abroad were not allowed to take part, also the over-16s for whom this really matters. And with such a tight call – 50:50 in real statistical terms – the overwhelming Remain vote by the under 30s certainly comes in as a second level of ‘advice’ to the Government that trumps the overall vote, again given that they are the ones who have to live with the decision. A brave pro-EU Tory leader (Cameron said he was an argued hard to stay in) would have: a) taken the advice of the referendum; b) concluded that there was no clear majority; c) reasoned that most of the younger people want to stay in; d) reaffirmed that we the Govt think it is best for Britain to Remain; and e) then said on 24 June (or the following Monday), We are staying in. This is all about Tory unity and continuing Tory hegemony over the country, which reaches back 3 or 400 years now… Which is why Cameron was not a great leader in the event, and why May will not be either. Both still fear their right wing, splitting their party, and losing power for ever…..So we must fight on….to stop Brexit happening, but even more importantly, to defeat the Tories and the resurgent Right. Second referendum, election, whatever….
For those in any doubt that a notice under Article 50 can be revoked unilaterally by the UK at any time before actual withdrawal from the EU, see Article 68 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (http://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/1_1_1969.pdf), which says in clear terms that withdrawal notices may be revoked at any time before they take effect. All member states of the EU except France and Romania have ratified the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and in any case Article 68 reflects customary international law, so that non-ratifiers are also bound.
Thanks David for the info , not a concern of mine especially, but good we know , and we need to hear from more who know stuff, the , shall we say , three stooges, are not sharing with us, because they probably do not know , or are clueless about at times !
David , perhaps , or others might let us know why EUrophile France has not signed the treaty concerned ?!
More evidence here of pointless speculation and fidgeting, I am afraid. Let us keep a close eye on things and respond to events as and when necessary. LibDems have very little power, so we must make sure we are around when influence becomes crucial. That time is not yet. Relax — keep your powder dry until it is needed!
Not sure why France hasn’t ratified (or indeed hasn’t even signed) the VCLT, but it won’t have anything to do with Article 50. Most European countries ratified in the 70s or 80s, more than twenty years before they agreed the Treaty of Lisbon, which is where the withdrawal procedure first appears in the EU treaties. In a treaty as long as the VCLT there are many possible reasons for non-ratification. For example, the US also hasn’t ratified (though it has signed), the reason apparently being that Article 18 of the VCLT says ‘A State is obliged to refrain from acts which would defeat the object and purpose of a treaty when it has signed the treaty’ but before it has ratified it. That rule would change the balance of power on treaties between the President (who signs treaties) and the Senate (which ratifies them), so the Senate will not agree to it.
The result of the referendum commits all democratic parties to leave the EU, which means invoking Article 50.
The Liberal Democrats are a democratic party. Article 50 should be invoked.
Once out of the EU, electors can vote in future for a government that might seek different terms with the EU. So everything is still possible without dishonouring the result of the referendum.
Joe Otten – ‘The problem is that the process is unclear, and I think we need that clarity before invoking article 50. Parliament has a duty to ensure that clarity before allowing A50 to go ahead.’
I agree with this, but I struggle in my head to reconcile three pretty serious issues.
1 – The EU treaties obviously envisage states exiting. That surely is the point of A50. Now we can argue about the rights and wrongs, but I’m very wary about the idea some have got that the EU should be some sort of prison. If the UK government hasn’t offered clarity, I have to ask what the EU has done in terms of its stewardship of A50, still less trying to work out its duties.
The real explosion would be France votes to leave in the middle of the UK’s A50 period. I’d rate that as unlikely, but not totally theoretical.
2 – I do worry about a second referendum. It does feel a bit like asking voters to try again until they give the right answer. More generally, the EU has a habit of losing referendums – arguably it’s become the norm – in a way that is probably not healthy. Does anyone seriously expect Hungary to endorse the EU’s handling of refugees in their referendum? Clarity is one thing but another vote is something else. Plus – worse – it just opens the door to referendum 3, 4 and so on.
3 – It’s well and good asking the LEAVE side here for clarity, but could remain really offer any clarity about the EU’s future? The EU’s open-ended nature was, I thought, one of the stronger arguments against. I assumed that the idea to end, ‘ever closer union,’ was an attempt to dilute the open-ended nature of the deal. If we’d been here in 2000 who would have foreseen TTIP, the refugee debacle and the various Euro crises? Voters are not there to gaze into a crystal ball, and both sides here seem to be asking them to do exactly that.
So yes, I agree. But that still doesn’t resolve the issues around it. Difficult
I see Ken Clarke has come out with a\ statement that the EU Referendum is not binding. See BBC news site.
Interesting reasoning from Chris Tanner above. It is worth noting that in the 2014 referendum, the under 40s voted overwhelmingly Yes to independence. If the vote by those who have to live longest with the result trumps the overall vote as described then shouldn’t it also apply in that case? Following that reasoning, the Scottish parliament would have negotiated the terms of exit from the UK already. Not even the most ardent Yesser, to the best of my knowledge, has advanced such an extreme argument. The demographic split does, nonetheless, provide optimism that freedom can yet be won in the longer term.
What the age split in the EU referendum does tell you is that failure to get younger people out to vote in the same proportions as older age groups is a big part of what lost the EU referendum in England and Wales. The official Remain campaign simply did nothing appeal to them. Far too much of it was just a load of white old tory men in suits either havering about financial things that are quite outside the daily experience of most people or saying things that didn’t ring true that had the effect of undermining the arguments that others, outside the official campaign, made against Brexit that were true. Campaigns that make better use of social media and are better designed to reach the younger demographic need time to get going but the short nature of the campaign, coming only weeks after a very important set of elections, didn’t give them sufficient time to have any impact.
So if you are somehow lucky enough to get a second shot at this, whether to prevent leaving the EU or to get back in later, the lesson is to have campaigns better designed to reach and communicate with the younger demographics and explains why it is important to their future that they take the time to vote.
David Evershead. No it doesn’t. We as a party were against leaving and we still are. We must continue to fight to stay in the EU because to do otherwise is to betray all of our policies and principles. Parliament is the supreme constitutional body in the UK and the referendum was purely advisory. Now you can argue about mandates, but the legalposition is clear.
Create a pro-eu parliamentary group with Lib Dems, SNP, Greens, some Tories maybe, some NI MPs and hopefully most of Labour.
Insist the Prime Minister seeks parliamentary approval before she invokes Article 50.
Make sure she doesn’t get it.
Make sure she can’t do it until she holds a General Election.
Fight the General Election on a single issue – Brexit – with only two candidates in each constituency, or at least only one ‘Remain’ candidate.
Win the General Election and govern with a ‘Remain’ party of National Unity.
Rebuild our position within Europe – could take 5 years.
Party politics (perhaps in a new form) for the 2025 election.
Malc wrote: “…and many on the remain side have accepted the fact that we are leaving.”
Has the United States of America accepted the fact that we are leaving? Remember, Britain leading in Europe is a foundation stone of US foreign policy. Brexit, even so-called “soft” Brexit, would blow that apart. In my lifetime, America has gone to war over a lot, lot less.
Mick Taylor wrote: “David Evershead. No it doesn’t.”
Mr Evershed does not believe in the doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty. He is arguing that monarchical power (the Royal Prerogative) should be used to circumvent Parliament. He is on the side of Charles I and James II. The reason why Theresa May wishes to avoid having to obtain Parliamentary authority for the invocation of Article 50 is because she knows perfectly well that Parliament will never give it. Ship Money revisited.
@Chris Tanner ‘the overwhelming Remain vote by the under 30s certainly comes in as a second level of ‘advice’ to the Government that trumps the overall vote, again given that they are the ones who have to live with the decision.’
If just 2% had voted the other way Remain would have won the referendum. We had an orgy of Leave lies fed by the overwhelmingly ‘Brexit’ press. Also the hapless Cameron managed to time it for the European Football Championships which stoked up nationalist sentiment so the idea that the referendum outcome reflects the settled will of the British people is laughable.
Theresa May shouldn’t show all her cards. She shouldn’t waste time, but if she reveals all her bottom lines then her bottom lines are likely what she will get. It’s like putting a bid in for a house and saying “I’m bidding 70,000, but I’m actually willing to pay 80,000, do you accept?”.
I think the EU wants us to leave and we might get a better deal by going sooner than later.
In the history of humanity hardly any country has ever stopped defending it’s interests. If the party is only half-bothered about standing up for Britain in every situation then it will continue to struggle.
@David Evershed The result of the referendum commits all democratic parties to leave the EU, which means invoking Article 50.
Err no, don’t know where you got that nonsense from. The legal status of the referendum is well known and documented; individuals may commit themselves to the result, but the referendum does not commit Parliament to leave the EU.
Also if you had been following events in Europe and the growing discontent within the EU, it isn’t to far fetched to consider that actually delaying invoking Article 50 for a few years may lead to a much better and harmonious outcome… 🙂
I am against a second referendum, if one is possible, for the following reasons.
(i) This mess is of the Tories making and it is their job to sort it out.
(ii) Any deal will involve compromise. I doubt this would be acceptable to Brexiteers.
(iii) Related to (ii), I don’t think international treaties should be subject to referenda. Historically this has not been the case. This last one was, in my opinion, about Cameron playing political games. ( This does unfortunately mean that Westminster has the freedom to poorly negotiate treaties, hence some of the problems.)
(iv) If it all goes badly wrong, the Tories can not try and shift the blame onto the electorate. The political risk for the Tories from calling the referendum remains.
I support a parliamentary vote on Article 50. No dodging responsibity for the politicos.
I assume Ken Clarke must mean the referendum is not binding in theory, which is correct as only Parliament can make laws and is sovereign but to defy the wishes of the majority who chose to vote would undermine democracy and make the people even more cynical than they already are about the political class.
Remain messed it up with their absurd exaggerations which seemed to emanate from George Osborne who has made a career out of destroying credibility by his immature and stupid talk. The other parties, paricularly the Liberal Democrats, could not make much difference as he was supposed to represent the authority of the Government.
I can see why Farron is still pushing this as if it all goes wrong he can say I told you so and if it does not there is just about time to play it down before the next election but it has had not the slightest effect on the poll ratings which seem to have dropped again which it should not have done if all the 48% were rock solid. Clearly they are not and most have accepted the vote.
“Can you honestly imagine the EU being that nasty that they’d deny us a referendum on the final terms of withdrawal? I just can’t see it personally, what democratic grounds would they have to deny us of this? Do they want us gone that bad?”
There are other comments floating around like this one. The thing is, both the EU and UK will start preparing for Brexit by the end of 2017. Building infrastructure, hiring people, developing processes etc. Companies will have judged the end deal as well and will be adapting. The costs will run in the tens of billions, in addition to the damage done by uncertainty itself. The idea that at the end of two torturous years the UK could just up and go “never mind” is insane. At the very least the EU will have the right to demand restitution.
But it isn’t just the EU that would have suffered. While the UK negotiates with the EU on the termination of the treaties and (on the side) about a future relationship, the UK will also be negotiating with all WTO members, in a desperate bid to avoid the situation where the UK is either out of the WTO or trading at “out-of-quota” tariffs. It will have asked those countries to commit resources to those talks and pushed them really hard. Most of those countries will see a huge opportunity there, so they will be happy to do so. Then suddenly halting the process will really tick them off.
The UK would be an outcast. I strongly suspect that the process will not be stoppable. It’s one of those things where once you started it, you just have to finish it, even if you know early on that it’s not going to end well.
@David Howarth
“… in any case Article 68 reflects customary international law, so that non-ratifiers are also bound.”
I would be interested to know why you think that this is the case. If Customary Law basically boils down to “… customary international law can be discerned by a widespread repetition by States of similar international acts over time”, then surely lots of states would have had to agree to letting another state change it’s mind about revoking a treaty. Has that been the case?
That’s not the only way to discern customary international law. Another way is to look at states’ behaviour in other contexts, including negotiating and voting on treaties (see the Namibia Case at para 94). For example, in the case of article 68, the no state voted against it or proposed an amendment to it or even made a comment about it. All that can be taken as evidence that the rule in article 68 is a taken-for-granted background rule of international law. There’s also the point made by the ILC itself that the rule in article 68 is implicit in the situation in which there is a gap in time between notification and effect, otherwise there would be no point in having a gap, so that the customary character of article 68 follows from the undoubted customary character of article 65(1) on notification. (See on all of this e.g. Antonios Tzanakopoulos, ‘Article 68′ in Olivier Corten and Pierre Klein, THE VIENNA CONVENTIONS ON THE LAW OF TREATIES – A COMMENTARY’ (Cambridge, Cambridge Univ Press, 2011) pp. 1564-1568).
@nvelope2003 I assume Ken Clarke must mean the referendum is not binding in theory
No he is very clear, it isn’t binding in practice.
But many are missing the big picture, the government has decided to walk a tight-rope, on the one hand it has to make the Brexit snake-oil salesmen understand that they have to deliver a credible strategy and plan, as it is their heads on the line. It also has to have plan B, namely what to do if (or when) the Brexit leaders deliver something that is untenable, namely a credible return to as we were. On the other hand the government has to present a clear negotiating stance to the EU commission, namely we are serious about Brexit and getting a good deal for the UK, but if the deal doesn’t stand up we will be staying…
So it is important to remind people that whilst the government is serious about making plans for Brexit, so is our on-going membership of the EU, which we will only terminate if the plans are found to be in our best interests…
To pretend that the referendum is somehow binding, only further weakens the UK’s negotiating position with the EU, both on exit from the EU and on any application to join the EFTA or EEA.
@Roland – “No he is very clear, it isn’t binding in practice.” – then why did DC resign? All the best and peace.
@David Howarth
Thanks
The Lib Dems are losing the plot. Are they going to tell Leave voters `sorry we can’t Leave due to international law`. If it proves so difficult to leave a political union then it begs the question of the nature of the relationship with that union and thus affirm the decision that they made. It makes them think that the Liberal elite don’t understand getting the best deal.
If you want to go down this route feel free. Do you want to lose half your GE votes? Do you want to have riots on your hands and a huge increase in the UKIP vote?
Leave voters want us to strike a deal that is commensurate with our hard and soft powers. That means `wanting something difficult to achieve yet is achievable`. It’s about smashing orthodoxies and changing realities. I thought that was the LIb Dems were about?
“riots on your hands” is this a threat? Are you saying political violence (TERRORISM) is legitimate? That governments should do whatever is supported by the interest group that makes the most effective threat to resort to violence?
I voted to remain. I will vote to continue in the EU if there is a second referendum. I will support a second referendum before Brexit….. BUT…..
…. BUT ……There is a danger the party becomes a one trick pony.
The party must develop a whole range of up to date radical realistic policies across the whole of the spectrum of issues between now and 2020 if it is not to disappear into the dustbin of history. We need to find a voice for up to date Keynesian economics and Beveridge social welfare, tackle the over mighty multinational corporations, resurrect local government …. the list goes on.
If we’ve nothing to say except for one issue, there will be nobody there to listen.
I see Tim’s position, like this.
The referendum has highlighted that a small majority of people want us to leave the EU, because they think we will be better off outside it. So government is duty bound to start the process of negotiating our exit and setting the scene for our future relationship with the EU. However, when it becomes clearer what that relationship is likely to be, then that should be debated in Parliament. A referendum is seen as necessary in order to get a picture of the views of the people; if Parliament did not take those views into account then we could be in a dangerous position internally.
Many people still want to leave the EU because at the moment they are nowhere near seeing the real consequences and stand no chance of persuading them to change their mind.
I would also raise the question about the terms of a referendum, both the wording and whether (as we should have done in June) we should require a two thirds majority if the wording is one simple question.
As things stand there will be no re-run of the referendum…believing that there will be is the road to nowhere…
A far better strategy is to attack the Tories on things that can be achieved…A fairer society, and all that entails, from employment practices, social services (I dislike the word ‘welfare’) NHS funding, etc, etc…..Although, following our record in government, we will be viewed with distrust by the media and public….
Following the ‘Brexit’ promises the public will expect a ‘change for the better’ and, although the government is diverting attention with ‘grammar schools’, etc., when NHS and social care problems begin to seriously affect the country, there will be a backlash….
@ expats “social services and employment practices”
Spot on expats. As a former local authority Cabinet Member for social work I can confirm the system faces a crisis and is very fragile. Brexit will increase the fragility of these services.
To take an example, home care support for the elderly depends greatly on low paid care workers on the most minimum of minimum wages – and many of them from the poorer parts of the EU.
Not only is it morally right that such care support in elderly people’s own familiar home surroundings be provided, but the alternative of going into residential care is infinitely more costly and it reduces pressure on the Health Service.
The question of better pay for such carers and support for the elderly in their own homes should be an issue the party should study in depth and produce a proper policy accordingly. Not only will this be the right thing to do, but it will resonate with the wider community
@Leave the EU “then why did DC resign?” – short answer: he realised he was no Margaret Thatcher and had the guts to admit it…
Because dealing with Brexit is going to take a strong and thick skinned person, to handle: the Conservative party internal politic’s, the politics of the Common’s, the media and the electorate. With hindsight we can see that David did the right thing, if he had immediately discounted the result he would have received a mauling; that wouldn’t stop until post 2020… The best thing he could do, was to walk away and force the Brexit supporting Conservative MP’s to face up to the reality and sort out the mess they help to create. Ie. parenting 101: get the children to do the tidying up so that they begin to learn to take responsibility for the mess arising from their own actions…
David Raw 14th Sep ’16 – 12:01pm…………..
To take an example, home care support for the elderly depends greatly on low paid care workers on the most minimum of minimum wages – and many of them from the poorer parts of the EU……..
Guardian today…”Elderly Britons bearing brunt of cuts to social care, report warns”…
To quote Noel Coward – “There Are Bad Times Just Around The Corner” …..
Mick Taylor, Sesenco and Roland.
As I said above, the outcome of the referendum vote does commit parties to implement the people’s decision in the referendum.
There is no legal requirement on parliament to implement the result but the MPs are members of the political parties that did commit themselves to the outcome in advance of the vote.
The Lib Dems must accept that the UK voted Leave. Yes, we voted for Departure. If there was any second referendum it must accept this reality. The choice would be a Hard Brexit option (whatever that is) and a Soft Brexit option ie membership of EEA/Single Market.
If a return to the EU is on any second ballot paper – Leave will win, easily. For we’s have to accept the Single Currency.
Single Market and EEA, yes. Single Currency and EU, no.
@David Evershed & John B – I think there isn’t going to be a choice between ‘hard’ or ‘soft’ because “Brexit means Brexit” ie. whatever the government decides. Voted Leave and don’t like the governments Brexit plan? sorry but you voted for ‘Brexit’…
I think also that Paul Young (https://www.libdemvoice.org/party-members-massively-endorse-farrons-call-for-referendum-on-brexit-deal-51865.html#comment-416111 ) puts his finger on a real problem, namely the referendum was all about emotion and not reason:
“We also need to remember that we need to change the opinion of more than a million Leave voters to win. They are likely to vote for whatever deal there is rather than stay in, and will be even more adamant and entrenched if faced with yet another vote. Another referendum is also likely to fire passions higher and further deepen the divisions in British society that the first referendum exposed.”
Which means, as I indicated, whatever the government’s plan ultimately are, it is going to take a strong and thick skinned administration to implement them… And whilst I fully support the concept of a second referendum, I suspect from recent experience, we don’t really want a second referendum…
@Roland
We probably won’t get a second referendum. But if we do, it should be Soft v Hard Brexit
To have a referendum – which includes returning to the EU will simply mean we’ll get a Hard Brexit.
I read this evening senior Lib Dems are split with Farron and Clegg wanting another EU vote – and Cable, Lamb etc saying it disrespects voters.