In the run-up to Autumn Conference in Bournemouth, we’ll be looking ahead to examine the highlights in the debating hall, the fringe and training rooms. You can find the papers here. You can find all the posts in the series here.
Willie Rennie has finally written a frank and fascinating assessment of the flaws in the Better Together campaign. He draws a number of important conclusions which need to be learned if the EU referendum is not going to fall foul of the pitfalls that beset not only Better Together but in starker and disastrous form the incompetent Yes To AV campaign in 2011. All the articles are well worth a read.
One conclusion about Better Together that others have drawn but not Willie is that lumping in the Lib Dem referendum effort solely with Better Together meant eclipsing the work of the Campbell Commission on Home Rule which answered the calls for further devolution in a way Better Together completely failed to address. From hearing some of the many conversations in Scotland last year it was evident this was a hindrance, and it was only in the final stages of that campaign that high-profile interventions from the likes of the late Charles Kennedy had an impact.
So when Liberal Democrats in Bournemouth next week debate Europe and the EU Referendum, what are we to do?
The party is preparing for this, and so I have authored a modest amendment designed to give us the flexibility denied us in the two most recent referendums. It simply calls for ‘a dual approach in which Liberal Democrats work with and in parallel to’ the main referendum campaign: not to duplicate it, but to be able to motivate our members old and new, and give those at the top of the party the support to speak out were the main ‘In’ campaign to fall into the cul-de-sacs inhabited by Better Together and Yes To AV.
Our effort whenever the referendum comes should still be collegiate, pluralist and collaborative; but this different approach would show that we have learnt lessons from previous campaigns, and are prepared to lead when it matters and when it counts.
* Gareth Epps is a member of FPC and FCC, a member of the Fair Deal for your Local campaign coalition committee and is an active member of Britain’s largest consumer campaign, CAMRA. He claims to be marginally better at Aunt Sally than David Cameron, whom he stood against in Witney in 2001.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
ALS, MND - is this another disease where biohacking has potential?
Weekly Road Report - West End Ward #dundeewestend
Care homes under threat after Labour policy change
Three less conventional ways of looking at who supports Reform - The Week in Polls
Layla Moran on Gaza: "Starvation shouldn't be a weapon of war"
Mick Taylor
Jenny Barnes
Peter Martin
Daniel Stylianou
Frank O'Kelly
23 Comments
The Lib Dems need to learn from the past. Under no circumstances should Nick Clegg be allowed near the campaign as any input will hinder the goal.
Of course, find some room to allow a Lib Dem spin to be put on a campaign to remain in the EU. However, this should not become a vanity project for any organisation. We should certainly not be trying to go it alone, as UKIP appears to be doing on the other side. The problem with the Better Together campaign was that it concentrated too much on the economic and not enough on the heart. It didn’t seem to stop the rise in the Yes campaign as many people just were not listening to the facts.
If the Lib Dem contribution is based on Nick Clegg’s tactics in his debates with Nigel Farage with such ‘gems’ as “The Lib Dems are the party of IN, UKIP is the party of PutIN” and, in answer to the question of how he saw the EU in ten years time, “About the same”
Let’s have less of the throw away idealism and more of a practical awareness of how Europe can work for the majority of its people rather than for the political and business elites. Most of us who voted to stay in the Common Market in the last referendum voted for just that. Despite what the late Ted Heath said shortly before his death, we didn’t think we were signing up for a fully fledged European state.
John Marriott
Well, either I looked at things a bit deeper than your average, or I made significant mistakes, but I was well aware that the choice in the 1975 referendum was between a political union with the EEC or a purely economic partnership by reverting to EFTA. When I voted Yes, I understood and supported that. I know that many elements in the Whitehall establishment had always from the very start opposed the idea that we might say anything political to the British people, and I am sure that was in evidence then. The Nick Clegg approach that you rightly pour scorn on, no doubt had much advice from that source! So when you wrote your final sentence, that sounds straight out of the David Cameron “renegotiation” playbook, accepting UKIP / Tory Europhobe arguments. If you have a somewhat different argument / analysis, please could you make it a bit more clearly?
Tim,
I’m glad that you were better informed about the future destination of the European project than many people I have spoken to since. Weren’t we already members of EFTA, by the way? I’m gratified, however, that you appear to agree with me about Nick Clegg’s performance. As regards my final sentence, I am pretty certain that, if we go down the political union/European Super State route and fail to acknowledge the concerns a significant number of people have regarding the apparent direction of travel of the EU we will struggle to win the argument.
What really genuinely worries me is that an over zealous advocacy of the EU on the side of further integration from one party or organisation could be damagingly counterproductive. Is that any clearer?
@John Marriott
” Weren’t we already members of EFTA, by the way?”
You mean that rump organisation with 4 remaining members – Norway, Iceland, Switzerland and Leichtenstein?
Judging by Umunna,s statement about his discussion with Corbyn, we cant be certain that Labour will be campaigning for The UK to stay in. If we see the Labour Leader campaigning for Brexit alongside UKIP, a chunk of The Tories & most of the Papers this could be an even tougher fight than we expected.
One of the myths peddled by anti-EU campaigners is that the British people only signed up to a “common market” not any kind of political union. In fact, the very first line of the EEC Treaty was as follows:
“Determined to lay the foundations of an ever-closer union among the people’s of Europe.”
I remember during the 1975 referendum campaign that the “No” side hammered away on this point. So people were well aware of what they were voting for. It was Mrs Thatcher who started rewriting the story when she turned against European integration and this falsehood of Britain having somehow been deceived is now, sadly, accepted wisdom in this country. If David Cameron negotiates a British opt out from “ever closer union” he should have the grace to admit that we have changed our minds. I can’t see that happening though. Ah perfidious Albion!
Whoever is allowing that rag bag of egoists to form the ‘IN’ campaign to take control of the direction (and the state money!) of this campaign? Their combined output to date appears to be more intellectually self-stimulatory than doing anything to capture the imagination of Britain.
‘AV Yes’ revisited, anyone? 🙁
@ Simon – And yet the government told the british electorate something different:
http://www.harvard-digital.co.uk/euro/pamphlet.htm
“No important new policy can be decided in Brussels or anywhere else without the consent of a British Minister answerable to a British Government and British Parliament.
The top decision-making body in the Market is the Council of Ministers, which is composed of senior Ministers representing each of the nine member governments.
It is the Council of Ministers, and not the market’s officials, who take the important decisions. These decisions can be taken only if all the members of the Council agree. The Minister representing Britain can veto any proposal for a new law or a new tax if he considers it to be against British interests. Ministers from the other Governments have the same right to veto.
All the nine member countries also agree that any changes or additions to the Market Treaties must be acceptable to their own Governments and Parliaments.
Remember: All the other countries in the Market today enjoy, like us, democratically elected Governments answerable to their own Parliaments and their own voters. They do not want to weaken their Parliaments any more than we would.””
Simon,
In the run up to the vote the Wilson government issued two booklets, one for staying in , one for coming out (I still have mine tucked away somewhere). I seem to recall that the argument for staying lent heavily on the economics and the avoidance of future wars; but I might get wrong. However, staying in gave us a lifeline with 25% inflation and economic stagnation, sugar rationing etc. until the benefits of North Sea oil kicked in. The quote from the Treaty (of Rome?)is frankly ambiguous. ‘Union’ can mean various things, like a Customs Union, for example. I wonder how many people have taken the trouble to read it in its entirety?
As someone who had studied and worked in both France and Germany In the 1960s and 70s I was fully aware of the economic benefits of being part of a bigger ‘club’ but that was all. I think that would apply to the majority of citizens of a club, that now needs radical reform if it is to survive the challenges it faces, both economic and political.
Believe me, if we go into the campaign telling people that they were not smart enough to have known what they were signing up for 40 years ago, we will not win over many, let alone all those millions of people who were either too young to vote or not yet born at the time of the last referendum.
Reason will play little part in the referendum…Much of the ‘popular’ media is anti and there will be much about ‘faceless bureaucrats’, ‘straight bananas’, ‘terrorist apologists’ and little on facts…
Sadly an electorate who thought ‘details’ of a bacon sandwich was more important than details of £13 billion in welfare cuts may well buy into the scare tactics…
As someone who was not born in 1975 I can tell you that I absolutely do not care what people did or didn’t know in the last referendum. If this is the kind of debate we’re going to have during the campaign then we’ve already lost. We need to having a debate about now, not then.
@ paul barker,
Who on earth goes into negotiations showing that they intend to fall in with the ‘other side’ whatever?
Jeremy Corbyn seems genuinely eurosceptic, which puts him in a strong position around the table , if indeed, the rest of the EU countries wish us to remain.
@Tim13 & John Marriott
You may be interested in this:
http://www.harvard-digital.co.uk/euro/pamphlet.htm
With regard to the comment from John and many others about people only voting for a Common Market, there are 2 items that may explain why:
1. Page 5
The aims of the Common Market are:
To bring together the peoples of Europe.
To raise living standards and improve working conditions.
To promote growth and boost world trade.
To help the poorest regions of Europe and the rest of the world.
To help maintain peace and freedom.
2 Pages 8/9
There was a threat to employment in Britain from the movement in the Common Market towards an Economic & Monetary Union. This could have forced us to accept fixed exchange rates for the pound, restricting industrial growth and putting jobs at risk. This threat has been removed.
I wasn’t old enough to vote on this in 1975, so I’ve never really bothered reading up much on the campaign literature. However, having just done a quick scan of this document, I can’t see much about political union.
I am puzzled at references to 1975, which I wasn’t around for and wasn’t the subject of my article. I tend to take the same view as James Gane, other than that there are huge lessons to be learned from what did not work for both Yes to AV and Better Together.
I do agree with John Marriott about the bungled Clegg/Farage points and the failure to get across the need to reform the EU, from a strong position where our partners listen to us – as opposed to the Cameron position where they laugh at him.
@Gareth Epps
“I am puzzled at references to 1975…”
Perhaps that is a lesson in itself, the need to be truthful if you don’t want to spend another 35 years going over the same points again? Plus of course the speed of mass communication now means that any anomalies are going to highlighted very quickly.
GE makes a very valid point imv on the need for a semi-detached approach by LDs to the referendum and the parallel with BT in Scotland.
I think William Rennie hits the nail on the head in saying that the Liberal Democrats, Labour and the Conservatives have different visions for the Union. In the case of the EU Referendum, this problem does not arise. The Conservatives are obviously split on the issue. Labour have already announced that they will have their own pro-EU campaign, but are also likely to split on the issue.
In areas like Berkshire, where the European Movement doesn’t have a branch, it is likely that the Liberal Democrats will need to take a leading role in the pro-EU Campaign.
What worries me is that, if Richard Sangster is correct, the ‘Remain’ campaign will be about as organised as the ‘Yes to AV’ campaign was – and we all know what a disaster that turned out to be!
Nonconformistradical 13th Sep ’15 – 9:40pm The UK left EFTA when it joined the EEC (now called EU) so did Denmark.
An important part of the UK’s trade is with the Republic of Ireland, which joined at the same time as us.
EFTA is starting to negotiate with Georgia, famous for its wines, until Gorbachev cracked down on drunkeness at work, mainly caused by vodka.
Richard Sangster 14th Sep ’15 – 3:53pm Labour’s Yes to EU campaign depends on the outcome of the UK government’s negotiations. IF DC tries to negotiate away things that some employers dislike he would undermine his own campaign. Lots of jobs depend on the outcome. If the UK become semi-detached from the continent the gravity of the deals would be with them.
The ‘remain’ campaign may have received a boost, as more countries show that they can act unilaterally e.g. the Schengen Agreement, while remaining within the European Union.
Apparently the departures from Schengen are allowed if temporary, but will they be?