The party seems to be getting into a strange situation about the European Union, and it seems confused as well.
On the one hand it is calling for a special customs union with the EU, when there’s a perfectly good one already available – one we were in for over 40 years – and on the other it’s castigating Labour for not having the courage to join the Single Market and the Customs Union, but not, apparently, seeking for the UK to join them.
Serious observers of the state of the British Economy vis-à-vis the EU know that the only way to start to make up the serious decline caused by Brexit is to join the Single Market and the Customs Union, so that the many barriers that now exist to trade with the EU can be eliminated and trade can flow uninterrupted to and from the EU, our biggest and nearest trading partner.
Indeed, this contradiction can be clearly seen in the resolution F31 up for debate on the Monday of Conference. In lines 30-34 it bemoans the lack of ambition by the government’s refusal to consider joining the Single Market and the Customs Union and in lines 66-69 urges the creation of a new bespoke Customs Union with the EU to cut red tape and spur economic growth.
It seems to me that there is a singular lack of ambition by the writers of the motion. Instead of calling for the UK to negotiate entry to the Customs Union and the Single Market, it calls for something much weaker instead.
I am very puzzled by this. Opinion polls are now showing a clear majority in favour, not of Single Market and Customs Union, but fully rejoining the EU.
I have no idea which oracles the party are consulting on this issue! They must be very cautious ones. The only remotely serious reason for not going for SM and CU must be because of the issue of free movement. Whilst I understand the reluctance to discuss this issue, it will need to be raised if we are ever to progress our 4-stage journey back to the EU.
Not confronting difficult issues, because we need to win elections, is a big problem. If we win elections – or if, heaven forfend – we actually won a GE, we would be unable to deal with the difficult issues because we had failed to include them in our manifesto.
The issue of so-called Free Movement should have been tackled long ago. For reasons best known to successive governments they never enforced the rules about FM, which only allow job seekers to remain for 3 months. The fact that we only count people in and not out doesn’t help. And we have remained largely silent whilst Farage and his ilk have deliberately confused migrants with asylum seekers.
At conference we have an opportunity to stand up for joining the EU via a first step of joining the Single Market and the Customs Union. Will someone bring forward an amendment to F31 to that end?
Editor’s Note: If you would like to submit an amendment, you can do so here by 1pm on 8th September. They have forgotten to change the text to state that the drafting advice period for amendments ends this coming Tuesday 26th August. You’ll be able to submit amendments after that time.
* Dr Michael Taylor has been a party member since 1964. He is currently living in Greece.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Liz Saville Roberts to Give the David Lloyd George Memorial Lecture at Gwyl Cricieth Festival
Labour deputy claims that Farage is a threat to democracy
Knaptoft: The very heart of England
We do have a two-tier policing system but it is not what our homegrown racists think it is.
Tristan Ward
David Murray
Tony Ferguson
David Garlick
Jason Connor
34 Comments
I agree with the broad thrust of the article. However one detail requires clarification.
“The only remotely serious reason for not going for SM and CU must be because of the issue of free movement.”
Here it is important to talk about the SM and the CU separately. The SM requires free movement. The CU does not.
We have a Labour Government which was elected by only 33.7 pc of those voting.
Remember that Labour has spent a lot of its existence trying to rub out its left of centre rivals Inc Green and Lib Dems. However this Labour party are not really lefty anyway and two of my friends think Labour and Conservatives are the same. Can anyone tell me what Labourism is?
The EU is not a salient political issue at the moment. Outside the LibDem activist base, no-one is talking about rejoining the EU or the single market. That means that amongst wider electorate, almost no-one is giving the issue any thought. In that context an opinion poll that shows a majority saying ‘yes’ to rejoining when asked almost out of the blue about it is absolutely no guide to what would happen in a referendum, in which there would be several months of intense campaigning.
Think about how a referendum campaign would play out: Reform and the Tories would focus the campaign relentlessly on the dangers of restoring Freedom of Movement at a time when, according to YouGov https://yougov.co.uk/topics/society/trackers/the-most-important-issues-facing-the-country?period=3m) immigration is voters’ single biggest concern. On the other side, the campaigning trick Remain used last time – warning of dire economic collapse from not being in the EU – won’t cut it at all because voters have already seen that the predicted economic collapse didn’t happen and life outside the EU has carried on as normal for most people. So basically all rejoin would be able to realistically sell would be, Get higher immigration (and loss of sovereignty again) in return for a tiny economic boost. Does anyone seriously think such a referendum would produce anything other than a decisive ‘no’ to rejoining any EU institutions, thereby setting any ‘rejoin’ campaign back by another generation?
The Tory leaning press would lay into us mercilessly,thus endangering progress made in leave voting seats like here in Cornwall and Devon. All for currently and unimportant issue. Besides which the terms for re- joining would be less attractive than we had
Simon R and Tim Rogers. The logic of your position is that Liberal Democrats should give up on what we believe in and only campaign on what are perceived as safe issues. Goodness me, are we a political party or a social club?
Of course we have to see ahead to what the issues that would be raised by others and make sure we set our stall out correctly to be able to withstand and counter the lies and disinformation we saw in the Referendum.
But not to raise the issue of Europe because it might be perceived as unpopular (It isn’t look at the opinion polls) would be to abandon being a political party.
Incidentally, why would there be a referendum for trade treaties? We would not be joining the EU, nor would we be making any decisions with the EU, nor would the EU be making decisions for us. We would simply be agreeing to follow the rules of the CU and SM as we already do with other trade agreements.
Well said, Mick.
If the Liberal Democrats are timid and not radical then we might as well join the Tories or Labour (I guess a few might even join the Farage lot).
Mick Taylor,
Perhaps the writers of motion F31 believe that we should have a referendum to join the Single Market or existing EU Custom Union but believe that a bespoke UK-EU Customs Union would not need a referendum. Perhaps they believe that the Labour Government will not join want the UK to join the existing EU Custom Union, but may be persuaded to negotiate a bespoke one where we could make separate trade agreements.
Net immigration ballooned after Brexit was implemented and our involvement in EU free movement stopped. This may not be purely coincidental. EU free movement enabled people from nearby countries to follow the labour market – coming to the UK when good jobs were available, returning back home when that suited them. Now, European migrants have been replaced by migrants from much poorer countries, further away. If those migrants lose their jobs in the UK, far fewer of them will choose to go back home.
MichaelBG. If your supposition is correct, then it should have been made implicit in the resolution. The contradiction remains. Criticising Labour for not joining CM and SM, but not calling for our party to campaign for them.
If we think rejoining the EU is right (we do), then not campaigning for joining the CU and SM is surely hypocritical.
I think we can reasonably argue that CU and SM are trade treaties and that no other trade treaty has needed a referendum.
We do have to have a clear argument ready for opponents of Free Movement, because polls show that Free Movement for Brits in the EU IS popular, it is the mistaken belief that EU citizens can come here willy nilly to sponge on the state that needs challenging. In fact only people who can support themselves or are in work can stay. People who seek work have only 3 months to do it and they have to go home. The UK never enforced that and any new agreement must be clear that the UK would after joining the SM.
People who are swayed by the Tory leaning press on any political issues are not our natural supporters anyway.
I see little point in making public commitments to specific legislative instruments at this time. Having a broad commitment to working more closely with the EU to reduce trade barriers, improve security, cooperate on shared interests etc makes the party’s position clear without tying the hands of the leadership – or providing convenient red flags for the extremists to misrepresent. That said, I would not be too exercised by conference motions. They emerge with almost no consultation or discussion available to the party’s members, which is why they are mostly nodded through by a tiny percentage of the membership. In practice this leaves LibDem Councillors, MPs and Lords free to exercise their own judgment in situations where there are unpredictable constraints, opportunities etc. The party does need to operate in a hostile media world and be more skilful in its public relations. The present parliamentary strength is a response to the worst government in living memory. Despite Labour’s bizarre behaviour at times, they are a huge improvement on the last government. Most of our potholes have been fixed and the local junior school’s new building is well on its way. Even disillusioned voters notice these things.
What is needed in this debate is clarity and a policy that differentiates Liberal Democrats from Tory and Labour. Re-joining the single market and customs union can be proved to improve jobs and prosperity (just as eaving it has been proved to be detrimental). And we don’t need a referendum, unless we’re determined to let Matthew Elliott and Dominic Cummings weave their lies and disinformation a third time!
As for ‘free movement’ the problem is that few people ever knoew what it meant. It was clearly written as “free movement of workers”, and as Mick says the 90 day rule is also clear, and IS enforced in most EU countries today.
There is a good case for the UK to rejoin the Customs Union. Though, of course, there might have been no need to rejoin if those Remainers such as Ed Davey, Jo Swinson and the Lib Dems generally, had supported the idea of not leaving it in the first place.
The problem now is that this will be perceived as the start of a creeping process towards rejoining the EU and will be opposed by many who weren’t ever in favour of leaving it.
Michael Taylor says as much when he used the phrase “if we are ever to progress our 4-stage journey back to the EU.”
There’s little or no chance of this happening any time soon. I’m quite sure the powers-that-be in the EU are aware of the likely make up of the next UK government and will be thinking ” No way ! “
@Peter Martin: “I’m quite sure the powers-that-be in the EU are aware of the likely make up of the next UK government”. I wish they’d tell me. I have no idea what the next election will bring.
@ Peter Davies,
I did include the adjective ‘likely’. The bookies are putting the following percentages on the likelihood of these parties being the largest in the next Parliament:
Reform 45%
Tories 14%
Labour 38%
Lib Dems 2%
FWIW I’d say Labour have a far lower chance than this. It doesn’t look like the effect of a new Corbyn/Sultana party is being properly factored in. So, a flutter on any of the others could pay off.
Those in the EU establishment won’t know for sure either. They will have their own assessment but there’s no way they can take a risk that the next Govt won’t be either Tory, Reform, or a coalition of both. So any negotiations on re-entry won’t be able to start until, probably, 2034 at the earliest.
If things turn out as Peter Martin suggests ……. a Farage government with that level of support, I predict growing support for the SNP and Scottish independence north of the Border.
It’s also perfectly possibly Plaid would enjoy similar success in Wales judging be recent Council by-elections.
“Despite Labour’s bizarre behaviour at times, they are a huge improvement on the last government. Most of our potholes have been fixed and the local junior school’s new building is well on its way. Even disillusioned voters notice these things”…..Really. I’ve had a record eye watering rise in council tax, record water rates, train fares inflation busting rise, bus fares up 50 per cent, soaring private rents, social housing rents +1 per cent above inflation guaranteed rise year on year throughout this parliament, town centres boarded up, locally HMO’s and hotels full of asylum seekers, asb & crime rife, delapadated overstretched public services, GP services barely functioning – you can mirror that across many towns – and I’ve never known such despair, anger , and disappointment at any incoming government like Starmers Labour party…
It’s far too early to predict what is likely to happen at the next GE, which is still nearly 4 years away.
Actually it is possible to make broad predictions about future General Elections as long as you remember some basic rules – The “Bookies” are generally wrong, Long term Trends beat short term variations, Governments usually recover & bubbles deflate.
The most likely result in 2029 is still a Labour Majority, the real uncertainty is who gets to be the Official Opposition & that will influence the whole flavour of the 2030s.
I would suggest that we will see –
Labour 30-35%
Tories 15-20%
Libdems. 15-20%
Reform. 15-20%
Greens 5-10%
“Left”. 5-10%
I tend to agree about the political risk of campaigning to join the EU.
I think a better way to frame this is that in the world of Trump and Putin, the UK needs a new political and military alliance with the European States as quickly as possible. While that would certainly include joining the customs union and single market, we need to be seen to be fighting the battles of today and tomorrow, not yesterday’s.
“People who are swayed by the Tory leaning press on any political issues are not our natural supporters anyway.”
There are a lot of readers of the Telegraph who will be horrified by it’s current editorial lone (Sample today – bring on the [right wing] Revolution”, more or less) We have the opportunity to make some of those people very much natural supporters if we are smart. The UK’s 20th Centrary anti socialist coalition of liberals and conservatives is breaking down as socialism’s historic failure becomes more and more apparent, and we need to be there for the liberals.
I don’t think it’s a coincidence that we are winning places like Tunbridge Wells, Dorking, Epsom Didcot the Cotswolds…….or that Labour win is so shallowly based.
David Raw. The problem for Scotland and Wales in that unlikely scenario is that they can’t become independent without the agreement of the UK Government. Do you seriously think a Reform government would agree to that?
Tristan Ward and others. I am not arguing in my article for rejoining the EU (although personally, I would go for that). I am pointing out the inconsistency of the party’s current position and, indeed, the resolution we re debating at conference. I am suggesting that we should be going for CU and SM and that no referendum would be required for either of these.
@ Mick Taylor “Do you seriously think a Reform government would agree to that ?”
Of course not, Mick, and I didn’t say that. I merely suggest that big trouble is a likely consequence of that unlikely event – that of a Farage government gaining power.
What’s more likely IMHO is a change of Tory leadership and then a Tory recovery………. In which case Lib Dems in “Middle England” better watch out. The Lord Pack/Sir Ed strategy of all or most eggs in one bungee basket is potentially fragile.
Meanwhile….. in Southport, Colne Valley, Berwick, Scottish Borders, Leeds North West, Redcar et al what is the health of the patient ? Dangerfield mark 2 ?
@ Tristan,
“….socialism’s historic failure becomes more and more apparent”
The economic policies all Govts have pursued since at least 1979 have been based on Thatcherism and monetarism. They have come to be known as neoliberalism.
And you’re saying this is an “historic failure” of socialism?
“The economic policies all Govts have pursued since at least 1979 have been based on Thatcherism and monetarism.
And you’re saying this is an “historic failure” of socialism?”
It’s bigger than that. Socialism has been around for over 100 years. Many states governments across the world since then have described themselves as democratic socialist or straight socialist – and that’s leaving aside socialism’s cousin communism. Where are those states now? Are they successful in terms of increasing freedom and wealth?
While I am sure very many Labour members describe themselves in private as (democratic) socialists they do not dare do so in public. Electorates reject them. That’s historic failure.
The economic policies pursued from 1979 in the UK – or in much of the rest of the world – have indeed not been socialist. that’s more evidence of the historic failure of socialism. Nobody actually in power thinks those policies are worth pursuing – even people who call themselves socialist in private.
And before anyone says socialism hasn’t been tried properly – that’s the same as Reform’s saying Brexit didn’t work because Farage wasn’t in charge of it.
@ Tristan Ward With respect, Tristan, though I’m not surprised,that’s a bit of a one dimensional view of political history.
The Attlee Government after WW11 is generally regarded as a successful reforming government, though I know there are plenty of people on the right who like to propagate red scares to frighten the middle classes. The Zinoviev letter in 1924 was a classic example and there are many others.
@David Raw
The Tlee government t was indeed a successful reform.i g government. But 2 points
Much of the intellectual capital of the Atlee government a d the whole UK post war settlement was liberal (Keynes and Beverage)
Where are the socialist sucessors to the Atlee government today?
I. Afoad I simply don’t understand this
@ Tristan Ward “Much of the intellectual capital of the Atlee (sp ?) government a d the whole UK post war settlement was liberal (Keynes and Beverage) (sp ?).
I think you’ll find much of the leg work for Beveridge was done by a civil servant – a certain James Harold Wilson, Tristan…….. who started out as a Liberal, but like many of his generation, moved on.
I’m not sure what your final sentence means, Tristan. It’s a bit early for it to be too much beverage ?
@David Raw
“Much of the leg work for Beveridge was done by a civil servant – a certain James Harold Wilson”
So what? He was doing his duty as a civil servant. I bet lots of work was done by Conservative civil servants too, but that doesn’t mean the welfare state was a Conservative invention. It was a liberal idea imemented by a democratic socialist government. For what it is worth it has proved rather more enduring than the sociaist idea of nationalisation of the comanding heifhts of the economy.
Back to the point – where are the confident successful socialist states that disprove the idea that socialism is historically bankrupt?
And yes this site badly needs an edit function please!
@Tristan; Saying socialism hasn’t been tried properly isn’t quite the same as saying that Brexit wasn’t tried properly: Brexit has been tried just once – and it therefore seems not at all unreasonable to suggest that there are different ways it might have been done and some other way might have worked better.
Socialism on the other hand has been tried countless times in all sorts of different countries and at different times. You’d think that if socialism was in principle effective as a way to create wealth, at least one of those countries would have stumbled on roughly the right way to do it, even if all the other countries had done it wrong.
The more times you try something and it doesn’t work, the harder it is to claim that it would work if only you did it differently!
@Simon R
You’d think that if socialism was in principle effective as a way to create wealth, at least one of those countries would have stumbled on roughly the right way to do it, even if all the other countries had done it wrong.
The more times you try something and it doesn’t work, the harder it is to claim that it would work if only you did it differently!”
My point exactly, but I also suggest that history has also often shown socialism to be unduly restrictive of personal liberty, and that the communities operating in a socialist society are often sub-optimal as a result. It’s not just about the money.
@ Tristan,
The problem with these discussions is that those on the right tend to conflate the terms socialism and Stalinist type communism and then challenge those of us on the left to defend the latter.
You’re asking for evidence:
1) You’re probably already aware of the evidence presented in the Spirit Level.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spirit_Level_(Wilkinson_and_Pickett_book)
2) Whatever we think of the Democratic credentials of countries like Singapore and China they are economically very successful. Singapore is actually a good deal more socialist than is generally appreciated. The State is the major player in the economy there. Critics might refer to both as State Capitalist. I’d settle for some of that in the UK, though!
I think the trick is to make this work but with democratic approval. That’s never really been a problem. Most wouldn’t agree that the Privatisations that we’ve seen since the Thatcher era have been an overall success. It’s fine to have the Supermarkets in private ownership because they can compete against each other.
However, where there is a natural monopoly , as with gas , water, electricity supplies etc most would say they should be in the public sector.
If I remember rightly, this used to be Liberal Party policy too at one time.
@Mick Taylor
“Goodness me, are we a political party or a social club?”
I think the LIb Dems are definitely a political party. But not the same party as existed up to 2010/2015. That party was disintegrated by the coalition and then changed by an influx of new members who were (a) pro-coalition and (b) pro-EU without necessarily being Liberal.
In those years the Farron/Cable/Swinson leadership failed to rebuild the party as a credible force having tried some different angles on that. Ed Davey deserves massive credit for restoring the Lib Dems as a credible force that wins elections and can command a position in the political debate. But they are a party of moderate centrists that focuses (successfully!) on winning moderate centrist tory leaning voters mainly in the south of England. it has a difference focus and different strategy from what might have been the case in years past and seems a bit out of kilter with some of the (predominantely pre 2015) activist base.
Only a fool would countenance free movement in today’s global environment. What we should embrace is a compassionate, controlled and liberal migration policy. If the eu can’t see that the whole idea of free movement is nonsense and alter their constution accordingly, then it’s not worth rejoining except as a means to improve our trade balance.