Dutch Liberal Leader tells Britain: We want you back for good

The new leader of the Dutch social liberal party D66 channelled Take That in a speech in Westminster about Brexit this week. Rob Jetten, who at 31 is the second youngest political leader in Dutch history, met MPs and peers – and impressed them too.

The speech is worth reading in full because this guy not only has some good political instincts, but he’s really funny and knows how to use sarcasm. He jokes about Theresa May’s dance moves, his habit of repeating things in speeches, his and Vince’s relative age and all sorts. But his summing up of the “epic tragedy” of Brexit is incredibly well observed communicated.

The word Brexit evokes an image of a Britain that has to endure confinement in some kind of enclosure. An enclosure from which it can escape by simply moving through an opening marked ‘exit’. It can get up and go. A simple, single act of will. You just have to say yes or no. Piece of cake. In or out. All you have to do is tick the box.

The attraction of the image the word Brexit evokes is obvious. Standing up and going for the “exit” has the flavour of decisiveness, independence, change and action. Much more attractive than being passive. Sitting on your hands. Keeping things as they are, afraid of what is outside the door. And then, of course, there is the unfortunate rubbery capacity of the word for it to be shaped into all kinds of attractive sounding derivations. Such as “brexiteer”.

Who would want to be something as stuffy and boring sounding as a “remainer” when you can be something as new-fangled and exciting as a “brexiteer”, dashing fearlessly through the exit to the great outdoors.

He explains why the process of Brexit is so bloody difficult:

There is no simple “exit” that can be taken. There is no simple separation. There is only tearing. Cutting. Destruction. Every single element, every tiny strand is connected. The mightiest riddles, such as the customs union and the Irish border, dominate the political conversation. But the truth is that it’s nitty-gritty tiny strands of fabric all the way down.

During its 45 years in the EU, Britain has imported many tens of thousands of European laws and regulations. Many thousands more have direct effect. EU law has had absolute supremacy over British law ever since British accession. A little understood legal reality. The fabric of Europe’s legal framework is the fabric of the UK’s political life.

And he reckons we can get out of this mess:

My visit here today, I’m ready to admit, is fuelled by what some might characterize as blind optimism. A blind optimism that says Britain can still escape this mess. Naturally I have no real hope of making a dent in the national discussion today. But I believe Barack Obama—one famous foreigner who unsuccessfully intervened in the Brexit debate—when he says that optimism is never blind if it is rooted in tradition.

And you do know a thing or two about tradition. You do have a tradition of escaping at the last minute. It is no coincidence Harry Houdini spent his best years in Britain. It is equally less surprising that the great escape artist Sherlock Holmes is a British literary figure.

Nor is it at all strange that the most memorable of JK Rowling’s writing involves Harry Potter escaping disaster. What is necessary for this great country to make its greatest escape? I’m no expert, which is good, because I’ve heard you’ve had quite enough of them. But I would hazard to guess that it would take a last minute miracle. And I’m here to say that we will welcome miracles as befits miracles: with biblical comprehension.

The full text of his speech is below:

Honourable members of parliament, fellow liberal democrats, ladies and gentlemen, Europeans, I hope you appreciate that I have managed to take place behind this lectern without any unnecessary rhythmic body movements and without making you uncomfortable in any way. I have managed this despite the fact that I have somewhat of a reputation as a dancing queen on the other side of the channel.

It is a great honour to have been granted the opportunity to speak to you today in these famous buildings, home to one of the world’s most venerable parliaments. You will have noticed I have not said “oldest parliament” or “mother of all parliaments” as is customary. I would have liked to, but regrettably both of these characterisations are not correct.

That does not mean I want to be impolite, or even that I do not think flattery has its place. Far from it. However, in these troubled times I simply do not want to be seen contributing to British exceptionalism with historical distortions. There are other politicians who do a perfect job of that without my help.

Those of you who follow the Dutch press closely know that I have not yet been able to secure a reputation as a lively speaker. The biggest disappointment so far, is that I tend to repeat things. I tend to repeat things.

So don’t worry if your mind wanders and you are temporarily distracted by thoughts of some gruesome detail or other of the no-deal, cliff edge scenario. There will be ample opportunity to catch-up further on. So let me repeat.

I am deeply grateful for the invitation, even though you have extended it originally to my illustrious predecessor, Mr Alexander Pechtold. Perhaps it would therefore be more accurate to say that my gratitude goes out to all of you for not having hastily withdrawn the invitation upon the news of my accession to the role of leader of my party, since doing so would have been fully understandable and quite forgivable. I am very grateful to have been invited here for my very first brief speech as leader of my party.

One of the more important aspects of the safety of this environment of kindred political spirits is that it is completely free of any form of ageism. I am all of 31 years old and the youngest leader ever to be elected to head the parliamentary group of our party and therefore feel a strong bond with Sir Vince, who is also still relatively new in the job. We belong to the same generation of leaders.

Another reason why it is good to be among friends today is the fact that we find ourselves in an unprecedented, chaotic and ever-worsening political situation. A situation that previously was utterly unthinkable. At least during the whole of my lifetime, as well as Sir Vince’s. Which is perhaps somewhat more significant.

A situation that is so alarming that it not only requires the frank truth-speaking that is possible among friends, but also calls for all the moral support and consolation that friends alone can give. I am speaking of course of the epic tragedy that goes by the deceptively simple and woefully catchy name “Brexit”.

Let’s first talk a little about this hideous word. “Brexit”. Because words matter. Words are the only means we have to communicate our understanding of reality and its problems to others, without whom we cannot solve those problems. Interpretative dance – with or without ABBA – really will not do the trick.

Language is humankind’s stock in trade in Darwin’s never-ending race. But it’s also, as Wittgenstein famously said, the limit of our universe. Talk about hard borders. Language can even become our enemy. We can use words as weapons to deceive and destroy. History is littered with examples of criminal political abuse of language. From ‘the great leap forward’ to George Bush’s ‘Clean Skies Act’ and the Trump regime’s ‘clean coal’.

The word Brexit evokes an image of a Britain that has to endure confinement in some kind of enclosure. An enclosure from which it can escape by simply moving through an opening marked ‘exit’. It can get up and go. A simple, single act of will. You just have to say yes or no. Piece of cake. In or out. All you have to do is tick the box.

The attraction of the image the word Brexit evokes is obvious. Standing up and going for the “exit” has the flavour of decisiveness, independence, change and action. Much more attractive than being passive. Sitting on your hands. Keeping things as they are, afraid of what is outside the door. And then, of course, there is the unfortunate rubbery capacity of the word for it to be shaped into all kinds of attractive sounding derivations. Such as “brexiteer”.

Who would want to be something as stuffy and boring sounding as a “remainer” when you can be something as new-fangled and exciting as a “brexiteer”, dashing fearlessly through the exit to the great outdoors.

But the flavour of the word Brexit, the associations that come with it, have nothing to do with reality. No matter what adjectives you attach to it.

Theresa May’s “Red White and Blue Brexit”—which also happen to be the colours of the Dutch, Luxemburg and French flags—still has no meaningful relationship with reality whatsoever. So does the decidedly Orwellian Corbynism “Jobs first Brexit”. Which is basically something like an “efficient waste” or a “constructive demolition job”.

The true colours of Brexit are not the proud colours of le tricolor or the Union Jack. Far from it. The true colours of the complicated realities that are purposefully hidden behind the word Brexit are an infinite number of shades of grey.

The European Union—as the great Liberal Winston Churchill envisioned—is a living, organically evolving entity. It has had life breathed into it by the voluntary merging of sovereignty by its constituent states. It has taken on that life, which is now its own. And the hallmark of life is growth, evolution and development.

For 45 years the United Kingdom has been an integral part of that living, developing organism. Its economic, legal, political, social and cultural life has gradually, ever so slowly, converged and integrated into that of the other member states. 45 years of steady harmonization. 45 years of slow and steady joining together. 45 years of ever-closer union.

Year after year, treaty by treaty, regulation by regulation, directive by directive, judgment by judgment, summit by summit, the UK’s legal framework merged with that of the Union. Knot by knot, fibre by fibre, the United Kingdom has been woven into the rich fabric of our European Union. The fabric can no longer be unwoven. It can only be torn up. Fibres can be extracted. But the fabric of the UK will not re-emerge undamaged. Let alone somehow improved.

There is no simple “exit” that can be taken. There is no simple separation. There is only tearing. Cutting. Destruction. Every single element, every tiny strand is connected. The mightiest riddles, such as the customs union and the Irish border, dominate the political conversation. But the truth is that it’s nitty-gritty tiny strands of fabric all the way down.

During its 45 years in the EU, Britain has imported many tens of thousands of European laws and regulations. Many thousands more have direct effect. EU law has had absolute supremacy over British law ever since British accession. A little understood legal reality. The fabric of Europe’s legal framework is the fabric of the UK’s political life.

EU regulations and directives govern everything from equal pay for men and women to trademarks and copyright. From the protection of birds to industry standards that secure consumer safety and a level playing field for the manufacturing of nearly all products.

The dissolution of our Union will give rise to the need to deal with a bewildering array of problems. Including the status of staff employed on British military bases in Cyprus, the ownership of fissile nuclear materials, the future administration of sales taxes and thousands upon thousands of other issues.

A vast number of issues will bring decades of legal wrangling. Or they will simply be overlooked and come back to bite us years down the line. One of the reasons that a slim majority of British people voted to leave the EU may be that it has penetrated too far into British life for their liking. But the years of membership have constructed a reality that is extremely painful to change. And even harder to imagine a life outside.

So here is the core problem of the Brexit referendum. It wasn’t a Brexit referendum. Because Brexit is just a word. I’ll repeat that. Brexit is just a word. A word without any real meaning. A word without an agreed meaning. A word without a meaning that is understood by voters.

The word Brexit is nothing more than a populist deception. It was unmasked as such only after the referendum. When Mrs May was asked what Brexit actually meant and she spoke the spine-chillingly cynical words, “Brexit means Brexit”.

The referendum should never have asked an impossible in/out question. It should have spelled out to voters in granular detail the impact leaving the European Union would have on all aspects of daily life. It should have listed all the rights the voters would have to relinquish. Not one left out.

It should have explained that the UK economy is close to fully integrated with that of the other EU member states. And it should have listed the thousands of laws and regulations that underpin that integration. It should have spelled out the effect of the abolishment of each separate law and regulation on each separately identifiable economic activity. Only then could the question be asked: do you want to reject all of this?

Do you want to try and extricate the UK from the EU, thereby abandoning the entire legal framework the constituent parts of which we have explained to you? Obviously this may very well have led to the conclusion that such an approach is practically impossible.

But practical impossibility cannot justify deceptive simplification. If the truth is too complicated to fit onto a ballot paper, this is not a justification to start lying. If the truth is too complicated to fit onto a single ballot paper, you should simply rethink use of a referendum.

My party was founded in the 1960s, rooted in the wave of democratic renewal of that age. We are still the party of democratic renewal, though I have to admit our success has been limited. In the Netherlands we are now discussing the use of referendums as supporting instruments of a healthy representative democracy.

My party is still in favour of a kind of referendum as a means of strengthening the democratic participation of our citizens. But we have learned harsh lessons through the years.

First and foremost from the Brexit referendum. It was not democratic. It was meaningless. It was a disaster. Nobody, except perhaps for a few experts, knew what he or she was voting for. Nobody does to this day. That is not democracy. It is a travesty of democracy.

This is not because we do not like the outcome. It is because the Brexit referendum has weakened trust and belief in the idea of democracy. It has torn British society in two.

It may, over time, lead to the dissolution of the UK itself. We’re not asking for it. But if it does, I could imagine the Scots wanting to become independent members of the wealthiest and most successful peace project in human history.

As a party we take the lesson of the Brexit referendum very, very seriously. First, it has strengthened our belief that the gravest of all constitutional matters, our membership of the EU, must be subject to the same safeguards as apply to a change of our national constitution. Our constitution cannot be changed except by a majority—and then a qualified majority—in two successive parliaments. In other words: it requires parliament to be dissolved and an election to be held. The new members have to vote the same way.

As a party we are now working on a proposal—and you are the first to hear this—enshrining our membership of the EU in our national constitution.

So that we can prevent a nightmare of the Brexit referendum type: the complete destruction of our constitutional settlement in a single vote with a simple majority and with just the deceptive ‘yes/no’ question on the ballot. This is not the way we will want to see our lives radically changed.

Second, it has made us determined to advocate a corrective referendum with a clear minimum participation-level and a qualified majority only. In a corrective referendum people will be able to reject a certain specific piece of legislation. No abstract concepts open to multiple interpretations can ever be on the ballot paper.

The only silver lining of the Brexit disaster for us is the lessons we are drawing from it. But that does not mean we like it. Far from it. It saddens us deeply.

Our sadness, at least in part, is rooted in a history of friendship. Britain and the Netherlands have always stood tall together. Amidst the chaos that followed the Reformation, our countries stood together championing freedom in Europe.

Under the leadership of the Dutch King William the Third we broke the tyranny of Louis the fourteenth. True, we fought a few disastrous naval wars in the 17th century—wars that ultimately heralded the decline of Holland as a great world power. But history was quick to bring us together again.

Because while we celebrate William the Silent, his resolve could never match Britain’s heroic stand in 1940 and 1941. It was in Britain that our Government and resistance movement sought and found refuge. There are few Dutch cities and towns which do not enshrine memories of British bravery.

I live on the outskirts of Nijmegen, one of the focal points of Operation Market Garden, where British soldiers fought for our freedom. I’m reminded of it almost daily when I cross the Waal river.

In more recent times, Britain’s cultural magnetism has collapsed an already minimal distance between our countries.

I myself grew up on a healthy diet of British culture: from The Beatles to Ed Sheeran, from Monty Python to Little Britain and from the Spy Who Came from the Cold to the diaries of Bridget Jones. More recently I have taken to watching The Crown and was pleased to see images of a young Queen Elizabeth flying with British European Airways.

We are now more interconnected than ever before. Freedom of movement the EasyJet generation in and out of our cities. We attend each other’s universities, work in each other’s shops, and play on each other’s football teams.

Though, I’m sorry Vince, we have as yet not been able to persuade our brightest stars to join York City. It took Britain just a bit longer to catch up with the unifying project of Europe. But when you finally joined, we made a great success of it. We created the single largest market in the world. We welcomed into our midst the states that had suffered for so long behind the Iron Curtain. And we forged the beginnings of a truly European foreign and defence policy.

For all the burning injustices and external threats our societies still face, I believe the solutions are never in more isolation, but in greater cooperation. Case in point: this month’s Anglo-Dutch success in combating Putin’s efforts at democratic disruption. Our security, peace and prosperity now depend on a base of common power.

Together we can protect our natural resources from depletion. Together we can create a market that works for all. Together we can defend our people against foreign aggression. And together we can advance the cause of human rights and liberal democracy around the world.

My visit here today, I’m ready to admit, is fuelled by what some might characterize as blind optimism. A blind optimism that says Britain can still escape this mess. Naturally I have no real hope of making a dent in the national discussion today. But I believe Barack Obama—one famous foreigner who unsuccessfully intervened in the Brexit debate—when he says that optimism is never blind if it is rooted in tradition.

And you do know a thing or two about tradition. You do have a tradition of escaping at the last minute. It is no coincidence Harry Houdini spent his best years in Britain. It is equally less surprising that the great escape artist Sherlock Holmes is a British literary figure.

Nor is it at all strange that the most memorable of JK Rowling’s writing involves Harry Potter escaping disaster. What is necessary for this great country to make its greatest escape? I’m no expert, which is good, because I’ve heard you’ve had quite enough of them. But I would hazard to guess that it would take a last minute miracle. And I’m here to say that we will welcome miracles as befits miracles: with biblical comprehension.

Let me turn to Luke. Chapter 15, verse 11. The Parable of the Lost Son. Jesus tells of a man with two sons. One day the younger son suddenly demands his share of the estate, walks away from home and squanders his wealth in wild living. After a while, dejected by the failure of his adventure, he decides to return home. His father is beside himself with joy and prepares a feast. The older brother, who had stayed behind loyally working the fields, turned angry. Why reward such disloyal foolishness?

‘My son,’ the father said, ‘you are always with me, and everything I have is yours. But we had to celebrate and be glad, because this brother of yours was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’”

Friends,
We don’t want you dead.
We don’t want you lost.
We don’t want your money.
We don’t want your jobs.
We don’t want payback.

We want you back.

Or, to speak with the great Robbie Williams:
We want you back for good.

Hat tip to Duncan Greenland for pointing us in the direction of the speech.

Read more by or more about , or .
This entry was posted in Op-eds.
Advert

10 Comments

  • Lorenzo Cherin 19th Oct '18 - 12:51pm

    This is very helpful, the posting and politics of the new D66 leader Rob Jetten.

    He seems to have a greater feel for our culture and it’s history and the whole issue, than many in our country.

    He makes a statement however that nobody admitted here on either side of this divided and irritating Brexit . EU law has supremacy, something should never have been allowed in such a way to be the dominant influence, national law should but does not , in areas or ways it should.

    And this party should be able to learn from this young leader, and stand up for cultural and historical feeling more, we need someone to, it would help to criticise the EU, this party never does even when they are not helpful, which is often.

    For ages, few have given the impression that this new leader gives, they want us back.

    Rob Jetten is the new young Turk for me, Macron lost his shine as soon as he became a typical negative EU right UK wrong, typical of too many on the remain side.

    If Nick Clegg had sounded like Rob Jetten and also spoke for reform, plus his predecessors and successors, from all parties this might not have ever happened.

    Many of us who do not support Brexit, think the EU leaders highly elitist and wholly unimaginative.

  • William Fowler 19th Oct '18 - 2:58pm

    You never know, Mrs May’s No, No, No’s don’t really last very long and someone may whisper in her ear that she can get back some of the youth vote by going for a People’s Vote (and letting 16-17 year-old’s vote)… it would wrong-foot Labour who would lose out if they voted against it.

  • Bernard Aris 19th Oct '18 - 3:32pm

    First point: although almost all Dutch parties (Geert Wilders and Thierry Baudet couldn’t be bothered; they don’t care about the British) profess they want the British to stay in the EU (they keep saying that in the traditional parliamentary debates with prime minister Rutte before and after EU summits), my D66 party leader Rob Jetten has been the only one in the past two years wo travelled to the UK to tell you so.
    Jettens predecessor, Alexander Pechtold MP, wanted to come over, but for almost all of 2017 he was preoccupied with the general election campaign (fighting off loudmouth anti-EU politicians like Wilders and Baudet), and conducting talks (from March until late October) to assemble the present Dutch government coalition.
    The LIbDem invitation for holding this speech was originally addressed to Pechtold, but Jetten was just as eager to come.
    The leader of the Dutch Labour party PvdA, Asscher, is weary of the Monumentum bullies and their Militrant-like ideology, and doesn’t like the antisemitism which Labour has such troubles to disavow (Asscher is scion of a prominent Dutch jewish family). And the PvdA being a founder party of both the ECSC , EEC and EU, the deliberate ambiguity of Corbyn on Europe is something Asscher doesn’t want to endorse, even implicitly, by coming over.
    And VVD leader Mark Rutte still mourns that his “green right” buddy David Cameron had to abdicate, and as far as I know never visited any LibDem conference.

    Second point: Rob Jetten has read Vince Cable’s autobiography (where else could the mention of York City FC come from?); and has consulted D66 specialists in British history and politics like Churchill (European) biographer Felix Klos, whose present day job is being spokesperson of the D66 party leader (and who is running for the European Parliament).

    Third point: as I have often said in my LDV contributions, D66 is the best friend the LibDems have on the continent.

  • Lorenzo Cherin 19th Oct '18 - 5:40pm

    Bernard that is excellent, use this ability to engage more again, though some of your posts seem very specific t the Dutch experience in the main, where you combine this with a wider situation, we gain information very needed .

    I am actually very saddened in a rather significant political way, due to the Labour problems with antisemitism. As someone who was in that party as a youth when Ian Mikardo was a very vocal , and left voice, in Poale Zion, the name of the Jewish Labour movement then, and artists like the brilliant Topol, who I had the pleasure of engaging with in a professional and performing sense, was a strong supporter of Israel’s Labour party, and a real Anglophile,I am troubled by it. I respect the leader you allude to in the Netherlands based Labour party.

  • Sean Hyland 19th Oct '18 - 6:57pm

    Fine and interesting speech. However there will be some who pick up only on the comments about being passive, sitting on your hands and accepting the way things are. Also mention of EU supremacy and moving to ever closer union.

    I will however would take more of his comments on positive working together on environment etc. Could have done with more of that in the actual campaign on the referendum. Only thing missing was some acknowledgment that the EU is not perfect,doesn’t work for everyone, and maybe some things need reform.

  • Bernard Aris 21st Oct '18 - 4:42pm

    @ Sean Hyland

    D66 from its inception in 1966 stood for direct election of the European Parliament (up to 1979 it was a hobby club of delegated national MP’s meeting for three days to control the European Commission) with fulltime MEPs enjoying all facilities and powers (inquiries; interpellation, independent research of how EU policies work out) necessary to do a proper job.
    One of the oldest D66 hobbyhorses in the EU has been to reform, streamline and environmentalize (“Green Up”) the Common Agricultural Policy of the EU, freeing up money for green issues, for Industrial & technological innovation, and new EU policies like the reception of Syrian refugees and economic migrants (“Green card”-system like the US).
    And as social liberals we always say: Working for all of the people is a shared resposibility of the European Commission and national governments; subsidiarity and decision making as close to the ordinary citizien as possible. But also better parliamentary scrutiny of the Commission and especially the European Council!

    I think those aims are shared between D66 and the LibDems.

  • Sean Hyland 21st Oct '18 - 8:21pm

    Bernard Aris
    My comment was not a criticism of D66 – i quite like some of their policies. It was a general comment on the speech which i said was “fine and interesting”. Just commenting on what i would like to hear more of if you want to convince some leave voters.

  • Mr Jetten says “fellow liberal democrats”
    But he belongs to a different party. He is not a “Liberal Democrat”.
    There is an “Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe Party” in the European Parliament. The words ‘Alliance’ and ‘Party’ seem to contradict each other. If it really is a ‘party’ It should change its name to “European Liberal Democrat(ic) Party” or similar and not just name itself such but organise itself accordingly and use the same moniker in elections across the EU.
    In elections over here Lib Dem candidates stand currently in the name of the U.K. parliamentary party in local elections as in parliamentary elections, and we all accept that. Why not go one step further, astonish the voters,and stand in the name of the “European Liberal Democrat(ic) Party” in local elections and UK parliamentary elections, and,we hope, in future European Parliament elections, using the same name and the same party organisation shared with the rest of the EU? Even if the dreaded brexit does come to pass, an EU-wide political party with a presence in the EU parliament can then also be present in councils, assemblies and parliaments in a non-EU UK. Just because the British state withdraws itself from the EU does not mean British elected representatives have to.

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

If you are a member of the party, you can have the Lib Dem Logo appear next to your comments to show this. You must be registered for our forum and can then login on this public site with the same username and password.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?

Advert



Recent Comments

  • User AvatarDavid Evans 14th Dec - 1:08am
    David Warren, Indeed you are right. Unfortunately our MPs have a reputation of putting looking after the Conservatives ahead of looking after our Voters and...
  • User AvatarGlenn 13th Dec - 10:53pm
    Frankie Spell my name right and learn what a nuanced response is. The term hardliner refers to someone with unbending beliefs and a refusal to...
  • User Avatarexpats 13th Dec - 10:31pm
    Paul D B 13th Dec '18 - 9:40pm..........People should not be apologists for the Labour Party. They created the free-loading loosely regulated conditions (in parallel...
  • User AvatarSean Hyland 13th Dec - 10:29pm
    Paul D B - note that i was not apologising for Labour. Just saying to correct your initial post that they caused the 2008 crash....
  • User Avatarexpats 13th Dec - 10:20pm
    David Raw 13th Dec '18 - 9:10pm @ expats. Come on old lad, that Boris is a real hard man who learned his trade in...
  • User AvatarSean Hagan 13th Dec - 10:14pm
    @Yeovil Yokel: As Commons Speaker, John Bercow does not currently sit as a Conservative MP, so was not amongst the 317 who had a vote...