So, just minutes before the 10 o’clock news, it was announced that A Deal Had Been Struck. Fancy that.
It had been a bit like the day the BBC camped outside the maternity hospital when William and Kate had their first child – except the outcome was not quite as joyful.
In news which will surprise precisely nobody, I can reveal that I will be voting to remain in Europe – despite Cameron’s deal, rather than because of it. I suppose we should just be grateful he didn’t sell our hard-won employment rights down the river in the process of reaching this rather mean-spirited agreement.
So, I’ve not changed my vote, the Outers are not satisfied with the deal, as if that were ever possible, so was there a point?
Maybe. I do have to admit that someone has tweeted me to say that they are now more sympathetic to the Remain cause. There’s a bit of me who’d have liked to have seen a PM face down the critics and argue just to stay in on principle. I look at Obama facing down the Republicans on equal marriage and gun control and wish we had a PM who wasn’t scared of the Daily Fail, Boris, Michael Gove and George Galloway. Well, maybe the first three.
But the deal is now done, the starting gun is about to be fired, the Cabinet is about to see if it can survive being split and I have to take my place and campaign like a dervish to stay in the EU.
But what has Tim Farron said? Well, not a lot about the substance of the deal, but a brief statement of why the UK needs to stay in the EU:
Now the referendum campaign begins in earnest. It is the biggest vote in a generation and it will settle not only Britain’s relations with Europe but also our place in the world.
The Liberal Democrats are the only party completely united around the case to remain.
Together the EU has created the world’s largest free trade area, delivered peace, and continues to give the British people the opportunity to live, work and travel freely. History shows that Britain is better when it is united with Europe.
There’s a long way to go till June. The Remain side needs to make sure it wins the campaign as well as the referendum. Look at the still-divided Scotland to see a real life example of where failure to do that leads.
* Caron Lindsay is Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and blogs at Caron's Musings
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Layla Moran on Gaza: "Starvation shouldn't be a weapon of war"
Hawkhill in the 1970s #dundeewestend
Are the lobbyists taking over again?
Tristan Ward
John Waller
David Raw
expats
Peter Martin
41 Comments
The outers have long argued that the direction of travel in Europe is inexorably one-way. What this deal shows is that they are dead wrong. It was never going to address the mythical grievances because no reform can change something that is not based on reality.
With this, and with the rebate, we are in a club that benefits all its members, and has the rules stacked in our favour. If we cannot now embrace membership with enthusiasm, we are no better than the SNP.
Caron,
Why do you think it is a rather mean spirited agreement?
I am more keen as a result.
I believe the “special status” phrase being used to describe Britains place in the European Union by Junker and Tusk as, I believe a gift to Cameron to win the deal in the minds of our electorate, shall pay dividends.I am a great admirer of Hugh Gaitskell, he spoke of the end of a thousand years of history if Britain gave up much of its sovereignty.But he was not saying Britain had to , not even if it joined the EEC, as it was.It was a caution an awareness amongst some Social Democrats ,that Britain does have a history , and it is important to relate to it and it is one of autonomy, has been since the Normans ! It was a recognition of that ,and that internationalism need not and must not change it. That can and should apply to other countries too. Cameron is more able to get support for staying in as a result of that message being not only understood now again , but seen to be compatible with EU membership for the UK.
I believe, as you say on Scotland , if the remain camp does not win the campaign, the vote shall be definitely lost on this one.
To keep the UK together, to stay in the EU, to be able to one day get a more Liberal and Democratic EU , I believe it is necessary to feel better about this deal than its content might encourage.It is symbolic.Symbolism can have meaning.It does here.I have never voted for a Conservative , not for council or parliament.I have only ever been Labour , and for many years , as voter , then member, Liberal Democrat.On this , Cameron has won my enthusiasm.I want a Europe that works far more for the individual and the communities of this continent, better social protections ,fairer as much as freer trade,less red tape more cultural co operation, so much more democracy ,much not in this deal.
Yet I think this is about the sovereignty , the history,the destiny of peoples, in some small but significant way.I back it.I back the Prime minister.Faced with the motley crew on the other side, that are mentioned in this article , as a Liberal Democrat member, and a British European citizen of the world, on this he is most definitely my prime minister too.
I hope the leader of our party, Tim Farron ,who I admire , like and support , and who I believe shall grow in stature if he gets it , now gets out there as he does so well , and speaks for Britain, to Remain.
I suspect that this deal will end up being sidelined in the referendum, and that the ‘out’ camp will end up focusing on immigration and asylum seekers.
The way Britain votes may well end up being decided by images of refugees running across Sebrian cornfields.
Cameron looks like he has done well, but I do agree that the cutting migrant benefits thing was mean spirited. I would have preferred a soft-cap on low-skilled immigration.
The Stronger In team already seem to be doing the right thing by saying the deal improves our relationship with Europe. We need hope, not just a message that things are going to get worse, but we should stay in anyway. Regards
The Liberal Democrats are the only party completely united around the case to remain.
But does this really matter? no, this is not a party political campaign it is a campaign for everyone in the country to get involved in regardles of party and make their own decision.
Whichever way you decide to vote it is a personal decision nand you alone should make it not influenced by political manoevring, Tim Farron thinks libdems voters are of one voice does he? I already know they are not.
Caron, I agree with every word (a first, perhaps)…I too want to stay but, like you, “despite the “Dave Show” rather than because of it…
As for the hype about the “Marathon round of talks over two days, during which the prime minister managed just three hours of sleep in the early hours of yesterday morning, leading to an agreement for the UK shortly after 9pm yesterday”….
Utter nonsense…The script had already been written, the agreements already made; what we saw was the window dressing to give the illusion of ‘St Dave’ winning against overwhelming odds….
The EU want us to stay (providing the price is acceptable) and the best way is to give the ‘IN’ faction in the UK the illusion that the UK has somehow won a victory…
Like a royal birth, when those at the heart knew the sex and name; the press and public have been fed updates and guesses…. Sadly, many will fall for it ….
Yesterday the members of the Lincolnshire County Council voted by a large majority to leave the EU even before the details of the ‘deal’ had been finalised. All but three of the Tories (the largest group) voted ‘out’ (one voted against and two abstained). UKIP and its clones, together with some Independents voted with the Tories. Voting to ‘stay’ were three of the four Lib Dems, myself included, a couple of Independents and the Labour Group, currently the official opposition to the Tory led coalition (including the four Lib Dems and three Independents) running the council.
Knowing Lincolnshire as I do, the ‘remain’ campaign will struggle to get its voice heard here amidst the cacophony of xenophobia, ignorance and covert racism that exists in the county, particularly around Boston. No wonder Liberalism has struggled to gain traction over the years!
You can watch the proceedings on the webcast on the County Council website. I don’t think what happened yesterday will be a one off. My personal view on Cameron’s ‘deal’? Half a loaf which might just influence the undecideds but will do nothing to change the mind of the hardcore ‘remainers’ or ‘outers’, so, come on Caron, show a bit of understanding. Not all Lib Dems are gung-ho europhiles like you. Like Lord Hague, we count ourselves as euro pragmatists!
This isn’t a “mean spirited deal” at all – it’s a sensible deal that benefits Britain, and benefits the EU by helping us stay in. As many people have repeatedly pointed out on here, but which pro-EU zealots appear unable to acknowledge, our benefits and health systems are different to most of the EU’s other nations because theirs are contributory and ours are not. People who haven’t paid into their benefit systems (including locals) are simply not eligible for the same as those who have. I know it’s terribly right-on for progressives to be very eager to hand UK tax-payer’s money to new arrivals who have not paid in, but back in the real world local people on the breadline understandably object very strongly to this.
Finally, “I look at Obama facing down the Republicans on equal marriage “ Obama didn’t purpose a single law on that Caron – he simply didn’t challenge the decision of the Supreme Court to allow it. I am a fan of Obama, but to claim that as his bravery is wrong (unlike, ironically, your anti-hero Cameron – who did face down his own party on gay marriage).
I think an interesting (and potentially dangerous) aspect of this for us Lib Dems is how we handle it from a party campaigning point of view. Personally, I would be all for “gung ho” – Liberals and Lib Dems have always seen this in terms of internationalism. So many of the “out” type arguments, and even what has been called here “euro-pragmatist” have been framed in terms of others “telling us what to do”. Two facts, we have been “telling others what to do” (and still do!) over many years. We also have a representative democratic system in UK, and we claim to like it. As internationalists and democrats, surely we want to ensure that people can have a popular input (as through the European Parliament).
The trouble is, democracy means often losing – as a fairly wise local government Chief Exec of my acquaintance used to say regularly! If we don’t like certain popular decisions, or those by elected reps on our behalf, people often have a tendency to describe it as “being told what to do”, or “red tape / bureaucracy”. If we accept “democracy as the worst system of government….. apart from all the others”, surely we must realise we will often be told what to do. There must be fair rules in a system to avoid exploitation.
What Cameron’s “deal” seems to do, unfortunately, is to combine an attempt to become a premium member of the club, with better rules, with an attempt to eliminate political decision making from our role in that club.
Like Caron, I will continue to support our membership of the club, but why do we have to have separate rules??
And, in terms of my first point, how do we in the Lib Dems fight this, bearing in mind that we seem to have many sceptics in our midst?
John Marriot.
Will the Lincoln vote be driven by ignorance or will it be driven by the locals not liking mass immigration in a region with a lot of mass immigration.
Mean spirited! How?
My major objection is described in the text following:
“EU treaties, when they are next opened, will include a new reference to make it clear that the words “ever closer union do not apply to the United Kingdom”.
This clearly meets the manifesto commitment, however in a sop to Europe’s federalists like Belgium early drafts suggesting this exemption might apply more broadly – for example to countries like Poland and Hungary who have no intention of joining the Euro any time soon – were removed. This is a blow to Mr Cameron’s calls for the EU to accept the need for a looser, more flexible ‘live and let live’ Europe.”
If there was mean spirited intent it was from Belgium: “we are of a federalist bent, and all others must follow in lockstep, even if we are forced to make a special exception of britain.
Britain wanted it deal to apply generally, not least because it preserves a blocking minority of allies past the medium term, but Belgium (and France “no a-la carte eu”) said no.
Sweden, Poland, Czech and others remain stuck with ever closer union, they remain obligated to join the euro, they will be forced to accept migrant quotas they may not want.
A Tyranny of the Majority.
I make my last point, by the way, about sceptics, not just in terms of comments on LDV, but of local Lib Dems I work with all the time.
From a personal point of view I want to stay in the EU, but I worry that the newspaper headlines about “immigrants stealing our benefits” and “being ruled by the Germans” will win the day. I look at the leaders who support staying in and it’s very easy to be underwhelmed. Cameron, Corbyn, Farron, Lord Rose etc just make you want to change channels as soon as they come on the TV. I hate to say it, but I think it’s essential that the in-campaign gets Boris on their side – they need a figurehead with a larger than life personality that people actually enjoy listening to. I watched some of a “out” campaign meeting on the TV last night and even though they had a large hall they couldn’t get them all in. I don’t see any enthusiasm like that in the “in” campaign and that tells me the “out” campaign could easily win this referendum.
Is it true that an out vote is not legally binding and parliament could force us to stay in?
(Taken from the BBC news website 9.56am – live reporting)
david Cameron has repeatedly used the word “never” which politicians are usually advised not to use, partly because one parliament cannot bind another and partly because the future is uncertain.
For instance the USA did a lot of detailed analysis and declared that the Shah of Iran was secure. Shortly afterwards he his regime held a large party with many visiting dignitaries, include the then Vice President of the USA, Spiro Agnew. The party was considered extravagant and the Shah went into exile.
He still has words for us though “You had all this oil and you burnt it!”.
Joan Hand 20th Feb ’16 – 10:07am
The 1975 referendum was consultative. Although the BBC provided coverage equivalent to a general election there was very little drama because the YES vote was overwhelming.
Is it true that an out vote is not legally binding and parliament could force us to stay in?
No referendums are legally binding in the UK, because Parliament is supreme. The only thing that has any legal force whatsoever in the UK is an Act of Parliament (or something indirectly descended from an Act, like an SI).
Richard 20 Feb – 10:11
Are you saying this referendum is also ‘consultative’?
Glenn,
I don’t know where you live but, around here, you get some incredible statements regarding migration. The trouble is that, coming as I do from a place that has changed significantly over half a century (Leicester) and having lived in both Canada and Germany (yes, I was a migrant too), I am used to living in ethnically mixed communities. Lincolnshire is still, in many ways, stuck in the first half of the 20th century. That’s why so many people come to retire here. They are looking for an England, as John Major famously said, of “warm beer with maids on bicycles” (or something like that), that really no longer exists any more (unless you know better).
That said, it does nobody any good to react to population changes that have occurred, particularly in the south of the county, by scapegoating migrants, in our case mainly from Eastern Europe, for societal problems partly of our own making. As Frank Field found out in Liverpool, some jobs are deemed by the indigenous population as ‘immigrant jobs’. Is it because of low wages or is it because many of our citizens just don’t fancy jobs like picking fruit and veg or a combination of both. With our county providing a large proportion of the country’s green produce, how else are growers to get this out of the ground if local people aren’t coming forward? In fact, years ago, they used to rely on itinerant labour from areas such as South Yorkshire, which now appears to have dried up. Physician health thyself?
I’m feeling pragmatic about this deal – if it needs to be done to keep us in, so be it. I did like the Lithuanian President who tweeted “Drama over.” (I also empathised with Angela Merkel’s quest for chips.) I think that’s how a lot of EU leaders saw it – just something that they had to do to keep Britain in.
Or at least that’s how Spain’s provisional government saw it. There was a bit of domestic posturing over there because Podemos wanted the acting foreign secretary to block an agreement, which I think may have coloured my views around the importance of not blocking an agreement.
Is the door now open for other countriesto request their special conditions thereby making the European Union really more liberal and democratic?
Joan Hand
“more liberal and democratic”. Do you mean more flexible? Seems to me the British position has always been illogical, in that many of the “euromyths” – requirement for straight bananas etc, in addition to the rules for products, agricultural produce etc are to do with the Single Market, which official British spokespeople have insisted we absolutely welcome! Not all product standardisation over the years has had anything to do with the EU and/or the single market anyway, and the EU has often been used as an “aunt Sally” to blame when things are not liked!
In relation to your main point, why do we need to belong to a multi speed club? If you belong to a club, you live by the rules. Surely that is democratic?
In relation to your main point, why do we need to belong to a multi speed club? If you belong to a club, you live by the rules. Surely that is democratic?
Because you decide whether to belong to a club based on what you get out of it, versus what it costs you. And a multi-speed, flexible club obviously costs us less to belong to than one where we are expected always to go in step with every stage as all the rest do it too.
So having a multi-speed club changes the cost/benefit analysis, which in turn changes whether it is a net benefit or a net cost to us to remain in the club.
Tim13: “In relation to your main point, why do we need to belong to a multi speed club? If you belong to a club, you live by the rules. Surely that is democratic?”
How very dismaying to see a liberal arguing that one-size-fits-all is the best solution to life and its problems. Are you aware that is the opposite of the philosophy that drove Lib Dem behaviour in local government in the last 30 years? Why do we say things about the EU that we would consider outrageous if applied to any other tier of government?
@John Marriott – “some jobs are deemed by the indigenous population as ‘immigrant jobs’. … how else are growers to get this out of the ground if local people aren’t coming forward?”
All valid points and indicate whilst mass migration may get produce out of the ground it doesn’t do anything to resolve the underlying problem/malaise that was evident in the 1950’s when trade unions considered certain jobs beneath their members and hence were happy for them to be done by immigrants. To my mind we need a government to clamp down on immigration to force the issue; the problem is to many such a government would be seen as being anti-immigrant, racist, xenophobic etc. and not simply one getting its population to face up to some uncomfortable truths.
Roland 20th Feb ’16 – 12:35pm
@John Marriott – “some jobs are deemed by the indigenous population as ‘immigrant jobs’. … how else are growers to get this out of the ground if local people aren’t coming forward?”…………..All valid points and indicate whilst mass migration may get produce out of the ground it doesn’t do anything to resolve the underlying problem/malaise that was evident in the 1950’s when trade unions considered certain jobs beneath their members and hence were happy for them to be done by immigrants. To my mind we need a government to clamp down on immigration to force the issue; the problem is to many such a government would be seen as being anti-immigrant, racist, xenophobic etc. and not simply one getting its population to face up to some uncomfortable truths….
A close friend manages a large farm in East Anglia….Locals used to pick but he no longer uses them. Why? Because a ‘gangmaster’ can supply the labour (ONLY when they’re needed), they sort out accommodation, one payment to ‘gangmaster, etc… Why would he use ‘locals’ when they want full time work, etc…
Think about that when you buy your CHEAP veg….
So off we go; a dangerous exercise that risks our future economic prosperity just so Cameron can shut UKIP up. All at a massive cost to the tax payer. News for you Dave, just like the Scottish Referendum didn’t bring an to the SNP, this will not bring an end to the kippers.
John Marriot. The farmers laid off the British workers in favour of cheap, easily manipulated foreign workers who did not demand employment rights. Are you saying that we should not ask for fair pay and conditions and that workers should be crammed into illegal overcrowded accommodation? Or are you saying that is alright for Johnny Foreigner?
Ann,
What I am doing is looking at the facts. Why won’t local people go out and pick fruit and veg? Is it the low wages driven down by the willingness of mainly Eastern Europeans to work for less? Or is it, as Frank Field found, that many locals consider such jobs as beneath them? As somebody said, the consumer, by insisting on getting food on the cheap, plus the stranglehold that supermarket chains have over growers will continue to keep costs down. Are you prepared to pay more for your food? Indeed, are you prepared to pay higher income tax rather than higher indirect taxes? I am; but unfortunately most people are not.
http://www.ukip.org/busting_the_eu_myths – with the utmost respect, I am still waiting for a point-by-point rebuttal at the earliest convenience by anyone on LIb Dem Voice – thank you, indeed.
John Marriot
I live in Leicester. I know the East Midlands very well.
Lincolnshire, might have a lot of retired people but like most of the East Midlands it has a lot of migrants. In truth generally the Midlands has far larger numbers migrants than pretty much anywhere in southern England outside of London. A walk through any major city or town in the region, Birmingham, Leicester, Boston, will illustrate this pretty quickly. So I don’t think the objections come down to ignorance or old people retiring to a mythical 1950s. I think it’s more to do with tribalism and all kinds of local tensions. People do not actually mix very well. They have a tendency to group together and that applies as much to migrants as anyone else.
@Anne: No, this is not alright for anybody. However, the EU immigrants have rights, and they will not tolerate hyperexploitation. The most pliable labour force is the illegal immigrants.
Among those who understand how important it is for the UK to remain in the EU it is pointless to go on debating the package negotiated by David Cameron and certainly counter-productive to attempt to rubbish it. We now move towards the referendum and there will only be two options on the ballot paper – remain or leave. We are not campaigning for “remain but we would have liked better terms” or “remain but we would have voted that way anyway even without Cameron’s package”, nor should we bother boasting about being the most united party on the issue. We are simply campaigning for “remain” and our main target must be the many people who are never going to be particularly enthusiastic about Europe but are open to sensible explanation as to why the UK is better staying in. While the Lib Dems as a party have a part to play in encouraging our voters to turn out, the main campaign will be run by “Britain Stronger in Europe” for whom I and many other Lib Dem activists are now working as well as helping with the Lib Dem local election campaign.
Glenn,
Growing up in Leicester after WW2 I remember the arrival of West Indians, settling in the 1950s around Melbourne Road. By the 1960s we saw the first influx of people from the Indian subcontinent, which accelerated following Idi Amin’s expulsion of Ugandan Asians, settling initially around Belgrave Road. Even before these events we welcomed Poles and Estonians. Indeed, students at my school (Alderman Newton’s GS) were allowed to take Polish as their O Level Foreign Language.
The point I am attempting to make is that, with the exception of refugees from the Soviet takeover of Eastern Europe, Lincolnshire saw very immigration, if any, from our former colonies. This changed around 10 years ago with the accession of Poland and the Baltic states to the EU.
“We are simply campaigning for “remain” and our main target must be the many people who are never going to be particularly enthusiastic about Europe but are open to sensible explanation as to why the UK is better staying in.” – with the utmost respect, will the EU and the UK in it, be likely or not likely to “remain” the same in the next 10-20 years?
John Marriot asks,.. the very relevant question :
“Why won’t local people go out and pick fruit and veg?”
If you are a British resident trying to find and buy a home for your family in (say), Stoke on Trent,… veg picking on minimum wage + child benefit, will not come anywhere close to getting you a mortgage on anything suitable for your family.
However,… picking lettuce,… on minimum wage plus child benefits for a Romanian sending both child benefit and a good proportion of their wage back to Romania, will buy a substantial home for the Romanian family [in Romania ].
In short,.. a minimum wage has a completely different perspective for the purchase of a home in Romania plus lifestyle choices, and conversely a home in Stoke on Trent plus living expenses,… and so by definition,.. there is *NO* way a British resident can compete by picking lettuce on minimum wage ..?
^^ THIS ^^,.. is why immigration is a problem.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with race or skin colour. It’s about fairness to the indigenous British who are at a severe disadvantage?
History shows that Britain is better when it is united with Europe.
What, like in 1940?
John Marriott
I love Belgrave Road in Leicester! It’s one of my favourite shopping areas, and the food is heavenly.
No, like in 140 😉
And with the utmost respect, there was also Napolean who wanted “one Europe”? 🙂
Indigo,
That’s not the only reason. A lot of the jobs immigrants are employed in are recruited through agencies that only recruit outside of Britain. This was a problem Labour recognised and Millerand frequently tried to address.
The main problem with the line of argument involved in claiming immigrants are doing jobs Brits will not do. Is that Brits were doing them before Labour signed up to freedom of movement agreements and implemented them earlier than most other EU countries. However, jobs have been created elsewhere in the economy so it’s not as big an issue as some make out. A bigger problem is that we have a low wage, low skill, high employee turnover economy and this mitigates against stable incomes and job security. IMO there is a big difference between a freedom of movement agreement that can benefit workers than making hiring and firing easier through the use of transient labour. What’s happening isn’t so much liberal as neo-liberal and ironically the way to curb this tendency is through increasing the rights and representation of workers through things like the human rights act. What I find interesting about the outers is that they tend to be anti union, anti red tape etc, but are playing on people’s insecurities by claiming that immigrants are stealing jobs. People like Nigel Farage or virtually any of the Tory party’s outers don’t really give a monkey’s about the low paid. In fact they want them to have even less rights and less stability.