Yesterday, Sir Ivan Rogers’ resignation as the UK’s representative to the EU caused New Year shock waves. Last night, his resignation email to his colleagues was published. His assessment of the Government’s performance so far is not one which inspires confidence in ministers. He told his colleagues:
I hope you will continue to challenge ill-founded arguments and muddled thinking and that you will never be afraid to speak the truth to those in power.
And this paragraph can only be described as “take that, Liam Foa.”
As I have argued consistently at every level since June, many opportunities for the UK in the future will derive from the mere fact of having left and being free to take a different path. But others will depend entirely on the precise shape of deals we can negotiate in the years ahead. Contrary to the beliefs of some, free trade does not just happen when it is not thwarted by authorities: increasing market access to other markets and consumer choice in our own, depends on the deals, multilateral, plurilateral and bilateral that we strike, and the terms that we agree. I shall advise my successor to continue to make these points.
Nick Clegg had already made his views clear yesterday, praising Ivan Rogers with whom he had worked for being “punctiliously objective” and “rigorous” in the advice he provided.
Tim Farron’s comments focused on the chaos within Government:
It is damning when our own top people are slamming this Conservative Brexit government for using ill-founded arguments and muddled thinking.
This is the biggest decision by the UK Government in modern times and Theresa May is marching ahead without a plan or even a clue.
We need our top people around the table if we are going to avoid wrecking the country with Brexit. It is shameful that vital, talented people like Ivan Rogers are instead being driven away.
You can see Nick Clegg’s take on Sir Ivan’s resignation on Channel 4 News here. He says that he is worried that anyone who expresses truth to power is subsequently demonised.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Nigel Farage and Reform UK declare war on evil pixies
Lessons from the Lords #2: how to spend £19m badly, without anyone complaining
Closing the doors after the defector has bolted
#interrail2025: Day 8 - the search for schnitzel continues...
Quiz this Friday at the Corso Street sheltered lounge - all welcome! #dundeewestend
Ping pong over Artificial Intelligence
Mick Scholes
Richard Whelan
Peter Martin
Thelma Davies
Mick Taylor
18 Comments
I agree with Tim that TM doesn’t have a clue. I would say that the elephant in the room is that it doesn’t matter whether she has a plan or not because the 27 won’t agree to it whatever it is. She still hasn’t understood that article 50 isn’t a negotiation. The 27 will meet and decide what to offer the UK and we will have a choice of accepting or not. Perhaps then it will finally dawn on her that Brexit is not doable on any acceptable terms. That will be the test. Has TM the steel to tell the Commons that a deal isn’t possible? Sadly I doubt it.
Mick Taylor
“The 27 will meet and decide what to offer the UK and we will have a choice of accepting or not.”
That’s basically it. If the UK won’t accept freedom of movement, the 27 won’t have us in the single market or custom’s union – not much to negotiate there. I can’t see anything but a hard brexit and then negotiations over a trade deal, possibly with some sort of transitional period so trade from both sides is not to badly affected.
Tim seems to vacillate between stating that T.M. is clueless and T.M. is marching towards hard brexit dragging the rest of the country behind her, his exact approach being dependant upon the nature of his audience.
If it is the case that there can be nothing other than a highly damaging exit, then someone needs to explain why the British public have been repeatedly told that each successive treaty was nothing to be concerned about and certainly didn’t warrant a referendum as no real sovereignty was being ceded, kind of vindicates those who knew different and campaigned for a referendum when they could see this was not the case. The country has been systematically lied to by successive governments re the full implication of what we have signed.
The most relevant treaties have only been in place for ten years or so and yet there is no way out without irreversible damage? In that case why has it been lib dem policy to offer an in / out referendum, exactly what the tories delivered.
“……caused New Year shock waves”
Shock waves..??? Maybe on the thin crust of Planet Farron perhaps.?
Tim Faron’s hysterical screeching has now started to go way beyond the irritating ‘chalk on a blackboard’ level, and has entered a frequency pitch that only dogs and cats can hear. The bad news for Tim, is that dogs and cats aren’t on the Electoral Register.
Has this ‘ex-Democrat’ no shame.?
It is about time everybody understands that this Government is nothing but the practical continuation of the leave-campaign in terms of substance (none), style (disonest) and personnel. The latter includes the PM herself; she might have been a covert remainer, but as she associates the referendum result with the legitimacy of her appointment, cancelling Brexit would, in her perception, also delegitimize her premiership. As is often the case, only those who are not up to a job can truly enjoy having it. And she enjoys it too much to lose it in the country’s interest. There is just Hammond left, but he does not have the bullying qualities of the Brexiteers, maybe the integrity to resign in time.
The irony is, if every politician honestly and convincingly expressed his/her beliefs, a solid remain-majority would result in a few months. Unfortunately, the LibDem leaders are stuck in the same trap: everything Tim Farron says is true, but misses the point: there is no way to continued prosperity through Brexit, even with the best plan or strategy. The PM cannot succeed on a fundamentally wrong course, irrespective of the quality of preparation. The problem is that she does the wrong thing, not the fact that she (also) does it poorly.
… never be afraid to speak the truth….
The snag with this advice is that we all have our own opinions of what is truthful. My opinions may coincide with yours on some issues but not others.
So who would hold the “truth” then?
Civil Servants like everyone else have a right to their own opinions, but the nature of their job requires that they often will have to set them aside. I don’t know if I could do that. But I don’t have that problem. I’m not a civil servant!
It is very clear that J Dunn doesn’t have a clue what democracy is. In a democracy people put forward their views and every 5 years the voters can choose which views they want to have representing them in Parliament. People don’t change their views or cease to fight for them if they are in a minority or if their views are unpopular. Good heavens we’d still have the slave trade and public executions if that was the case.
I’m not undemocratic if I continue to fight against Brexit and seek to persuade those who voted for it to change their minds. I’m doing what millions of people have done over the centuries and indeed what those who didn’t agree with the result of the 1975 EEC referendum continued to do for over 40 years.
Grow up J. Dunn and accept that democracy is not simply a matter of agreeing with your views.
“The irony is, if every politician honestly and convincingly expressed his/her beliefs, a solid remain-majority would result in a few months.”
And it is the democratic right of Ukip to, release the dogs of war,.. upon their constituencies,.. which is pretty much what is stopping most of them.? Democracy can work very well, especially when it ‘tugs the leash’ on our ‘representatives’, to remind them that they are there,.. to represent,.. not preach.
“…there is no way to continued prosperity through Brexit, even with the best plan or strategy. “
But who was enjoying this continued prosperity.? This oft repeated comment misses the very point that not everyone was in this glorious middle class zone of continued prosperity.? The clue to your error, is in the term,.. ‘left behind’.
As Mick Taylor says there will be no negotiation to speak of; the 27 will decide what to offer and that will be it. There might be alternatives but none are likely to be palatable.
For instance, the 27 have already made clear that if we want to stay in the single market we will also have to accept unlimited migration from the EU. So, that would mean remaining in the EU for most practical purposes except without a seat at the top table.
Another option that’s been mentioned is staying in the customs union – but that would, by definition, mean NO freedom to negotiate free trade deals outside Europe.
On the other hand if we finish up outside the customs union the cost and time of getting goods through ports soars. According to an FT article of last autumn, there are currently around 50m customs clearances per month; new software due for delivery this year is designed to handle up to 100 million. Post Brexit that jumps immediately to 350 million so it’s not clear that it will be physically possible to customs-clear existing trade. Nor is it clear that continental partners would prioritise the huge investment necessary on their side. And without rapid, reliable customs clearance the complex supply chains that much of UK industry (e.g. car-makers) would collapse.
Then again, leading EU countries have long envied the riches created by the City and will make sure that, post Brexit, it is impossible for it to continue doing much business in Europe so they can pick it up for themselves.
Moreover, the EU as a whole is at risk of break up from the stresses arising from its flawed structure and dogmatic approach, so the 27 will be inclined to make an example of the UK pour decourager les autres from flirting with similar ideas.
I hope the party has taken steps to identify and quantify – however roughly – these and other costs and what that will mean for future government spending.
As I’ve said before, there’s an awful lot wrong with the EU but the only sensible plan is to work with others to force reforms on its undemocratic top-down bureaucracy and stop it accreting ever more power
The big thing about the Brexit referendum was that kneejerk prejudice doesn’t do detail.
And as a well known non delegating detail operato,r all the signs are that Mrs May is caught up in her own cat’s cradle form of inertia.
Mick Taylor
“I’m not undemocratic if I continue to fight against Brexit and seek to persuade those who voted for it to change their minds.”
Seeking to persuade,.. is the acceptable democratic bit, that no-one argues with. It’s the Brexit blocking,.., refusal to accept you lost,..relentless lies and fear mongering,.. legal obfuscation, and trying to install ministers who would drag their feet for 10 years as the ex-Ambasador suggested, which is the undemocratic and grating bit.
By all means,… seek to persuade,… till the cows come home. You, Tim.. and the Lib ex-Dems,.. can give it your ‘best shot’ at changing voters minds in around 2020. That’s how it works. This is not about my view, or even yours,.. it’s about respecting the views of 17.4 million UK citizens who won the democratic argument over 16.1 million UK citizens. Fact ~ We voted, and Leave won. It’s time to stop the meddling and get on with the process of extracting ourselves from that money grubbing failing circus,.. of EU clowns.
There’s nothing more pitiful to watch than the ramblings of a sore loser.
Except perhaps the ramblings of a sore winner.
@Mick Taylor
“The 27 will meet and decide what to offer the UK and we will have a choice of accepting or not.”
You’re actually being wildly optimistic there, in assuming that the 27 – or indeed, remembering the Canada/Waloon fiasco, all regions within the 27 – will unanimously come up with an offer within two years. Exiting with no substantive deal in place seems a real possibility.
The Lib Dems are playing a dangerous game here. Support for a second referendum is consistently polling at around 30%; over 50% think there should not be one. A second referendum in such circumstances would be decisive, but not in the way you want.
While I understand that you and other Lib Dems still like the EU and wish to fight to stay in it, would your time not be better spent accepting reality and campaigning for the best post-Brexit UK we can possibly get? Because at the moment, the Lib Dems are effectively sitting that particular question out while they cling to this fantasy of being able to stop Brexit, which is a tragedy because it’s the most important issue facing us.
The notion that there is any such thing as ‘free trade’ is strictly fantasy – albeit a dearly held one for most Lib Dems as well as Brexiteers.
The ‘tell’ is that recent free trade agreements run to thousands of pages – IIRC the TPP is roughly 5 times longer than the Bible. And it actually makes sense that they are long since there are countless details of mutual recognition of technical standards etc. to cover.
Lib Dems don’t understand this because the last time Liberals were substantively in power Britain was a superpower just dictating trading terms to the Empire and that felt like ‘free trade’ – there was no need to accommodate others’ preferences or technical standards or anything else. Simples!
That’s not the case now. Trump may have made warm noises but it seems he’s an economic nationalist. And I’ll bet he and his billionaire team know a sucker when they see one, someone who just HAS to do a deal FAST!
What might that translate into? Time will tell, but a good guess is that it will include things that anyone but the most ideologically hidebound would recognise as abusive. Expect it to include that Britain must open its markets to GM crops, to fracking, to privatising the NHS ready for sale to US companies, in short to whatever makes money irrespective of people’s health, wealth or wellbeing. It’s a script that’s played a thousand times down the ages.
I really hope I’m wrong. Perhaps J Dunn could explain to me why I am.
@Stuart – “While I understand that you and other Lib Dems still like the EU and wish to fight to stay in it, would your time not be better spent accepting reality and campaigning for the best post-Brexit UK we can possibly get? Because at the moment, the Lib Dems are effectively sitting that particular question out….”
Try putting yourself through the discipline of reading Nick Clegg’s detailed assessments on this subject – http://www.libdems.org.uk/brexit-challenge
Stuart. The 27 are obliged to do so by Article 50. Anyway, it’s my view that they are completely united in wanting to prevent anyone else leaving the EU and on that basis will offer us few if any concessions and tell the UK to take it or leave it. Brexiters who believe they need us more than we need them will find out the truth only too soon.
Stuart
While I understand that you and other Lib Dems still like the EU and wish to fight to stay in it, would your time not be better spent accepting reality and campaigning for the best post-Brexit UK we can possibly get?
No, most definitely not.
Because, as has already been pointed out, we will be arguing for something that is no different from being in the EU, apart from not having the say over what happens in it that comes from membership.
If that happens, the Brexiteers then have a get-out clause: they will blame us for undermining what they say the people voted for.
The reality is that Brexit just won’t deliver anything like what the Brexiteers suggested it would in order to win votes for their cause. So, that is why we need to leave it to them to show that. Don’t intervene, just say “You won, it’s up to you”. But make it clear that we believe they seriously misled the people in their claims, and that if sufficient people who voted Leave came to realise that and asked for a reconsideration, THEN we would have another referendum.
If we are wrong, and there’s a Brexit that people will like, well let those who think there is tell us what it is.
Well, they haven’t been able to do so yet, have they?
If you say “The people voted for it, that’s the end”, please be consistent and for example on PPI say “You signed up for it, tough, no compensation should be paid if it wasn’t what you thought”.
I see Vince Cable has come out as against free movement of people and has written an article in the New Statesman http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2017/01/why-its-time-end-eu-free-movement
Pretty promising that there are still some good minded Liberals out there, what a shame he never became leader, I suspect the parties fortunes would have been much brighter in the past and in the future if he were.