Over the last few months the political media has been transfixed by David Cameron’s efforts to “renegotiate” Britain’s relationship with the European Union. Whilst Tim Farron quite rightly describes Cameron’s demands as having much more to do with keeping the Conservative Party together than fixing anything more fundamental about the EU, the reasons for making this effort are obvious: reassuring nervous eurosceptics that Britain still has influence in Europe and neutralising fears (however unjustified) that the British voice will be somehow overpowered.
Nigel Farage responded by calling Cameron’s deal “a slap in the face for Britain”. So far, so predictable. Yet right at the core of eurosceptic complaints is so often the insidious, sometimes devious suggestion that nothing we hear from Brussels can be trusted. When Blair got an opt-out from the Euro, the sceptics said we’d be forced in anyway. When Brown got an opt-out from the Fundamental Charter of Fundamental Rights, the sceptics claimed the European Court of Justice would simply ignore it. Cameron says we have protection from being overrun by the Eurozone? The sceptics claim it isn’t worth the paper it is written on.
In their deluded yet strangely persuasive form of paranoia, the Kippers argue that, even if it all seems reasonable on the surface, we can never trust the EU to keep their word and that our courts and our Parliament will be (supposedly) powerless to stop them.
Liberal Democrats realise these claims are nonsense, but many voters believe them. That’s why, importantly but more quietly, the Government is toying with another set of reforms to reassure sceptics: plans to give British courts the right to override European ones. Yet, for all the nationalistic hyperbole over ‘entrenching British sovereignty’, a well-researched BBC News piece reveals these plans are actually far more subtle then they first appear: rather than claiming that British law overrules EU law (which would breach EU treaties) instead the Tories are considering giving the UK Supreme Court the power “in exceptional circumstances” to rule that EU courts have gone beyond the scope of EU treaties, and thereby refuse to follow their rulings.
Lib Dems might, understandably, recoil from the nationalistic language of sovereignty. They may even agree with former Attorney General Dominic Grieve that the plan is “pointless”. Yet, ironically, the plan does make a certain amount of legal and political sense. As any good law student knows, eurosceptics view the ECJ as a political court precisely because the European Court of Justice does sometimes test its limits and has, at least for some legal scholars, seemed to go beyond what international law requires when interpreting the treaties.
Britain would also be in excellent European company: the German Constitutional Court in 1992, the French Conseil d’État as far back as 1978 and other national courts have all ruled that they have the right to reject EU decisions if they go beyond the scope of EU treaties – including the UK Supreme Court itself in 2015. Putting it into statute might merely serve to reinforce existing legal precedent and give their lordships the political cover they need to provide checks and balances that could make the ECJ into a more measured and trusted institution.
So, how should Liberal Democrats respond? I think, as a minimum, we should give these plans serious consideration – eschewing the nationalistic sentiment, but welcoming enhanced checks and balances as well as reassuring nervous voters. But we can do one better – we could go on the offensive to end the appalling situation where British ministers can go to the Council of Ministers, support a law in private before it becomes reported in the UK, then come home to Britain where they claim credit for it if turns out to be popular and “blame Brussels” if it is not.
Let us follow the example of Denmark’s European Affairs Committee and set up a joint parliamentary committee, broadly based, with powers to review all upcoming legislation that is due to appear in the Council of Ministers and have the power to order British ministers not to support a proposal unless it first been put to a vote in the House of Commons, enhancing at a single stroke both EU transparency and British parliamentary accountability.
Both these proposals are technical in nature but both could be used to defend ourselves against baseless claims that European courts have too much power or that EU decisions are made undemocratically in smokefilled rooms. They could serve an important purpose in reassuring voters that it is British voters and British politicians that are at the heart of European decisions – and in a tight referendum race, we will need all the reassurance we can get!
* Chris Nelson is Vice Chair of East Midlands Liberal Democrats and was the Lib Dem parliamentary candidate for Wellingborough & Rushden constituency in the 2015 and 2017 General Elections. He writes in a personal capacity.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Morecambe and Wise and Leonard Rossiter
Full slate of Lib Dems in council by-elections
Getting things done - West Port #dundeewestend
Payback time
Katharine Pindar
David Warren
David Raw
41 Comments
I’m sorry this article yet again shows some on the pro-European side trying a policy of ‘retreat and appeasement.’
And can we stop talking about ‘Eurosceptics’ please. The like of Liam Focx and Rees-Mogg are not (and never have been) Eurosceptic. They are anti-European Union simple as that.
For years we have given these ‘antis’ space to go instead of taking them on.
Let us articulate a Liberal vision of a reformed EU, and reformed UK, and devolved decision making,
A good piece that I think is very useful, not only in providing us with an avenue to alley some slightly eurosceptic members of the liberal wing who do have concerns along those lines. If we aren’t in the debate, we will never have a hope at shifting the language – and it is clear we can’t continue on the jingoistic style that Cameron likes to use – and the end result seems desirable as well. Any federalist should be in favour of clear demarcations of power, and the understanding that higher level of government does not always mean ultimate authority over all issues.
Steve Comer – I’m not entirely sure why this would be appeasement – appeasement has the concept of giving something you don’t want to avoid the consequences of disagreement. In this case I think Chris has outlined why we might actually want some of the talk – though not couched in the same jingoistic language and framework – of making clear the authority that our national institutions can have and how it is very much the norm in some of Europe’s big players (essentially that by not wanting to ever talk about Europe, successive governments of all colours have let this fester by not doing anything or mimicing best practice from the continent)
Grumbling about the term Eurosceptic seems fairly facile – it is a term in common usage. But I am glad that you agree with Chris that we want a reformed Europe and need to talk about how we get there, I just don’t understand why you have to make agreeing with him quite so churlish.
We should be articulating a positive Liberal vision of the European Union, as indeed others on this website have done. My article is narrowly focused. But part of our vision for this should be one in which UK ministers have to take responsibility for their decisions they take on behalf of the UK, by defending them to Parliament, and where EU institutions have suitable checks and balances.
You also state that we need to close down anti-European’s space to manoeuvre. I agree, that’s why it’s worth considering proposals like these which serve to counter some of their most emotive arguments, as I outline in the article.
We in the Lib Dems are passionate about the benefits of the EU and I take solace in that. We do have to face an important fact though – for us to have a chance at reforming the EU in a more Liberal way we first have to win the referendum. And that means we need to win over voters who would not ordinarily even think about voting for us.
I agree with this article by Chris ,completely , yes , Steve, you have your view , it is a view, would people in our party stop presuming every Liberal Democrat is so pro EU and that everything pro British is nationalist and that Eurosceptic is little England!
Some in our party , myself included, do not believe in an institution, blindly , slavishly , we see that mentality as a herd one , as group think.Get over that and our party will be more honest in this debate .The EU is no better or worse than every or any corporate body , public or private.It has its good points and its bad.If European Liberalism is country wide institutionalism, rather than Liberal internationalism , it is no Liberalism at all , economic or social , and not political , nor , especially ,personal.
I am fed up of every time Cameron tries to secure something that makes us as a country just that little bit more independent , it is met with a derision from Tory anti European lot and a bland , patronising ,yawn from the pro EU side.Some of us , who are Liberal Democrats, despite being more critical of many aspects of Tory policy than our own party were in coalition, think it a bit much that every time Cameron does or says anything now it is never apparently good enough.Cameron is a relatively , and actually , self proclaimed Liberal Tory.Many in his party and government are not .Where we can still agree , sometimes , lets say it .It makes it so much more convincing and potent , when we then staunchly criticise the Tories when we do not agree one bit !
I think , for a party that cherishes individuality, it is time to put our money where our mouth is !And not our foot in it ,which is the same , or shall be for those so pro EU , as a swift , footloose and fancy free , sprint Brexitward! It may well happen !
@Chris Nelson
In one part of this article you say “In their deluded yet strangely persuasive form of paranoia, the Kippers argue that, even if it all seems reasonable on the surface, we can never trust the EU to keep their word …”
Later you prove their point by “As any good law student knows, eurosceptics view the ECJ as a political court precisely because the European Court of Justice does sometimes test its limits and has, at least for some legal scholars, seemed to go beyond what international law requires when interpreting the treaties.”
Lorenzo,
I’d go further and point out that nationalism is no more inherently bad than internationalism. Look at what the European union has done to Greece or what international efforts are doing in the ME. And personally, I’m most definitely Euro sceptic but not anti EU on principle. I’ll be voting to stay in mainly for economic reasons but think it might actually be better for politics if Britain Votes out because it would be a good reminder that the real political power should belong to the electorate not the elected.
The ‘sovereignty’ argument is one that needs to be tackled head-on. And as far as I’m concerned, it’s very simple: is the UK having a referendum on EU membership? Yep. Was the permission of the EU required for that to occur? No. Thus ipso facto the UK is sovereign and the EU is not. Those Europhobes who blow the sovereignty klaxon should simply be asked whether they support the UK entering into any international treaties at all, and if so, how on earth that squares with their ideas of what sovereignty is.
@Simon Thorley
So, in your eyes, the sole qualification for sovereignty is whether a country can enter of leave a treaty partnership?
Hi, Glenn
I have always been a patriot , never a nationalist.In Italy , where my father was from , in the 19th century there was , led by the great Mazzini, a form of Liberal nationalism, the composer Verdi was a proponent , and briefly , an mp.It was about unifying a divided, fragmented, undemocratic, series of states and mini principalties.I would have been with them , as most progressives were and would be now.Other than that , not sure I like the word nationalist at all.
I am as near to Eurosceptic as there is in our party , without being for withdrawl. I was and am against the single currency .I see it as illiberal homoginised moneterism!
I am a staunch internationalist too. I do not think I am more connected to a prejudiced Briton or Italian than to a progressive Liberal Democrat in the good old USA! Or anywhere !
Chris Nelson says that “We in the Lib Dems are passionate about the benefits of the EU…” Be care what you say, Chris. This sort of blind faith in your party colleagues could land you in a lot of trouble. A dose of reality would do you good.
With the utmost respect to all readers, is the “final intent” of the EU in actual fact to have a one European “super-state” – they already have a president/anthem/parliament/flag and potentially want an army as well as overruling “sovereign” governments with the EU’s laws: i.e. UK border control, etc. – to be clear, I am NOT looking for an argument – if i can be shown wrong/missing the point, then I will stand corrected, thank you.
P.S. Can any “remain experts” kindly try to rebut each of these points: “www.ukip.org/busting_the_eu_myths” – thank you, indeed.
P.P.S. Talking of “sovereignty” – will have a read of this in the Guardian: “http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/feb/17/eu-referendum-david-cameron-boris-johnson-talks-downing-street”.
With the utmost respect to all readers, is the “final intent” of the EU in actual fact to have a one European “super-state”
That’s certainly the aim of some Liberal Democrats:
‘I agree the EU needs to change, but so does the nation state. The days of the post- Versailles monoethnic nation state area over. We need a new relationship between all tiers of government at local, national and EU level where we determine which level should wield which power, and ALL levels need to be democratically elected and accountable’
( https://www.libdemvoice.org/video-guy-verhofstadt-on-euref-position-negotations-49450.html#comment-394572 )
What is that if not an explicit call for a European super-state and the end of the United Kingdom as an independent, sovereign entity?
Rather an ignominious end to a rather glorious history stretching back many centuries, at that…
“But Downing Street believes it has to chart a careful course to win over Johnson without alarming EU leaders who may fear that Britain is seeking to overturn one of the key principles of the EU – the primacy of EU law.” http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/feb/17/eu-referendum-david-cameron-boris-johnson-talks-downing-street
@ Dav “Rather an ignominious end to a rather glorious history stretching back many centuries, at that…”
Glorious history ????
Come off it. Tell that to the former subject people of the old British Empire, the kids up the chimneys, my Granddad who went down the pit at 12 – his Dad who died of miner’s lung age 28… not to mention the odd Queen nor two whose head was removed on the orders of her husband…… not to mention the PBI who suffered over three million casualties in WW1 (including the 9,000 Indian troops taking part in something they knew nothing about.. It’s in part due to the EEC that we haven’t had a repeat in the last sixty years….
Come off it.
So, given your obvious distaste for the UK, you’d be happy to see the end of the UK and its absorption as a mere region, or province, of a European super-state, is that what you’re saying? That’s your preferred outcome, is it? Westminster standing in the same relationship to Brussels as, say, a local council stands to Westminster —just another level of government exercising whatever powers have been delegated to it by an overarching supreme authority?
Remind me again how the idea is to defuse worries over sovereignty…
With full respect to all, should we trust an all-powerful EU, that has fully subsumed nation state democracies? If we do go that route completely, let us hope we do not regret forgetting: “those who forget history are doomed to repeat it”? Not saying that the EU is sinister – just pointing out for example, my parents’ generation voted for a “common market”, not a political super-state, etc. – again, I am NOT looking for an argument and am happy to stand corrected, if I am wrong about anything – thank you.
P.S. Can any LibDem “remain experts” please try to rebut this link point by point: http://www.ukip.org/busting_the_eu_myths thank you.
@ Dav I have no distaste for the UK – so don’t try and put words in my mouth. My objection is to your rose tinted view of ‘glorious’ history.
In fact I’m rather proud of my party’s part in eradicating some of the worst excesses in your so called ‘glorious’ history.
is the “final intent” of the EU in actual fact to have a one European “super-state”
Is that really an issue? Surely the questions are when and in what form etc.
To my mind the formation of an EU superstate is an issue for tomorrow and something for our children who have grown up in the environment our parents created through their vote in 1975. Today’s problem is ensuring the EU has a firm footing and is so ingrained that it is practically unthinkable that European nations aren’t all members of the same club.
Today’s problem is ensuring the EU has a firm footing and is so ingrained that it is practically unthinkable that European nations aren’t all members of the same club.
So you’re saying that if we vote ‘Remain’ then we are voting for an eventual European superstate — the only uncertainty is the exact timing and the exact form?
Hear that, everyone: if you don’t want a European super-state, you must vote ‘Leave’. Even the Remainers themselves admit there is no ‘Remain, but don’t lose any more sovereignty’ option. All this talk of an EU with multiple destinations is a lie: there is only one destination and it is a single country called ‘Europe’.
Good article, but:
“instead the Tories are considering giving the UK Supreme Court the power “in exceptional circumstances” to rule that EU courts have gone beyond the scope of EU treaties, and thereby refuse to follow their rulings.”
We’d have to be very careful doing this, less we elevate the supreme court to the point where parliamentary supremacy is broken. I would not want this.
“To my mind the formation of an EU superstate is an issue for tomorrow and something for our children who have grown up in the environment our parents created through their vote in 1975.” with respect, from having asked my parents and hearing from others who voted in the 70s, they felt it told “there would be no loss of essential sovereignty”; ergo they did not at all expect they were voting for a “supranational political EU state” – thank you.
Philip,
As someone who voted to stay in the ‘Common Market’ in 1975, I can assure you that PM Wilson did talk about ‘closer union’, although he never really explained what that meant. Ted Heath always claimed that we knew exactly what we were voting for back then and he certainly didn’t see the EEC as a mere trading block. I’m interested to know how you define “essential sovereignty”. Back then the idea was that, if you wanted to get something out of it, you had to give things up, and I don’t just mean money.
Hello John,
Thank you for your comment and am always happy to be educated and stand corrected where I am incorrect.
“I can assure you that PM Wilson did talk about ‘closer union’, although he never really explained what that meant.” – so to paraphrase you, it was not “spelled out” what he really meant.
“Ted Heath always claimed that we knew exactly what we were voting for back then and he certainly didn’t see the EEC as a mere trading block.” – well, I am just going on what my parents and others have said who also voted then, and moreover a politician saying something happened does not axiomatically make it true – I have heard it said that Heath was blackmailed, etc. for what he got up to in his “private life” or perhaps was even a spy – who knows – I certainly do not, nevertheless, his “recollection” does not automatically make it true – finally I have read on the internet (which of course could be not true) that the civil service did know this would (almost) certainly erode the UK parliament’s sovereignty and it was kept hushed up. (see P.S.)
“I’m interested to know how you define “essential sovereignty”. Back then the idea was that, if you wanted to get something out of it, you had to give things up, and I don’t just mean money.”
“Re: “essential sovereignty”, that is a phrase I may have heard was approximately/literally put about at the time. (see P.S.)
Finally and respect that it is supposition on my part, would the people of the UK have really voted to make an EU parliament sovereign over the UK parliament and its law in the 1970’s, if that was clearly what they were told they were voting for? After all, many of those in society had actually fought in WW2 against the Nazis, or been bombed to near destruction as civilians (and presumably some also in WW1)- it was only about 30 years after the end of WW2?
With respect,
Philip
P.S. Just saw this article from the Tegraph – seems of interest perhaps: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/11057170/How-Harold-Wilson-was-warned-Europe-threatened-British-democracy.html .
“In a meeting three months before the 1975 referendum, Mr Wilson was urged by his ministers to inform the British people that membership would seriously compromise Britain’s ability to govern itself.
In the event, the Government’s official pamphlet explaining the referendum gave no such warning – and instead assured voters that the “essence of sovereignty” would be protected by staying in.”
“Ministers complained issue of British sovereignty had been “separated from the handling of other renegotiation issues” and were being addressed late in the process. The Commons could be further undermined if – as transpired – Europe was given its own Parliament. ”
“The system of directly applicable law, made by the Community, was a gross infringement of the sovereignty in the sense that political sovereignty rested in the power of a nation to make its own laws,” the minutes record unnamed ministers as complaining. ”
““The transfer of Parliament’s legislative powers to the Council of Ministers, and even more so to the Commission which was not elected and not accountable to the people of the United Kingdom, represented the most serious attack on Parliamentary democracy with which this country was faced.”
““The relationship between Parliament and the Government in relation to European Community business would result in a dismemberment of the authority of the House of Commons. Moreover, the threat to Parliament from Community membership was compounded by the prospect of a directly elected European Assembly.” “
@John Marriott
I wasn’t old enough to vote and tbh I was young enough to not really care. However when you look at the Gov pamphlet from that era you can see why some people may have not realised (http://www.harvard-digital.co.uk/euro/pamphlet.htm) that ever closer union was the way, about the closest it gets to mentioning it is:
“The aims of the Common Market are:
To bring together the peoples of Europe.”
@Dav – it doesn’t matter which way we vote, the EU sooner or later will form a ‘superstate’ based on its doctrine of “ever-closer union”. The question is just what form such a ‘superstate’ will take. Vote ‘Leave’ and you and your children’s children will only be able to spectate. Vote ‘Remain’ and they get a seat at the table and be in a position to influence matters. Plus if we and they negotiate effectively, they can always do a Scotland and hold another referendum at some future date…
Additionally, given GB’s historical role in Europe, stepping in when European governments threw their toys out of the pram and fell out with each other. I suggest it is in our long-term interests to be involved and engaged with Europe.
“they get a seat at the table and be in a position to influence matters” – with the utmost respect, how much “influence” has the UK (David Cameron) got at the moment?
“suggest it is in our long-term interests to be involved and engaged with Europe.” – again with the utmost respect, but what if the UK essentially ceases to be a “sovereign nation”, as you accept is the goal- how will our influence be then?
Roland,
I’m not sure what you mean by “throwing their toys out of the pram”?
@ Chris Nelson
“We in the Lib Dems are passionate about the benefits of the EU and I take solace in that. We do have to face an important fact though – for us to have a chance at reforming the EU in a more Liberal way we first have to win the referendum. And that means we need to win over voters who would not ordinarily even think about voting for us.”
Go on then win us over!!
You are passionate about the benefits of the EU, yet neither you nor a single one of the LibDem respondents to your blog makes any attempt to vocalise these benefits, always and exclusively preferring to character assassinate your opponents, with the odd bit of scaremongering thrown in, but never any attempt to sell us the benefits.
It seems to me that the idiom ’empty vessels make the most noise’ is very apt in the case of the LIbDems and the EU.
Interesting read, Thanks Chris.
Re: 1975
With respect to what was and was not said by politicians and what was perceived by the GB electorate in 1975, I don’t have a problem because this debate was had prior to the 2010 general election and quite properly resulted in ALL the major parties agreeing to the need for a new mandate from the electorate before further treaties and surrender of sovereignty (yes I know teeth had to be pulled to achieve this). Since then as we all know and have commented upon from time-to-time here on LDV, the goal posts and rationale for the referendum have moved all over the place and continue to move…
As for political sovereignty, whilst I respect and in many ways agree with the statements made concerning the nation state, the interconnected world we live in now is very different to the one in which GB negotiated membership and hence both the constraints and responsibilities we now demand of nation states have also changed, as has the capability of a nation state to exercise sovereignty (we need to look no further than current UK attempts to enhance online safety…).
From what I can see, a ‘Remain’ outcome from the referendum currently being offered by Westminster, doesn’t change the need for a future referendum on treaty changes and further relinquishment of sovereignty to the EU nor let the major political parties off the hook for such a referendum…
“From what I can see, a ‘Remain’ outcome from the referendum currently being offered by Westminster, doesn’t change the need for a future referendum on treaty changes and further relinquishment of sovereignty to the EU nor let the major political parties off the hook for such a referendum…” – with the utmost respect, considering all the “water under the bridge” during the approximately last 40 years of the “EEC->EU”, would many in the UK seriously expect being offered another meaningful referendum “any time soon”, if voting to remain in the EU, this June?
@Glenn – “I’m not sure what you mean by “throwing their toys out of the pram”?”
My mistake, wrong phrase, should of been “falling out with each other” and hence lead to WWI and WWII…
@Philip – “how much “influence” has the UK (David Cameron) got at the moment?”
That is uncertain until the deal has been done. But in general the UK influence is probably pretty similar to that of the LibDems in the HoL. A point I think that has been made recently, in that the EU requires a different style and type of engagement to that which has served a standalone sovereign nation. So the question is more of how confident are we that we can engage and make an impact on the EU? and followed up asking do we want to?
As for ceasing to be a sovereign nation, well I don’t see any European country willingly accepting that any time soon. But in any case I would expect Westminster to hold a referendum, particularly as all the major parties agreed to such a referendum in 2010 and hence if it happens it will be because the UK electorate wanted it to happen.
@Philip – I agree there is a vast difference between ‘need’ and ‘offered’ and therein lies part of the problem – the electorate know they cannot trust the Westminster parties. So the ‘Remain’ parties have made their job much harder than it needs to be… Similarly, I suspect the ‘Leave’ contingent have to some extent have fired too early and so will have difficulty in having any influence over holding the Westminster parties to their word when the treaty changes start to roll in a few years…
@ Steve Cromer
“And can we stop talking about ‘Eurosceptics’ please ………They are anti-European Union simple as that.”
That’s a valid distinction. Except I’d say it wasn’t quite so simple. There are some who would be anti EU in any form. Others are only anti the EU in its current form but would still regard themselves as pro-European.
The overwhelming majority in the UK were once in favour of the EU when it seemed to be working reasonably well, but that has changed in recent years since the adption of the single currency – the euro. For many of us on the left it has been the mistreatment of the poorer countries in the EZ which has been the prime cause for concern. The final straw, for me, was the denial of access to Greek citizens’ bank accounts purely because they happened to bank in Greece. The duty of any central bank should be to do whatever it takes to support the currency in all areas of its jurisdiction and this the ECB clearly failed to do last summer.
Can we imagine the BoE denying bank account access to Scottish or Welsh bank account holders for purely political reasons? Or the US Fed freezing the accounts of everyone in Detroit, simply because the city had financial difficulties and there may be some dispute between local and Federal Government?
There is another twist in the story: It is true as Chris says: the Kippers argue that, even if it all seems reasonable on the surface, we can never trust the EU to keep their word . But when you ask UKIPers on the post Brexit world, they will assure you ‘that Britain will negotiates its own way – with the EU. There seems to be a contradiction between: “we can’t trust the EU” (now) and we “can negotiate with the EU” (after we leave). No coherent system can cope with inherent contradictions.
“There seems to be a contradiction between: “we can’t trust the EU” (now) and we “can negotiate with the EU” (after we leave). No coherent system can cope with inherent contradictions.” – with the utmost respect, the EU sells the UK far more than we do them – therefore, unless they “cut off their nose to spite their face”, they would try to cooperate?
“There seems to be a contradiction between: “we can’t trust the EU” (now) and we “can negotiate with the EU” (after we leave).”
No J George, it’s far far,.. more simple than you suggest. In a post Brexit world, trust is not even in the ball-park, when it comes to trade. Do you seriously imagine that VW, Audi, BMW, would tolerate some German import tariffs, if those tariffs might be reciprocated by a newly energised and freed up UK? German companies willing to risk losing trade?…..Seriously?,.. it’s not going to happen.
We [UK], are in an extremely strong position, and the EU have far more to lose, ….and they know it. We can get everything from butter to BMW’s at a much more favourable rate that suits the UK, simply by regaining open free global trading, and the EU knows that very fact.
In short,.. The EU needs us, far more than we need them.
In the analogy of the tail wagging the dog, liberals assume the dog is the EU? You seriously need to upgrade your flawed thinking, because the EU is the tail, and is frankly *nothing* without the UK dog.
If you think I am wrong, let’s see how the EU holds together, on the other side of Brexit?
“We in the Lib Dems are passionate about the benefits of the EU and I take solace in that. We do have to face an important fact though – for us to have a chance at reforming the EU in a more Liberal way we first have to win the referendum. And that means we need to win over voters who would not ordinarily even think about voting for us.”
I see as this blog winds down, nobody has accepted the challenge of trying to win over voters with argument and facts.
A blog full of arguing about arguments, but not a smidgin of an attempt to do what you all claim needs to be done, which is to sell the benefits of the EU.
Either you have no credible position to make other than ideology, or there are no arguments to make that could withstand even the mildest examination, you therefore take the position of silence on the issue.
I asked you to ‘go on then, win us over’, nobody rose to the challenge. Quelle surprise.
In the event of success for Leave, I imaginbe there will be a requirement for cross party working groups to negotiate our leaving.
I assume that since there is a near 100% support for the the EU on our current terms in the LibDems, would you expect to be invited to take part in negotiations to extract the best deal for an independent UK, whilst effectivly being a cuckoo in the nest.
Having lost the debate and the vote, I would expect LibDems to do the honourable thing and withdraw, will the LibDems be honourable.