This seems to be a good moment to remind you all of the motion passed at Liberal Democrat Conference in Brighton. Essentially, if we can’t get an extension for a People’s Vote, or for extra negotiating time to avoid a no deal, we think that Article 50 should be withdrawn. And the ruling from the European Court of Justice yesterday proves that it can be done.
Read, learn and inwardly digest this paragraph:
(Conference calls for)The Government to seek to extend Article 50 if required to legislate for a referendum on the deal, or to provide enough negotiating time to avoid a catastrophic no-deal scenario, and if such extension is not agreed to withdraw the Article 50 notification.
Here’s the motion in full:
Conference notes that:
A.The Conservative Government are making a mess of Brexit and Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party are helping them to deliver this destructive Brexit.
B.Liberal Democrats campaigned to remain in the EU during the 2016 referendum and have since campaigned for the people to have the final say on the Brexit deal, including the option to remain in the EU.
C.The Treasury have stated that a no-deal Brexit could require the UK to borrow œ80 billion more by 2033, the Conservative Government have begun releasing the 84 no-deal technical notes, and the UK health sector are stockpiling medicines in case of a no-deal.
D.The Chequers plan is unworkable, rejected by both the EU and Conservative European Research Group MPs.
E.A conclusive agreement has not yet been reached on many of the issues arising from the Brexit referendum, including Government red lines, and both sides have stated that “nothing is agreed until everything is agreed”.
F.Whilst the principle of a Northern Ireland backstop has been agreed, the UK’s plan to temporarily avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland has not been agreed and there is still no agreement on a long-term solution.
G.During the transition period, which is due to end in 2020, the UK will remain in the Single Market and Customs Union.
H.The draft Withdrawal Agreement stipulated that EU citizens will have to apply for pre-settled or settled status and if they fail to do so will be at risk of deportation; Irish citizens do not have to apply but can if they choose to.
I.EU citizens, who are not Irish or Commonwealth citizens, living in the UK are excluded from voting in UK General Elections or referendums and voting rights have been left outside the scope of Brexit negotiations by the EU Commission.
J.The 2016 EU referendum gave no clear destination for Brexit, as the terms of the deal were not yet known.
Conference believes that:
i) There is no deal that could be negotiated through the Article 50 process that could be more beneficial than continued membership of the EU, leaving the EU would therefore be damaging to the UK’s fundamental national interests.
ii) Given the assertion that “nothing is agreed until everything is agreed”, the risk of a no-deal remains, which would mean the UK crashes out of the EU without any final Withdrawal Agreement in place.
iii) The recent shifts in global affairs, including the USA withdrawing from the UNHRC, re-emphasise the vital importance of UK membership of the EU and the values upon which the EU was formed.
iv) The 2016 referendum and subsequent General Election had a severe impact on EU citizens living in the UK, leaving them in a place of uncertainty; referendums and elections will also disproportionately impact these citizens for decades to come.
Conference condemns the Conservative Government’s ideological, disastrous approach to Brexit negotiations.
Conference urges the Labour Party to work in the national interest and reflect the views of its members by campaigning for the people to have the final say on the Brexit deal and a chance to exit from Brexit, challenging Jeremy Corbyn’s position as Leader if he refuses to do so too.
Conference further condemns the exclusion of EU citizens’ voices from political decisions that have had an unprecedented impact upon their lives.
Conference reaffirms the Liberal Democrat commitment to:
a) Fight for an “exit from Brexit” referendum to be held once the outcome of the UK-EU negotiations is known, for the public to choose between “the deal” or Britain remaining a full member of the EU.
b) Campaign for Britain to remain a full and active member of the EU.
c) Enable all UK citizens living abroad to vote for MPs in separate overseas constituencies, and to participate in UK referendums.
d) Introduce votes at 16 for all elections and referendums across the UK.
Conference calls for:
1. The Government to release full impact assessments of all options, prior to any meaningful parliamentary vote, thereby demonstrating that there is no Brexit deal on offer that will deliver the promises of the Leave campaign.
2.The Government to seek to extend Article 50 if required to legislate for a referendum on the deal, or to provide enough negotiating time to avoid a catastrophic no-deal scenario, and if such extension is not agreed to withdraw the Article 50 notification.
3. The right to full participation in civic life, including the ability to stand for office or vote in UK referendums and General Elections, to be extended to all EU citizens not already entitled to vote as Irish or Commonwealth citizens, who have lived in the UK for five years or longer.
4.The UK Government to guarantee unilaterally in law, including in a no-deal scenario, the rights of all EU citizens living in theUK, ringfencing the Withdrawal Agreement’s Chapter on citizens’ rights.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Is it me, or is British politics missing a Conservative Party?
The very lost tunnels of the Hereford and Gloucester Canal
Do those "Winning Here" posters and bar charts really actually work?
Are some premature births caused by a average lower mitochondrial membrane potential in the baby?
Black History Month
Katharine Pindar
Ian Patterson
nvelope2003
David Warren
Peter Martin
13 Comments
I would have thought that withdrawal/suspension/suspension of Article 50 was a no brainier!
As to what happens after that depends, as Harold Macmillan famously said, “on events, dear boy”. I know that most Lib Dems are wedded to another referendum. For me that would be absolutely the last resort. The facts would indicate that around a third, and a very vociferous third at that, will always favour Brexit whatever dire warnings of such a move are presented. Around a third, but possibly increasing, will always favour remain. The rest appear not to be bothered either way, so you could argue that they might, if pushed, prefer the status quo ante.
It’s hard to remember that far back; but wasn’t ‘Europe’ around number 14 on the public’s concern list before Cameron decided to run with it? In a recent book, ‘Divided. Why we’re living in an Age of Walls’, Tim Marshall argued that geography played a significant role in how nations positioned themselves. For example, except for a skirmish in the 1960s, why have Indian and China (so far) never fought a major war? Mr Marshall argues that it could be something to do with the Himalayas? Similarly, why do we Brits on the whole fail to identify with the European mainland? Could it have something to do with water?
Whatever emerges from the omnishambles still emerging before our eyes, it will require a bit more than party loyalty and a willingness to compromise. For a change, why can’t politicians be ‘perfectly clear’ about this.
@Keynes wrote, “Words ought to be a little wild, for they are the assault of thoughts upon the unthinking, but when the seats of power and authority have been attained there should be no more poetic license. On the contrary, we have to count the cost down to the penny which our rhetoric has despised.” HT: Robert Skidelsky.
See Skidelsky’s “The Brexit End Game” https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/brexit-endgame-temporary-customs-union-by-robert-skidelsky-2018-10
He has just told Bloomberg, “We shall not suffer as much from leaving the EU as we did from the 2008 banking crisis.”
It’s about culture even more than economics. As he writes, “Britain’s Leave campaign was a revolt against not only economic mismanagement, but also the pretension of supranational government. So Brexit’s outcome may indicate how the dialectic between supranationalism and nationalism will play out in much of the rest of the world as well, where it is the stuff of current politics.”
His conclusion should be a pointer to we Liberals, “Thus, the Brexit compromise, if it happens, may be a moderately optimistic foretaste of the fate of populism in our century. The resurgence of economic nationalism which unites Brexit, Trumpism, and the European far right will not lead to the breakdown of trade, hot wars, dictatorship, or rapid de-globalization. Rather, it is a loud warning to the political center – one that may cause even the current crop of extremists to shrink from the consequences of their words.”
There is a huge price to be paid if we are not a part of the force for compromise.
Worth keeping up-to-date with him at robertskidelsky.com
It is reassuring to know we voted for something that is still relevant. Yes, if we can’t avoid a no deal except by revoking Article 50, we should do that. It still leaves open the referendum result though as it is advisory it might be technically possible to ignore it due to the failed negotiations. Better to revisit the question with more information and a much improved process.
@ Bill le Breton Good to hear you suggest reading and keeping up with Robert Skidelsky’s views, Bill.
Back in the 1960’s when I was a student at UCL I remember being impressed and influenced by his first book, ‘Politicians and the Slump’ (1967)…… in which he gave a significant thumbs up to the 1929 Liberal Yellow Book. It’s a pity the Clegg generation of orangeistas weren’t influenced by it when they opted for austerity and coalition in 2010.
If I had my way – (after the next blue moon) – every politician would be compelled to take a history degree to learn lessons from the past. How different things might have been if Blair had studied the Boer Wars and the Anglo-Afghan wars…… and if Bojo had an accurate rather than a self delusional and heroic fictional view of Churchill.
If there is a snap election, let’s hope Labour is still vague and mealy-mouthed on Brexit so that a manifesto that states the LibDems will revoke article 50 gets through to the populace.
@ Bill le Breton What a refreshing change to hear about Robert Skidelsky again (even though it touches on Brexit), Bill.
As a young student reading history at UCL in the sixties I remember being influenced by his first book – Politicians and the Slump – (1967) which focused on the Keynesian alternative (especially the Liberal Yellow Book) in the late 1920’s. It’s also good to know that the old boy is still around and punching.
I often reflect that every politician ought to be forced to take a history degree as part of their induction process. What a difference if Blair had studied the two Victorian Afghan Wars……….. and if Clegg & Co had read ‘Politicians and the Slump’ when they opted for austerity in 2010. Certainly I remember Roy Jenkins advocating Keynesian policies in the UK and quoting Franklin D. Roosevelt’s USA New Deal back in the early 1980’s.
It would be helpful if our leader would spell out to members what his strategy is now, how he will achieve it and how he will sell it to his members and the public.
As it is we are as much in the dark as are Tories and Labour. The country is steering for the rocks and appears rudderless. There is a complete lack of leadership.
I agree with David Becket on strategy. I watched our leader on TV this morning. Although I understood what he was saying, I could not work out why he was saying it.
Surely the only job we have now is to be enthusiastic about the EU, including giving an accurate account of the real EU. If a firm majority were in favour of staying then everything would follow. In fact they are not. If we have a referendum and get a majority in favour of leaving, what happens then?
Surely, part of the reason we have this problem lies in the fact that the vote was so evenly split – just over one-third voted to leave, just over one-third voted to remain and just under one-third didn’t vote. Who is going to say that the result of a People’s Vote would be any different?
I have been campaigning for a Peoples Vote and will be out in Became on Saturday morning. I don’t want a Peoples Vote though because it could very well produce the same result or a marginal victory for Remain which won’t resolve the situation.
I, along with a lot of my LibDem colleagues, support the Peoples Vote because there isn’t anything else.
The events this morning may well end in suspension of Article 50. Labour needs to come off the fence and support membership of the EU. We all know why their manifesto was to respect the referendum – a cynical attempt to keep Leavers on their side and gain power – they’re still trying to sit on the fence.
Both main parties have painted themselves into a corner to keep a minority of their voters on side – that isn’t democracy.
If we stay in the EU the real issues that caused people to want to leave need to be addressed. Some of them are about the EU but many are really about the unfairness of our electoral system and the disenfranchisement of millions of voters who live in safe seats. They had a voice in 2016 but, in last year’s GE, it went back to business as usual. That political vacuum is storing up trouble for the future and needs to be addressed.
That should have been “I will be out in Bedale on Saturday”!
Re my earlier post about the Referendum result and the inconclusiveness of the result. Bearing in mind that it was called as an advisory referendum and has only become such a hot potato because the Government of the day said that they would implement the result, would it not be possible to say that the result was, as I have said, too evenly-split to be conclusive? Article 50 could then be revoked, the law saying that we leave the EU on 29 March next year could be repealed and the business of governing the country could resume.
Useful article and comments. I’ve just posted a similar comment on Facebook when copying Ed Davey’s Lib Dem message calling the Tories ‘utter hypocrites’ for wasting our precious time. The PM (whether or not still Tory Leader) must, as a matter of urgency, use the next two days in Brussels to ask the Council of Ministers for a long extension of our article 50 negotiating time so that we can have a meaningful (or even ‘meaningless’!) vote in parliament, call a referendum &/or general election and then either try to renegotiate the un-renegotiable or just withdraw our Article 50 withdrawal letter. Without extra time we risk tumbling over the ‘no-deal’ cliff, which only the loony fringe of Brexiteers could want.
As for the referendum campaign, I agree that it should be positive. Lib Dems should be seen not as fearful ‘remoaners’, but as cheerful believers in the force for good that is the EU, a voluntary union of democratic, rule-of-law states that has brought peace, prosperity and respect for human rights to the whole continent of Europe for the first time in its history. Not only is it better for the UK to be in the EU, it is better for the EU to have the UK in it. If the UK is a force for good, and I believe it is, its voice can be heard ten times louder through the megaphone of the EU. We can be proud of the part that Britain has played in the development of Europe – and vice versa. It isn’t the quitters of the ERG that are the true patriots, it is the remainers, led by the Lib Dems!