Nick Clegg has the following to say in his regular column for Inews:
The more you lose your grip, the more you hold on to what you know. It is a sure sign that an institution is in steady decline when it fixates on past glories. A belief in the traditions of the past often masks discomfort about the challenges of the present.
And so John Hayes, a jovial mid-ranking Conservative Minister with reliably anti European, traditional views, revealed more than he probably intended when he recently declared in the House of Commons, “I will not be taking interventions by anyone who is not wearing a tie, on whatever side of the house they sit.”
Yes, you read that correctly. As the country slides towards an economic downturn, as the Government stumbles cluelessly towards Brexit, as living standards tumble, as Britain’s international standing declines daily… a Minister of State truly, madly, deeply feels that whether an MP wears a tie or not is of national importance. So important, in fact, that he pronounced from the despatch box that he would henceforth refuse to speak to any tieless MP.
As ever, Nigel Farage was available to add spleen to stupidity, condemning John Bercow (who had ruled that MPs could attend the Commons without a tie) as “a low-grade lightweight with no respect for our institutions or our history”. ‘Britain is becoming marginal in European affairs – Theresa May sitting friendless at Helmuth Kohl’s funeral said it all’ Obsessed with the small things.
This is what happens when a country is cut adrift, moving helplessly towards the rocks of a “hard” Brexit. The architects of our misfortune, paralysed by the impending damage of their own prejudices, dwell instead on the minutiae of small differences.
…
British observers – the Johnsons, Goves and Letts of this world – regularly remark how boring the debates in the German Parliament are. They have none of the rhetorical pyrotechnics of Prime Ministers Questions, none of the raucous shouting and repartee of the Commons Chamber. Instead, the debates are sober, largely humourless and staid. And to cap it all off, Members of the Bundestag are sometimes seen without ties.
Of course, much of the German political system – its emphasis on consensus and coalitions, its constitutional checks and balances, its aversion to referenda, and its prohibitions against extremism – was designed by British and American officials after the war. They imparted their knowledge of Anglo-American democratic traditions with barely concealed condescension. ‘Is it any wonder that not a single new democracy in Central and Eastern Europe copied the “Westminster model” after the collapse of the Berlin Wall?’
Harold Ingrams, a British colonial administrator who led the design of German local Government, loftily declared: “Our democracy, the most robust in the world… it is on British soil that it flourishes best but we do export it and…it grows and flourishes in diverse lands.”
But I wonder whether the complacency about our democratic traditions is now becoming a hindrance to realising our own failings? Some countries suffer from an inferiority complex. Perhaps we’re suffering from a superiority complex?
The Germans are aghast that the Brexit referendum – like a party game which suddenly goes horribly wrong – could have occurred in such a flippant and careless way without any constitutional restraint, without any super majority or minimum turn-out.
In an excoriating forthcoming book, Democracy and Its Crisis, AC Grayling charts the way that American and British democracy – insulated for so long from war, occupation and revolution – has become flabby, corrupt and hollowed out by narrow vested interests, big money and unrepresentative elites.
Is it any wonder that not a single new democracy in Central and Eastern Europe copied the “Westminster model” after the collapse of the Berlin Wall? Our neo-colonial self confidence after the war has now given way to a position of constitutional isolation where no other European democracy has followed our lead.
No wonder German observers are starting to value their “boring” conventions. Because being boring is better than being in decline.
You can read the full piece here.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
How Chancellor Reeves torpedoed the economy
The Disneyfication of Haley Mills
Survation now put Andy Burnham 10 points ahead in Makerfield
Michael Meadowcroft: A Liberal of Intellectual Rigour and Uncommon Integrity
Chris Cory
Ruth Bright
BigTallTim
Daniel Walker
Richard Good
21 Comments
It may be more accurate to say that speaking and acting under the illusion that you are superior to others is actually one of the symptoms of an inferiority complex. That’s why it’s a “complex”. I suspect that other EU countries look at the UK’s posturing and denials and recognise the symptom.
“The Germans are aghast that the Brexit referendum – like a party game which suddenly goes horribly wrong – could have occurred in such a flippant and careless way without any constitutional restraint, without any super majority or minimum turn-out.”
But the MPs who voted to hold the referendum voted for it to be held on that basis…
Women can be tie-less.
Are we moving towards Ukrainian membership of NATO and then the EU?
Is our government actively supporting such moves?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/02/ukraines-petro-poroshenko-will-hold-referendum-nato-membership/
Nick Clegg’s reasoned comments and the recent interviews and articles by Vince show us as a serious party with positive views on the future of the country. By contrast Tim’s comment on the Brexit bill “it will be hell” shows his lack of gravitas that was picked up by the public at the last election. His youthful enthusiasm served us well in the early days of fightback, and helped double our membership. However we need to move on, and Vince with Jo should be the right mix to do that.
That sneer against Tim Farron, David Becket, is as astonishing as it is ridiculous. Tim immediately took up the pro-remain position after the Referendum, and led us firmly and consistently to declare that we believe we should be in the EU, and that the people should be allowed to decide with another referendum when the terms of exit are known. Now that a YouGov poll has discovered a majority of people do now think that Brexit is a mistake, there is every reason to assert that democratic principle, that there should be a final referendum.
Moreover, Tim has always made it clear that for him, it is our children’s future that is the main emotional drive to keep Britain in the EU; and it has been right to condemn Corbyn’s leadership in accepting the hardline position on Brexit and the falsity therefore of his appeal to young people. Tim has led us with reason as well as passion, and though it is good if Nick Clegg is still strongly involved in advising our Parliamentarians on their tactics, and we may hope much from the team of twelve with the backup of the peers, it is a sad mistake for the party to lose Tim’s leadership.
David,
The public like simple slogans, “it will be hell” nicely sums up the likelihood of what Brexit will mean. I think you overstate the need for gravitas, when what we need is a clear and simple narrative, not on the one hand this the other hand that.
As with the sensible piece on moderation, today, from a different Nick, this is worth reading.
It is a fearing by many even in this party, of not being dramatic, or exciting, that means in avoiding being dull or everyday, politicians and public today try and respond as they do. Brexit , Trump, these are people saying , unless amongst their staunchest , we are being different and extremely so !
Well it doesn’t connect with those of us who liked it when the Germans had moved from dictatorship to dullness, and we were as ever strong and stable and meant it because we were it rather than saying it because wer’e not !
Katherine, I agree with you about people from the metropolis belittling Tim. I’m afraid I don’t agree about Nick Clegg advising on tactics given his record in that area between 2010-15. We should just leave it at “I’m sorry”.
@Katharine. I did not intend it as a sneer. I said he did a good job in getting us back on the road after 2015. His enthusiasm attracted many new members to our party from those who thought along the same lines as us. I do not think any other leader would have achieved as much. However the party did not go down well with the electorate. There were many reasons for this, but one message I heard on more than one occasion was that Tim was not seen as PM material. It is also true that Corbyn is unlikely to be PM material, and May has proved she is not. We have a second chance, let us take it.
I agree with you Frankie. Tim seems to be the only one of our MPs who can express what we are feeling in ordinary language and that is a skill we need as a party. I do hope he has a major role when he steps down as leader.
I’m also a bit concerned about what Katharine said re Nick’s role. I thought that part of the problem that we faced with our PR while in Coalition was to do with the fact that Nick is totally European in his outlook and thought that the rest of the population didn’t need persuading of the benefits Coalition would bring. Because of this I’m nervous about his having undue influence on our Parliamentary party.
I agree with the broad thrust of Nick’s article, although it appears to have been scribbled down hurriedly to meet a journalistic deadline and could have made its case better.
It seems to me that the ‘Mother of all Parliaments’ has become the ‘Pantomime Dame of all Parliaments’ and is scarcely fit for purpose. Tinkering with peripheral issues like ties and correct forms of address will no longer do, Westminster needs a minor revolution in order to serve UK citizens effectively. I said as much to Sarah Olney in January when I wrote to congratulate her on her by-election victory: I hoped that she would be in the vanguard of a better form of politics, but the poor lass didn’t have long enough in the HoC to make much impression.
Until such time as Parliament can be properly reformed (and re-built and/or re-located) our MP’s will just have to deal with what’s in front of them. When Parliament returns in the Autumn – and assuming that Vince is our new leader – I hope that he will put down any trivial time-wasting interventions by the likes of Rees-Mogg by gravely pointing out that Parliament is place where serious business is conducted, that the country is in a dire situation, and MP’s like him need to stop treating politics like a pleasant hobby as if it has no consequences for ordinary people.
OK, rant over.
This reminds me of that 1st world war quote – The Prussian (the EU today) says with a pressed voice: “the situation is serious but not hopeless;” the Austrian (the UK) says with a smile “the situation is hopeless but not serious.”
Is this the same Nick Clegg who ignored two democratic votes at party conference to vote for Secret Courts when he was Deputy Prime Minister, or is it his long lost, democratic twin brother? I think we should be told! 🙂
Sue and the Davids, without going into the rights and wrongs of Nick’s actions as Deputy Prime Minister (much already debated ) I want to see him continue advising the Parliamentary team on Brexit because of his unrivalled knowledge and experience of the EU, excellent speeches while in Parliament and commitment to our party policy on it. I do agree, though, Sue, that Nick didn’t anticipate all the antipathy to Coalition decisions, and I think we as a party have still to work our penance by having good policies on ‘austerity’ and welfare issues now. Neither did we as a party (I include myself in this) think through what we wanted to see in the way of reforms of the EU, going along with Nick’s enthusiasm there, and we also need to keep aware of and commenting on the EU’s continuing development.
David B., I can’t see that the fact that some ‘didn’t think Tim was PM material’ was any reason to discourage him from continuing as leader, since as you say yourself Corbyn wasn’t perceived so either, and May has proved a failure. What we do know is that Tim was a good leader of our party, inspiring everyone with his speeches as well as being collegiate. I don’t see the leader’s rally at Bournemouth being in quite the same class in September: we shall have to hope that Vince brings out other qualities instead.
Nick refers to the sometimes stultifying effects of tradition. The wise old seafarers used to say: “Tradition makes for good ballast but poor cargo”. Quite.
‘The Germans are aghast that the Brexit referendum – like a party game which suddenly goes horribly wrong – could have occurred in such a flippant and careless way without any constitutional restraint, without any super majority or minimum turn-out.’
I don’t see that as any better or worse than, say, the French referendum on Maastricht which ended with a 51:49 majority. Or are slim results constitutionally OK if they go the right way?
I don’t see that as any better or worse than, say, the French referendum on Maastricht which ended with a 51:49 majority
I also note that those arguing that this referendum should require a supermajority should, for consistency, be objecting to the referendum clauses in the 2011 EU Act on the same basis, and arguing that it should have taken a supermajority for the adoption of any future EU treaty which involved a further transfer of powers to the EU.
On neckties: this always makes me laugh.
Germaine Greer … “If men can run the world, why can’t they stop wearing neckties? How intelligent is it to start the day by tying a little noose around your neck?
“The more you lose your grip, the more you hold on to what you know. It is a sure sign that an institution is in steady decline when it fixates on past glories. A belief in the traditions of the past often masks discomfort about the challenges of the present.”
how true this is of how the government deals with asylum issues. Whenever our Peers or MPs ask a question about an injustice the reply inevitably begins with, ” this country has a proud tradition of ….” but the question is never about the past it is about present injustice.
I have a name for the UK’s system of governance: The “dictatorship of the archaic”. As the example of the Hapsburgs shows, regimes that don’t change have a strong tendency not to survive.
LJP and Dav: false logic and distractions from what’s in front of us to what isn’t current or relevant to the UK.
Is anyone on here saying an old French referendum was a great result? Did anyone say so at the time?
How do you know people arguing now for a supermajority didn’t encourage the same for EU decisions in the past? Do you think the UK now is in any position to be telling the EU how it should run its affairs in future?