Paddy Ashdown set out his view of Theresa May’s Brexit speech in a typically blistering article in the Independent:
Nobody voted, he says, for the Britain the Tories have planned, as revealed by Phlilip Hammond over the weekend:
Last weekend in Germany, Chancellor Philip Hammond blurted out the truth about the course May has chosen. Retain the closest economic links with the EU, he said, and Britain will remain a broadly European-style nation. If we cast off all our European moorings and head for the open sea, we risk having to turn ourselves into a low-tax, no-regulation, cheap-labour equivalent of Singapore. Then, among other things we have come to take for granted and enjoy in our country, we would say goodbye to workplace rights, the welfare state as we know it, policies to protect our environment and European style protections for our civil liberties.
The people should have their say on this, he says (unsurprisingly)
Surely, before this Government is allowed turn a narrow majority for leave into a swingeing mandate to rename our country “Britapore” and paddle it out into the mid-Atlantic, we its poor benighted passengers should be allowed a say? Such a vote would not be to re-fight the in/out referendum. Those, like me, who campaigned for Remain must accept as gracefully as we can, that we lost. What we now have to decide, as a country is what kind of relationship a Brexit Britain should retain with the European Union – in short, what kind of country we should now become. May has told us her vision. The question is do the people of Britain agree? Given the stark choices she has proposed at what she concedes is “a moment of great national change”, do they too not get the right to speak?
Brexiteers claim that Leave was a vote against an arrogant political elite. How ironic, then, that our country’s course is now to be determined by a leader who has not faced an election even in her own party, let alone the country. There will be no second vote, no consultation, no detailed plan and no chance for Parliament amend or scrutinise (unless the blessed Supreme Court Judges instruct otherwise). The people have spoken and are now to be dispensed with as “not wanted for the remainder of the voyage” – Conservative voters, along with the rest of us. What happened to the Tory manifesto promise of little more than 18 months ago: “yes to the single market”?
You can read the whole thing here.
* Newshound: bringing you the best Lib Dem commentary in print, on air or online.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Violent Bonham Carter features on Fake or Fortune?
Have resignations led to a rethink?
High Fell leaflet watch (2)
Two new Makerfield by-election polls gives Burnham 5 and 12 point leads
GWYN WILLIAMS
Alex Macfie
Peter Martin
John Smith
Nick Baird
31 Comments
We, LibDems, need a sharp arrow approach here. This means using a sound bite to put a point. At every opportunity it should be used.
“But the Tories said “yes” to the Single Market, didn’t they?”
Great article by Paddy Ashdown. He’s completely right. Theresa May has NO MANDATE AT ALL to determine what the nature of Brexit should be. Even the Brexit mandate itself is questionable, relying on one of two competing democratic systems, representative democracy and referendum, which gave opposite results during 2016, and therefore can’t be operated simultaneously. And of course, even then opinion is divided almost equally, with no obligation on Remainers to accept Brexit, anymore than socialists who have lost an election are expected to renounce socialism thereafter.
As Newsnight’s Chris Cook pointed out last night, May’s speech on the EU customs union is inconsistent and unachievable. It is logically impossible to have free trade with the EU whilst at the same time opting out of the EU Common Customs tariff. UK cannot have a different tariff to the EU on any commodity to a third country, whilst having no EU/UK tariff on that same commodity. The lack of awareness of this simple logic in a prime ministerial strategic speech is woeful.
Boris Johnson assures us that global countries are queuing up to sign trade deals with the UK. But anyone with any trade experience will know that trade patterns evolve over time, and cannot be diverted overnight. They require investment in product design, production and marketing. Johnson’s specious strategy has no more chance of working than Donald Trump’s intent that cars will again be built in Detroit.
Can we please have a referendum on a motion for Paddy Ashdown as PM rather than Theresa May?
All a referendum on the exit deal would do is open the door to referendum 3, 4 and so on. I don’t see that as being in anyone’s interests – EU or UK.
The best bet for a second referendum is like Denmark and Ireland – that is a qualitatively different proposal. But I don’t see there being any prospect of that. Even UK remainers aren’t thinking on those lines.
My best guess is that there have been some sort of informal discussions/exercises/talks/negotiations/kicking around of ideas and May has taken the view that her speech yesterday is the route to take in view of what’s been said.
Geoff Crocker – I’d have more sympathy for that line of argument if people were calling for an election. I don’t think even Tim Farron has done that?
I’d also note in passing that an election would mean going against the spirit (at least) of the Fixed Term Parliaments Act.
one of two competing democratic systems, representative democracy and referendum, which gave opposite results during 2016, and therefore can’t be operated simultaneously
Did they give opposite results?
I thoguht representative democracy gave us a government committed in its manifesto to having a referendum on whether the UK should leave the EU, and implementing the result; and the vote then was to leave the EU.
I’m not sure how those are ‘opposite results’? They seem like the parts of a two-stage process to get to an answer, to me.
The outcome of representative democracy without a referendum would undoubtedly have been to remain in the EU with David Cameron as PM. The result of the referendum is the opposite, to leave the EU with Theresa May as PM. You’re right that Parliament unleashed the referendum, but in so doing it inadvisably triggered an irreconcilable clash between two contradictory democratic systems. There are in my view very strong reasons to prefer representative democracy over referenda.
How different would the comments from Paddy, Nick and others in the party have been if the Referendum had been granted by the Conservatives conceding to Nick’s previous demands for an In/Out referendum on Europe. This pledge appears to have been whitewashed from our history and the decision to grant a referendum on the EU blamed exclusively on Cameron’s fear of increasing UKIP support.
It does our party no credit when it appears to hold contradictory views on any issue in the hope that the electorate will have a short memory.
The official line on the EU Referendum from Tim is to now support a second vote. while at the same time our party opposes a second vote or referendum on Scottish Independence.
It does not look good and will not help restore lost faith in the party when we oppose a second referendum – when we agree with the result, as in Scotland, but we support a second vote – when we disagree with the result of the referendum, as with Europe.
The outcome of representative democracy without a referendum would undoubtedly have been to remain in the EU with David Cameron as PM.
That would have been the outcome if only the MPs had been allowed to vote, as if the Commons were the Cambridge Union, yes.
But representative democracy is not about the Commons being a debating chamber, it’s about picking a government based on a manifesto and that government then implementing its manifesto commitments.
In this case one of those commitments was to hold a referendum and implement the result.
So again: how did the two systems give opposite answers? The first system asked the question, ‘Do you want a government that will hold a referendum whether to leave the EU?’ and the public answered, ‘Yes’.
The second system asked the question, ‘Do you want to leave the EU?’ and the public again answered, ‘Yes’.
It’s hard to see how those are opposite answers,.
An elected government still has to get its manifesto programme through Parliamentary debate and vote, even though it’s likely to achieve this given it has a Commons majority. Are you advocating a system where government can implement its manifesto programme without a Commons vote?
You’re right that the two systems actually didn’t deliver opposite results. My claim is that they would have done, if parliamentary parties hadn’t abdicated their responsibility to a referendum. I think they should have put an actual EU policy (not a referendum cop out) in their manifestos and then implemented that policy if elected, but still through a parliamentary vote. Capital punishment is another issue where representative democracy and referenda could likely yield opposite results.
At the moment we have an unworkable mixture of 3 systems – representative democracy, referendum democracy, and Theresa May now operating Presidential Democracy, though unelected. What a carve up!
Are you advocating a system where government can implement its manifesto programme without a Commons vote?
No, just one where a government with a majority implements its declared policy.
I think they should have put an actual EU policy (not a referendum cop out) in their manifestos and then implemented that policy if elected,
The problem is that the EU issue is a major constitutional one which cuts across party lines, ie, there are Remainers and Leavers in both the Conservatives and Labour. So how could you have sensibly offered the electorate a choice — which would have been the ‘Remain’ party and which the ‘Leave’ party? It would have been impractical.
On such matters — which arise rarely — allowing the people to have their say directly, on a single question, outside the normal mechanism of choosing a government, seems the only way to actually let the electorate express its preference properly.
True, but if they can convince the plebiscite, why can’t they convince a party to adopt the policy in its manifesto? UKIP did. This itself shows the contrast, even diametric opposition between the two systems. In representative democracy, the elected representatives at least have to be informed on the issue, and get involved in the debate, as well as being identifiable and accountable for others to lobby. None of this is true about referenda, which are by definition unaccountable decisions, and subject to huge disproportionate influence by very biased press barons like Paul Dacre and Rupert Murdoch, deploying their hired highly paid journalistic politicians like Boris Johnson and Michael Gove. This isn’t a model of democracy I value or respect.
@Dav – This is a direct quotation from the Conservative manifesto of 2015: “We are clear about what we want from Europe.
We say: yes to the Single Market
Yes to turbo- charging free trade
Yes to working together where we are stronger together than alone
Yes to a family of nation states, all part of a European Union…”
What part of that did May oppose in 2015? What part of it did she support in her speech yesterday? Or did their manifesto in 2015 mean nothing?
True, but if they can convince the plebiscite, why can’t they convince a party to adopt the policy in its manifesto?
As above: because the two parties that matter, the Conservatives and Labour, were split on the issue (as indeed, given the closeness of the result, was the electorate). Which one would it have made sense to be the ‘Leave’ party and which the ‘Remain’, in order to give the electorate a fair choice? And what about those who supported a given party’s stance on the EU question but hated everything else they stood for (eg, if the Conservatives were to come out as the ‘Leave’ party, who does a pro-Remain right-winger vote for)?
General elections are messy compromises which involve weighing up a lot of different factors (‘I agree with party A about X and Y; does that outweigh that I disagree with their stance on Z? I prefer party B’s philosophy but I don’t rate their economic competence…), so for a straightforward question that cuts across party lines do you not think it makes sense to decouple it from all that messiness and allow the electorate to speak their view on that question and just that question, specifically and independently of everything else?
I see your point, but no I personally would not want to decouple such a decision from the overt processes of representative democracy, and immerse it instead in covert press manipulation which massively and undemocratically amplifies the opinion of Boris Johnson, which, fickle as it was, probably decided the referendum result.
I personally would not want to decouple such a decision from the overt processes of representative democracy
How else do you suggest giving the people a say over the question, then?
The same way they get a say about everything else, ie the standard representative democratic system. You don’t address the evident weaknesses of the referendum alternative.
You don’t address the evident weaknesses of the referendum alternative.
And you don’t address how, using the standard mechanisms, we could ever reach a decision on any major constitutional issue which cuts across party lines. so it appears we have reached an impasse.
(Having said that, I do disagree with your characterisation of the electorate as some kind of mindless sheep at the mercy of newspaper barons, who apparently have some kind of limitless, magical power to reach into the voters’ minds and control them. I think that in fact the electorate voted according to their own world-views and desires, and were not controlled by anyone.)
Still, at least you admitted that the two systems did not produce opposite outcomes, which was the claim of yours that I originally wanted to refute.
I repeat that I said ‘You’re right that the two systems actually didn’t deliver opposite results. My claim is that they would have done, if parliamentary parties hadn’t abdicated their responsibility to a referendum.’ so I’ve refined my claim rather than considering it ‘refuted’. We had EU/Cameron under representative democracy until that representative democracy, in my view wrongly, triggered a referendum which delivered the opposite result.
Yes we have an impasse. You support referenda and critique representative democracy – I do the opposite. We should both probably admit that neither system is perfect. But I still don’t see how we can operate now 3 democratic systems in parallel. I didn’t characterise anyone as ‘mindless sheep’ but I did criticise the way the press gave huge exposure to Boris Johnson’s views, which many commentators consider to have swung the outcome. I’m surprised if you think the media has no influence on elections – political party leaders certainly think that it does.
We had EU/Cameron under representative democracy until that representative democracy, in my view wrongly, triggered a referendum which delivered the opposite result
How can it have ‘wrongly’ triggered a referendum when triggering a referendum was in the manifesto of the party which won power in a representative democracy? surely that is the point of a representative democracy — to choose a government, which then implements a manifesto on which it was voted into power?
So how can it ever be wrong, democratically, for an elected government to enact a policy on which it was elected? Surely what would be wrong — though, sadly, commonplace — would be for a government to be elected on a policy and then not act on it?
The public elected the government, in part, so that they would get a referendum. they got a referendum. That’s how representative democracy is supposed to work, isn’t it?
I didn’t characterise anyone as ‘mindless sheep’ but I did criticise the way the press gave huge exposure to Boris Johnson’s views, which many commentators consider to have swung the outcome.
They also gave huge exposure to David Cameron and George Osbourne arguing the opposite to Johnson.
Do you think the press should have only given air-time to one side of the argument?
I think people heard both sides of the argument and made up their own minds, according to their own views of Britain’s place in the world.
‘Wrongly’ in my humble view in the manifesto too, because I don’t believe in referenda.
So can you say what you consider the result of a vote in our democratically elected Parliament on Brexit would have been?
‘Wrongly’ in my humble view in the manifesto too, because I don’t believe in referenda.
You’re entitled to that view, but we elected a government that had it in its manifesto.
There are lots of things I don’t believe in that have been in the manifestos of governments which have got elected, and which have then happened, despite my not believing in them.
That’s what democracy means: sometime you don’t get what you want because other people vote for a different government than the one you would have chosen.
It’s not brilliant, but the alternative to democracy is civil war.
can you say what you consider the result of a vote in our democratically elected Parliament on Brexit would have been?
Probably, it would have been to remain. But why does it matter? We elected a government with a commitment to hold a referendum in its manifesto.
That is what is important in a representative democracy: what was in the manifest of the party which won the election and formed the government.
That is what people were voting for: the manifesto of the governing party.
“we risk having to turn ourselves into a low-tax, no-regulation, cheap-labour equivalent of Singapore. Then, among other things we have come to take for granted and enjoy in our country, we would say goodbye to workplace rights,”
Oh dear
http://www.mom.gov.sg/employment-practices/employment-act/workright
It matters because the pure model of representative democracy would have produced one result, whereas the democratic decision to invoke another model of democracy in parallel produced the opposite result, which is my basic claim. I accept, as you should, that all models of democracy are of course to some extent flawed.
But as a result of this diversion into referendum democracy, we now have Theresa May operating a third model ie Presidential Democracy, in that we are all waiting daily to hear her tell us what she has decided! This has to be the least democratic outcome, even though the result of a democratic process? Paradox? So the choice isn’t just between democracy and civil war but between alternative models within democracy.
PS You might like to withdraw your allegation that I characterised anyone as ‘mindless sheep’. The extent to which any member of the electorate, including you and me, is well informed on the issue, and has thought it through to any depth, is an open question, but this challenge doesn’t render anyone ‘mindless’.
@Geoff Crocker “‘Wrongly’ in my humble view in the manifesto too, because I don’t believe in referenda.”
In 2010 I voted for a Lib Dem party which went on to deliver referendums on Welsh devolution, an AV electoral system, and Scottish independence, and which helped to deliver the sort of In/Out referendum on EU membership for which it had long campaigned. I was voting for a party which also wanted referendums on joining the euro and a written constitution for the UK. A party which loves referendums that much doesn’t sound like the right place for somebody who doesn’t believe in them! 😉
I like representative democracy, but I also like referendums. Which is better? There’s only one way to find out: FIGHT!!! 🙂
According to Peter I might get expelled from the party for my heretical views :).
On EU polling day, like most people, I chatted with colleagues about how we each intended to vote. I only managed to speak to two leavers, one of whom was voting to leave because he objected to Neil Kinnock’s £160,000 pension as a former EU commissioner, and another because, as he said, ‘dunno really, it just feels right’.
I venture to suggest, that in a Parliamentary vote, even subject to the party whip, each MP would have voted for more substantial reasons than these? But in a referendum, I have to accept extremely important decisions about the UK’s future and therefore my future too, being made on such an insubstantial basis with no regard for more important consequences. Hence my belief in the superiority of representative democracy.
@Geoff Crocker “Hence my belief in the superiority of representative democracy.”
I recall a brilliant Peter Cooke satire (The Rise and Rise of Michael Rimmer) in which the eponymous politician relieves the electorate from the pressure of plebiscites on every issue with one final vote to make him a dictator, so I guess that there is a limit to the value of referendums! Nevertheless, there are some important issues which cross party lines or which require a specific clear mandate to ensure popular support for a policy which i believe a referendum is a necessary companion to representative democracy. So if I were refereeing a Harry Hill style fight I’d call it as a draw.
OK, I accept your ruling of a draw (pretty much like the Brexit referendum result), since it’s another problem with referenda 🙂 But Dav has to call it quits too 🙂
(by the way, how to you get emoticons and smileys into LDV comment fields?)…..
@Geoff Crocker “by the way, how to you get emoticons and smileys into LDV comment fields?”
Looks like you’ve got it, but if anybody else wants to make these threads a little more colourful then the software running this site automatically swaps in an image for these character sequences:
smile 🙂 colon hyphen right-parenthesis
wink 😉 semi-colon hyphen right-parenthesis
I’m sure other emoticons work as well if writers want to be adventurous and test the patience of our hosts on this site!
It matters because the pure model of representative democracy would have produced one result
Except it didn’t. The pure model of representative democracy produced a government committed to holding a referendum. This, the government promptly did.
Representative democracy is about choosing a government based on a manifesto. It is not about swirling the pot of a debating chamber. It doesn’t matter, for representative democracy, what the result of a vote in the House of Commons would have been; what matters is what was in the manifesto of the government which the British people elected.
another because, as he said, ‘dunno really, it just feels right’.
I don’t see why you don’t think that is a legitimate basis on which to make a decision about the direction of the country.
Evidence, after all, can only ever tell you the best way to get somewhere. It can’t tell you where you should be going. The referendum was a question about how people see Britain’s place in the world, and that’s at least as much about ‘feelings’ — how do you feel towards the notion of Britain as a nation-state? Do you think nation-states in general, and Britain in particular, are important, or should they be consigned to history? Does the idea of Britain joining the Euro, becoming part of a United states of Europe, fill your heart with internationalist joy, or abject horror? — as about anything else.
It doesn’t matter, for representative democracy, what the result of a vote in the House of Commons would have been
Slight correction: it doesn’t matter what the result of a free vote in the House of commons would have been. It matters what the result of a whipped vote, where the government MPs vote to implement their manifesto, would have been.
So you’re not accepting Peter’s proposal for a drawn result? You’re very adept at quoting parts of my sentences thus missing the overall sense. There is a difference between ‘would have’ and ‘did’. In your world there seems to be no point in parliamentary debate and votes – let’s just allow the elected government to implement its manifesto without the farce of an apparent vote then.
another because, as he said, ‘dunno really, it just feels right’.
I don’t see why you don’t think that is a legitimate basis on which to make a decision about the direction of the country.
Really? Might as well just toss for it then.