Revelations that Theresa May secretly warned about the economic effects of Brexit produced this sharp reaction from Tim Farron.
It is disappointing that Theresa May lacked the political courage to warn the British public as she did a group of bankers in private about the devastating economic effects of Brexit.
But far more disappointing is that now she is supposedly in charge, she is blithely ignoring her own dire warnings and is prepared to inflict an act of monumental self-harm on the UK economy by pulling Britain out of the Single Market.
She is doing so purely to satisfy the uncaring, divisive and extremist voices around her own cabinet table.
In Richmond Park voters will have the opportunity to say ‘no’ to that cynicism, by voting to keep Britain open, tolerant and united.
* 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
Two new Makerfield by-election polls gives Burnham 5 and 12 point leads
Reform under water
The Joy of Six 1532
Jenny Barnes
expats
Angie Harris
Andrew Tampion
Caron Lindsay
32 Comments
I’m not sure if I would categorize the rather anodyne remarks attributed to Mrs May as “dire warnings”. Seemed rather factual to me.
Mrs May is a humungously-weak flip-flop Prime Minister as has been recently seen over Heathrow Airport as well as Brexit. She has no fibre whatsoever. It is SO funny to see someone postulating over EU membership and immigration when the concerns of the country and her own previous Prime Minister (DC) have always been largely over non-EC migration, an area where May, as Home Secretary, missed her Prime Minister’s ‘targets’ massively year after year after year.
Likewise, Mrs May does not believe one iota of what she said in Downing Street the day she succeeded DC. Someone told her it all sounded good so she said it.
‘an act of monumental self-harm on the UK economy by pulling Britain out of the Single Market.’
Has anyone thought that maybe the idea of a soft Brexit is in full retreat because no one seems to be pushing it. Juncker and Tusk seem to be following the diplomacy of a teen break-up, the LDP seem determined to keep chasing the phantom of voiding the referendum and Labour…well who knows. What no one seems to be talking about is how best to relate to the EU post referendum.
I’m yet to have anyone explain to me why soft brexit is such an affront. I’ll take my kicking now.
Little Jackie Paper – “I’m yet to have anyone explain to me why soft brexit is such an affront.”
It isn’t. Please direct your question to May, Fox, Davies, Johnson etc.
“I’m yet to have anyone explain to me why soft brexit is such an affront. I’ll take my kicking now.”
The problem is the outcomes of a soft brexit would not be acceptable to those who voted to leave: reasons for voting to leave:
1.Return of full power of decision making& sovereignty to the UK parliament (control of border access and immigration),
2. repeal of oversight of the european court,
3. no paying money to the EU budget and freedom to sign
4. develop own trade deals.
Soft brexit would result in none of these objections to being in the EU being resolved. instead a soft brexit would see the uk leave the EU but:
1. pay in contributions to EU budget
2. oversight of EU court but no chance of any possibly ability to change it
3. Would still have to follow all rules and regulations stipulated by some for of association of the single market, therefore UK parliament still not sovereign
4. probably only a limited for of some type of immigration control.
the 52% who voted out would be up in arms at effectively still being stuck with all the perceived (as a leave voter would see it) problems of the EU with even less ability to effect any sort of changes to the EU.
This is why the idea of a soft brexit is a no-go.
just to add on.
that core idea of control of immigration has to be addressed and the EU powers are clear that they will not accept any control on freedom of movement. they are diametrically opposed positions that stops a a soft brexit from happening.
@Ethics gradient
Indeed.
Soft Brexit is Lib Dem code for no Brexit. A non-starter.
I think you should call yourself “ethics hill” or possibly “ethics valley” (depending on whether you prefer sunlit uplands or fertile valleys)
At any rate the concept of gradient seems to have passed you by on Brexit arguments!
But absolutely correct! Soft Brexit is not as good as Remain!
@Andrew McCaig fate can often be amenable to change.
you draw an interesting 3rd point as to why a middle ground soft brexit will not work.
if you are for remaining in the EU, a soft brexit is a poor second to being a full member of the union and being potentially able to shape direction and policy.
if you are for leaving the EU, then as I have stated above a soft brexit does not address or solve and of the perceived problems that being part of the union brings
Tusk and David Davis are both correct that whenever the EU question is considered the logical conclusions leads only to either no-brexit or full/hard brexit. Added to this we have had a referendum and the result was to leave. I think(feel) if a 2nd referendum was run again, the result would be the same (with a possible increase to the side of the leave vote).
For the 17 million “soft Brexit” = “fudge Brexit” = “no Brexit”.
Their reaction is unpredictable.
@ ethics gradient – “1.Return of full power of decision making& sovereignty to the UK parliament (control of border access and immigration), 2. repeal of oversight of the european court, 3. no paying money to the EU budget and freedom to sign 4. develop own trade deals.”
I voted leave, and soft brexit is perfectly palatable for me:
1. parliamentary sovereignty is not shorthand for immigration control
2. true, but a more distant problem over a more limted subset of law
3. i have no problem paying for accession nation structural funds, to build markets, i do object to recycling money back into the uk with no democratic oversight on how its spent
4. are you mistaking EEA access for being part of the customs union? there is an important difference between norway and turkey.
@Ethics – “the 52% who voted out would be up in arms at effectively still being stuck with all the perceived (as a leave voter would see it) problems of the EU with even less ability to effect any sort of changes to the EU.”
You are making a major assumption about the 52% there. Like it or not, the Leave campaign regularly cited both the Norwegian and Swiss examples as being alternatives to EU membership. Unless you believe – for no obvious reason – that these alternatives were dismissed by all Leave voters, there is absolutely no reason to dismiss the preference of such Leave voters for a soft Brexit.
“the 52% who voted out would be up in arms at effectively still being stuck with all the perceived (as a leave voter would see it) problems of the EU”
You assume that all 52% voted for hard Brexit where in fact they voted for a broad spectrum of options. If a fifth of those were expecting EEA/EFTA, added to the 48% Remain supporters who will take that as Plan B, you have at least 58% soft Brexit to 42% medium to hard Brexit. Only 42% would be up in arms but that’s tough, that’s democracy.
@jedibeeftrix
Hi,
I am guilty of simplifying a couple of the points down. Like yourself I voted to leave with our reasons being similar though of differing priority. For myself immigration was not a big issue, but sovereignty and democratic accountability was. As a truly sovereign parliament would then be able to set immigration controls, I lumped them together(because for many others voting leave the immigration issue would be the more important factor).
Where we’d disagree about priorities is the need to pay into EU budgets. I’d much rather go through world bank development funds to support developing markets.
I also accept your point between EEA tariff-free single market access and the customs union. I would like to come out of the customs union and strike an equivalence deal on standards with the EU. This would then give the UK much more flexibility to strike other world trade deals. With the common market.. well i would accept falling back on default WTO rules, but think the UK-EU could strike a better free trade agreement/relationship.
I really do try to not think about what fits my own view of brexit and try to get a feel of when most people are (not scientific I appreciate). Immigration for me, is no problem. it definitely is for lots who voted to leave. that I thin renders the soft brexit option incompatible.
@Paul
Hi,
I do appreciate that i am making some sweeping generalisations about where things lay in terms of those who voted to leave.
I would say the mentions of other models of relationships between various counties and the EU (Noway, Swiss, Canada, etc) were brought up in response to the vote in campaign saying that vote leave should define ‘what leave looked like’.
I would say that the most common response was that the UK deal would not be like any other them and that it would be a ‘bespoke’ model. My recollection of the referendum campaign was that the Norwegian model, the Swiss model, the Canadian model was mentioned by the person supporting the vote in campaign i.e. “tell us what it would be like? is it the…. (add model)”
so I would say that these other models were not really considered by those who voted to leave. Much more important to them were the over-arching principles of control of immigration, sovereignty and decision making residing in the UK , costs and judicial oversight. None of which a soft-brexit would give an acceptable answer to.
Bu to qualify the statement above, that just my feel of how things are rather than based on anything.
It’s pretty irrelevant what we want it seems to be a choice of hard brexit or remain. Now exiters will claim that in the long run hard brexit will pay off and to be fair they might be right but in the short to medium term it will be very hard and I’d rather not thank you, so rerun the vote no matter what you say is my preferred solution and no amount of shouting will change that.
People over complicate the freedom of movement argument. Freedom of movement is not the same thing as the right to reside permanently in the UK . The point being that you could keep freedom movement whilst rejigging contentious legal rights around issues of citizenship. I don’t agree with him on much, but this is a point Daniel Hannan often makes.
However, the other sticking points remain and the notion of “soft” exit from the EU seems to be mooted as a way of not really leaving by people who want to remain.
@ EG – “Like yourself I voted to leave with our reasons being similar though of differing priority.”
Little to disagree with in the detail of what you propose.
I have no objection to soft brexit as understood here, if that is a compromise the nation prefers.
Equally, i am not fixated on EEA/Efta as the model, for soft brexit could easily be May’s ‘best possible trading relationship’, including:
tariff free trade in goods.
non-tariff free trade in sector specific areas such as cars.
regulatory equivalence in banking areas of CRD IV and MiFID/MiFIR.
some deal on managed – but largely open – movement.
The idea that “soft” Brexit is a code for “no” Brexit by Remainers is cobblers. Most of use would much rather Remain and, ultimately, I think that confronted with an actual destination, so would the majority of the UK.
However, a “soft” Brexit along Norway lines is the preferred approach of many Brexiters, not least Christopher Brooker who has been banging on about it for years and the Adam Smith Institute. All of this was covered by Paul Walter in an earlier blog post. It is also the only way of getting out of the EU without a wrenching economic shock and would be possible as a halfway house whilst things are organised for full Brexit.
It is also closer to the centre of gravity in British politics in the sense that pretty much all Remainers would prefer it to hard Brexit and so would a significant amount of Brexiters (see comment from jedibeeftrix above and various polling which indicates that the population splits about 60:40 over prioritising single market ahead of immigration).
But the problem is this. The Tory Government is terrified of this option (although it knows that it is the only practical option for a “smooth” Brexit) because it won’t do anything about immigration…and the cries of betrayal from their right-wing might destroy the party and bring UKIP back from the dead.
This is my only silver lining from Brexit. Tory splits, llikely chaos and a possible meltdown at the next general election. On the other hand, then I worry about Corbyn getting his hands on government.
@Ethics gradient – You are quite right that the constant refrain of Leave was the “bespoke” model. “Bespoke” in this context meant having cake and eating it. (There is a saucier version of this analogy going around based on divorce which is also accurate).
However, the “bespoke” model advocated was a gross falsehood. It was never on offer and never will be. Accordingly, people who voted for it never had to grapple with the trade-offs that politicians face every day – most notably the immigration v. single market trade-off. (Polling evidence again shows that people are not keen on immigration but are highly reluctant to control it at the cost of their own finances).
Some Brexiters knew that then; some know it now and all will know it before this story ends.
@ mark – “This is my only silver lining from Brexit. Tory splits, llikely chaos and a possible meltdown”
Likely far, far, more damaging in labour heartlands. May seems keen to peel them away from labour with her blue-socialism schtick, but they are hardly core-vote!
I just love how ‘Gradients’ are now entering the ‘BrexitSpeak’….
For heaven’s sake try reading the comments columns in the Mail/Sun/Express (and even the Guardian)…Those who make up the vast majority of ‘Leavers’ still believe that Britain doesn’t need the EU in any shape or form. The world is our oyster; chock full of countries eager to offer us trade deals (on our terms)…The fall in sterling and rise in inflation are seen as opportunities not problems….
Reality has not yet set in and, until it does, there will be no chance of sensible negotiation…Only yesterday I was told that it was ME, and those like me, who should “stop talking Britain down” as it is our fault that the world has a negative view of our prospects…
Nissan has announced that the Qashqai and X-Trail models will be built at Sunderland securing 7,000 jobs with possible new jobs to come after “support and assurances from UK government”. Yesterday Axa announced they are pressing ahead with plans to build the City of London’s tallest tower, after several months of deliberating in the wake of the EU referendum. Today BT announced they were stepping up investments in the second half of the year and that they would continue to invest in its ultrafast and 4G plans in 2017 and beyond. Perhaps it’s not looking as “dire” as some think.
malc 27th Oct ’16 – 11:10am………………after “support and assurances from UK government”. …
So the PBT (Poor Bloody Taxpayer) takes all the risks…To quote ‘Hannibal Heyes’, “That’s a good deal?” …
expats
Lets face it no matter how good the news is you would find fault because you don’t want the UK to leave the EU.
As expats says, the rest of us will have to pick up the taxpayers bill to subsidise Nissan………….. though of course the likes of such tax exiles as Sir Philip Green and Branson won’t have to do that.
Every time I fill up my car it costs me 5p a litre more, and of course if I’m still rich enough to go to France I can buy 20% less. Then no doubt the Nissan begging bowl will come round….. not to mention the Heathrow begging bowl to prove we’re “still a great nation open for business”. Thanks a lot, Malc………… enjoy.
PS whatever happened to the extra money to go into the NHS post Brexit ?
“As expats says, the rest of us will have to pick up the taxpayers bill to subsidise Nissan………”
Are we forgetting that the taxpayer, has had to stump up £19 billion,.. *per year !*,.. for a ‘Costco Card’, for right to trade in the EU single market.? Even a Brexit default position of WTO trading rules, show that it would still be cheaper,.. [even after compensating UK industry],.. to just cut up that ‘EU Costco Card’, and trade freely elsewhere.
Strangely,..some 90% of the planet seem to manage very well, without need of the EU single market, or the obligation to stump up £19 billion for a ‘Costco EU loyalty card’.?
@ J Dunn I’m glad you’re not responsible for my bank statement. There’d be no credits -only debits.
David Raw
“Thanks a lot, Malc………… enjoy.”
Actually I voted for remaining in the EU and enjoy European holiday’s, but that doesn’t mean I believe all the “project fear rubbish”. In or out of the EU the UK will be fine.
Tim Farron: “It is disappointing that Theresa May lacked the political courage to warn the British public as she did a group of bankers in private about the devastating economic effects of Brexit.”
So what about this?
http://www.conservativehome.com/parliament/2016/04/theresa-mays-speech-on-brexit-full-text.html
2/3 of people who voted in the referendum believed they were voting for the best economic outcome, whichever side they were on. That si what the government needs to deliver, because the majority was for the best economic outcome, not for leaving the EU.