We have two by-elections to fight within five weeks, so this is urgent.
It was bad enough that Prime Minister May declared on January 17th her intention for Britain to leave the single market and make a definite break with the EU. But it was also made clear subsequently that, when the negotiations on terms of leaving are completed, the options she intends to put to Parliament will be to either accept them, or reject them and leave without a deal.
The option of rejecting the deal, but also deciding to remain in the EU, will not be offered.
Of course, Parliament could refuse to endorse this, probably involving a vote of no confidence and an early General Election, but that looks unlikely. The Liberal Democrats alone demand that the final decision should be between leaving with the negotiated terms or staying in, and that this should be decided by the people in another referendum. We maintain that what voting out in the first plebiscite on June 23 would mean for the country was not fully explained or foreseen, and when the full consequences for Britain’s future out of the EU have become apparent in two years’ time, the people should have the final right to decide.
This strong, clear position is unique to the Liberal Democrats, as is our unflinching commitment to staying in the EU if possible and helping its development from within. Yet if a majority of the British people still wants to leave after the negotiations, so be it. And the current polls suggest that the result of the June Referendum would not alter much if there were a rerun now: ‘Remainers’ have not persuaded sufficient ‘Outers’ to change their minds. Not enough bad economic consequences have yet been evident.
Theresa May’s clarity of purpose in her speech, after six months of obfuscation, probably produced a sense of relief and acceptance for some people. The wishes of the 48% who voted Remain have been left unexplored, while Brexiteers have accused people exercising their right to continue the arguments of ignoring the will of the people. Finally, leaving the EU has been talked of so much as being inevitable, that now it may seem so.
But Liberal Democrats know that this is not the case, and, with two by-elections pending, now is the time to declare it and confront the Government line. With the Labour Opposition weak and divided the Tories scent victory, provided they can persuade sufficient would-be UKIP voters that they themselves adequately represent UKIP wishes, which should not be impossible for them. As Tim Farron has said, only the Liberal Democrats provide effective opposition now, and we can demonstrate that in both by-elections by taking many votes that the Tories covet, curbing their ambitions and aiming to win ourselves.
We will stand up not only for the wishes of Remainers, but also for the desperate needs of our country. For Theresa May’s strategic plan will not work. As the European Parliament’s Brexit negotiator Guy Verhofstadt has said, “It is an illusion to suggest that the UK will be permitted to leave the EU, but then be free to opt back in to the best parts of the European project.”
The tortuous negotiations to come, expending so much of our Government’s time and human resources, will be obliged to set tariffs and customs checks where there are none now, and limit useful EU immigration while ignoring larger numbers coming from outside the EU. So let us ask the voters of Copeland and Stoke Central to say ‘no’ to Mrs May’s fantasy plans, and ‘yes’ to the Liberal Democrats’ rational opposition and ever-growing support, because Brexit of whatever hue would still be bad for our country.
* Katharine Pindar is a long-standing member of the Cumberland Lib Dems
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
High Fell leaflet watch (2)
No, Leave didn't win the Brexit referendum because of Northern working class voters
Two new Makerfield by-election polls gives Burnham 5 and 12 point leads
Reform under water
Geoffrey Payne
Richard Whelan
David Raw
Tom Reeve
57 Comments
All this assumes that there is an option at that point, to remain. Article 50 is silent on whether it can be withdrawn or not. In terms of a second referendum I think this will largely come down to the 28% who did not vote and a shifting demographic.
‘We maintain that what voting out in the first plebiscite on June 23 would mean for the country was not fully explained or foreseen, and when the full consequences for Britain’s future out of the EU have become apparent in two years’ time, the people should have the final right to decide.’
I’d be careful with this line of argument. One of the stronger arguments against the EU, I thought, was the rather open-ended and ever-expanding deal. We don’t really know do we what the consequences of an IN vote would have been do we?
How many people in 2000 would have thought that within 15 years the EU would have meant the refugee/migrant debacle, EZ austerity and TTIP? OUT is something of a leap in the dark, I don’t question that. But I’m not at all convinced that we really knew what IN meant either. I visit Eastern Europe a lot and an argument I hear there is that they do not feel that they signed up for open-ended refugee quotas.
I have some considerable sympathy for the later point you make about how the REMAIN parties (all of them) really could and should have done more within the EU’s rules to address concerns. Those concerns clearly extended well beyond the narrow confines of Conservative Party melodrama. However I don’t think that anyone in either the campaign or the months since has really set out what those things are.
As it is though all a referendum on the exit deal would do is open the door to referendum 3, 4 and so on – that’s in no-one’s interests.
PJ Your point about the opaqueness of Article 50 is a good one. I am actually hoping that the Supreme Court may give some obiter dicta advice to Government / Parliament that it would be advisable to seek an opinion from the ECJ on that point! Theresa May would just love that advice!! (I am quite convinced that her two declared priorities for leaving, ie reducing immigration by abandoning the principle of free movement, and removing ourselves from the jurisdiction of the ECJ, are much more influenced by her own personal “scars” as Home Secretary than they are by actual priorities of Leave voters).
I very much hope that our candidates do well in Copeland and Stoke-on-Trent. But I do hope they will not be put under pressure to make their campaigns all about opposing Brexit.
Rebecca Hanson has said that, before the referendum, she was never particularly interested in the EU. The subject she feels passionately about is education. She will have far more chance of success if she is allowed to follow her real passion, and make education the focus of her campaign.
If we are going to claim to be the real opposition, we need to look like a credible alternative government. This means having a real vision for Britain, with a wide range of strong and radical policies. It also means working with the situation we are in. That is, we do have to accept that Britain is almost certainly leaving the EU, and draw up plans to ensure that Britain outside the EU is a liberal, internationalist nation.
Two teams play a game of football (the “L’s” and the “R’s”) – the referee agrees that the team with the highest score will be awarded the win.
It goes into extra time and the L’s narrowly win, although the R’s hit some near goals.
The referee decides, that because it was so close and because the R’s think that they could win in a rerun, to not award the win until another match takes place and also some other teams which were never part of the original match should be allowed to try and win too in additional games, before deciding an overall winner.
The L’s say that the match should be awarded, as the game was originally just between them and the R’s and the L’s won it and if the R’s want to play again and with other possible teams, that can only happen some time in future after the result is first officially confirmed as a win for the L’s.
Who would you support and why?
We do need to remember that the Lib Dems called for an in/out referendum on EU membership, several years before David Cameron decided to hold one. The Lib Dem position was that the public should decide the matter. It was never suggested that this would have to be a two part referendum, with the public having to vote again on the final deal before Britain could leave the EU.
It is true that Lib Dem policy evolved into just promising an in/out referendum if there was a significant new EU treaty. But when David Cameron announced his intention to hold a referendum, the Lib Dems did not oppose this. Our MPs voted in Parliament in favour of holding the referendum. There was no suggestion from Lib Dem MPs that their support was conditional on there being a second referendum in the case of a vote to leave.
In view of this history of support for an in/out referendum, it is hard to see how the party can now justify a policy of trying to prevent the result from being implemented.
Leave the EU
Using you analogy, the L’s clearly won the game but on to the next season and a new game….
@Roger Billins – the analogy is should the game “result” be officially awarded first = officially leave the EU first, which apparently the government said they would enact depending on the original referendum result, BEFORE any new referendums are called?
@Catherine Jane Crossland “It was never suggested that this would have to be a two part referendum”
This impression was maintained over the preceding years and throughout the campaign (e.g. http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/big-question-will-there-be-a-second-eu-referendum) right up to the early hours of 24 June 2016, but was based on the expectation that remaining in the EU would be the result of any referendum.
I believe that the subsequent panic has arisen because there was no Plan B to respond to an outcome that was unthinkable.
@Peter Watson
That’s fascinating.
Because some people can not be bothered to click on links I am going to copy and paste what Tim Farron said in full. I think it is important that people are aware of what their leader had said in regards to a 2nd referendum a couple of weeks before the June 2016 Referendum when Remain thought they were going to win.
“The idea of a second EU referendum, suggested by Farage earlier this week, is not only a pathetic attempt at a comeback by a failing “Leave” campaign, it also ignores the history of these sort of referendums.
Successive independence referendums for the state of Quebec in Canada popularised the phrase “neverendum,” and eventually the independence movement collapsed. Farage and those supporting Brexit should take note: undermining the validity of a referendum and ignoring the democratic choice of British people will not make you more popular (something other nationalist parties in the country should also understand). Nor will it encourage more people to support your cause in the first instance.
The UKIP leader regularly accuses the EU of not listening to the democratic will of countries. So maybe, just maybe, he should live up to his own words for once and listen to the choice of the British people.”
Can I just say, I agree with Tim ” undermining the validity of a referendum and ignoring the democratic choice of British people will not make you more popular ” and “maybe, just maybe, he should live up to his own words for once and listen to the choice of the British people.”
@Catherine Jane Crosland
“It also means working with the situation we are in. That is, we do have to accept that Britain is almost certainly leaving the EU, and draw up plans to ensure that Britain outside the EU is a liberal, internationalist nation.”
Totally agree. As otherwise, we all wake up on April 1st 2019 in a deeply illiberal country in which Theresa May has had a free run at shaping our post-Brexit future, due to Labour’s ineffectiveness and the Lib Dems losing themselves in fantasy politics for two years.
@Katharine Pindar
“The Liberal Democrats alone demand that the final decision should be between leaving with the negotiated terms or staying in”
I have yet to see a convincing justification for this approach though.
Tim Farron keeps saying “hard Brexit was not on the ballot paper”. But staying in the EU WAS on the ballot paper – and was rejected. How can you possibly justify having that on the ballot paper again, instead of other options which would be fully compatible with last year’s result?
The final proposed Brexit deal will come from some sort of triangulation from the extreme positions of total free trade and total freedom of movement, and since many want a measure of immigration control (even some LibDems!) which we cannot have at the same time as total free trade, it makes perfect sense to investigate the deal from the other end. The Government must be allowed to get on with this and the LibDems can either get constructively involved and bide their or go on moaning for the next two years. If LibDems are to make progress, it will be by fighting positively at a local level and laying off the whingeing. Get over it!
I would love there to be a second referendum on the terms of the deal the problem is the remain side were too confident to consider losing and the next steps. The referendum bill should have been more in depth and stated what the Government would do if Leave won. As it is Cameron and the remain campaign made it a plank of their argument that voting to leave would lose us access to the single market.
Add to that Tim’s words repeated by matt above and it really does start to sound hypocritical to demand a second referendum.
I do hope my new party won’t get over it, democracy is precious and the right to challenge is central to it. Are people really saying that Brexit should go unchallenged, that’s extraordinary for anyone who believes in a functioning democracy to say. Let’s not forget the fundamentals, opposition is the essence to democracy, without it there is none. God help us all if Parliament just becomes a rubber stamping institution. Good question concerning article 50, but once again there does not seem to be a clear answer to a very important point.
The reason why we can’t bide our time before speaking out, Don Manley, is because we have two by-elections to contest where the former sitting Labour MPs opposed Corbyn’s line so their candidates’ positions must be questionable, where the Conservatives have raised widespread fears because Theresa May says we can’t remain in the EU’s internal market, and where UKIP is strutting its threadbare stuff. So there could hardly be a better stage for the Lib Dems to act on, and to avoid the Brexit debate would be to leave our candidates without either robes or stage scenery, Catherine, though both candidates will be more than capable of holding their own on local questions of health and education where required.
Little Jackie, it’s true we didn’t know that much about what ‘ In’ meant either, but it doesn’t matter because the EU is a fast-changing scene where previous conceptions would be out of date anyway. For instance, the question of free movement of labour is being debated within other EU nations, and since it is no longer so contentious an issue there may be hope for agreement.
Finally, as for referendums, Peter, we may not have been wise in all past statements, and they remain a crowbar for democracy that should be handled with care, but I believe we have a good case for demanding the people have the final say on the direction of destination for the UK after the negotiations.
@Little Jackie Piper, @matt, @Steve Way
I think you guys have a point, which is why I would like our call for a referendum to be more nuanced.
Either:
A second referendum, if the government is unable to deliver what the Leave campaign promised.
Or even:
A second referendum, if it becomes clear that enough Leave voters feel that what has been negotiated is not what they voted for, and therefore they no longer want to leave.
Either approach would change the tone of our policy.
Rather than appearing to deny people what they voted for, it would be emphasising that winning a Referendum on the basis of undeliverable promises won’t give you a blank cheque, which allows you to ignore all the promises you made.
I would have so much love and respect for the Libdems if we could hear them say something along the lines…..
Ok, the referendum result is not what we expected, however, we are not going to be undermining the validity of a referendum or be ignoring the democratic choice of British people.
We will work with the Government in order to get the best possible deal that we can. That means we will stop insisting that Government sets out it plans in a running piece by piece commentary and then slating it at every opportunity and demanding there be a 2nd referendum, as we recognise that that approach is not constructive and any weakness the EU see’s in a divided uk Parliament will be seized upon and can not be good for the people of the UK and it’s negotiating position.
There are area’s that we as Liberal Democrats simply must insist that TM gives us absolutely certainty that Workers rights will not in anyway be diminished after we leave the EU, we also need to insist that EU Environmental Protections are written into UK Law with no watering down.
We as a party still maintain that we are committed to the EU and it might be our position to campaign to rejoin the EU, or to try and get a 2nd referendum if it looks like the deal that has been negotiated is not going to be acceptable to us or our members.
Wouldn’t that be a much more measured approach to take? I am sure it would be respected by most people.
Then Liberal Democrats really need to start coming up with some real policies on every thing from welfare, Social Housing, NHS, Mental health, Taxation,
Education: If the evidence proved that the free school meals worked to help children achieve and learn better and faster, then how about taking it a step further. How many children are going to school with inadequate or having no Breakfast at all? if Free nutritious lunch is helping them achieve better results in the afternoons, wouldn’t it be great for them to start the day with a nutritious breakfast as well and get the morning lessons off to a great start as well? seems logical.
There is more to life than the EU and there is certainly more than the EU to the Liberal Democrats. I for one would like to start hearing about it, because I have to find another party to vote for at the next General Election. Its not going to be Labour again. I hope I can reconcile enough of my differences with the Liberal Democrats be able to vote for them like I did in
2005/10.
This is interesting !
It is time for some polling and direct democracy in our party ! Online referendums and votes to take the views forward!
Here we have the wonderfully positive Katharine as keen on Tim’s stance as Tim himself is keen on it !
Katharine is one of my favourite people on this site ever.
But one of my other favourites , yes we all have them, is our other Catherine , and I share her view here.
We must do what Katharine says. But we must do it in the spirit and with the respect shown to realism by Catherine !
Agree with Matt, even if Libdem wants to keep the Remain strategy, they also have to create a new set of policies that could be applied in any scenario.
For example, education: free school meals, reducing class size, tuition fees (STEM courses must be prioritized in any reduction or elimination of tuition fees, which could be then subsidized by fees from Arts and Humanity in the short run), promoting vocational training in engineering and mechanics (not hairdressing bla bla).
Or regarding economy, first, we should reconsider the HS2 and Hinkey Point C: should we invest more in regional infrastructures and national broadband system rather than these costly, dubious projects, especially the Hinkey? Also, a housebuilding program must be committed. Next is to form a Regional business bank network to fund local businesses like in Germany, starting with taxpayer-owned RBS, AND a system of venture capital funding to help develop and scale-up SMEs and start-ups. Then, renationalise the recently privatised Green Investment Bank. Then, pledge to renew FiT subsidies and government incentives to renewable energy sectors. Another thing must be done is to increase the R&D rate, if the firms are unwilling to do so, the government has to either encourage business R&D or take the initiative by raising public R&D themselves.
Tax: mansion tax, oh no, Land Value Tax (and land reform) should be chosen as a serious policy option. The case of Denmark in 1950s-1960s had proven the virtue of LVT (Big Lesson From A Small Nation). Most people don’t know that the big success of the four Asian Tigers began with LAND REFORM. The so-called tax haven Hong Kong had a 16% Georgist land rent. tax.https://blog.p2pfoundation.net/successfull-examples-of-land-value-tax-reforms/2011/02/05. But in the long-run, the most successful case was Taiwan.
Meanwhile, reducing income tax, as well as business rates; the latter should be in the form of extra funding for business R&D and capital investment (to ensure the the tax reliefs would go to genuine R&D rather than lobbying like the case of many drug makers today). Libdem should also rationalize the government bureaucratic system as much as possible to cut non-investment spending.
I dont know much about Healthcare but Libdem must increase funding for medical research and make sure that NHS at least receives the 350 million funding in the case of Brexit.
Katharine Pindar, I certainly wasn’t suggesting that our by-election candidates should just focus on local issues. A by-election should always be about national issues as well, and there should not be any attempt to play down a particular policy just because it may not be popular in a particular area. But education and health are vital national issues, and our two candidates are especially well qualified to speak on these issues. At the moment, it is rather hard to identify exactly how our policies on these issues differ from those of other parties. We do need to have clear, developed policies on all important issues.
At the moment I am afraid the party is focusing on using opposition to Brexit as a USP, and is rather using that as an excuse for not developing other policies.
As I said above, it is very hard to justify the party’s current position on Brexit, especially in view of the fact that the Lib Dems had supported holding a referendum, and had never previously suggested that a vote to Leave should not be accepted and implemented. Tim Farron’s words, quoted by Matt above, show that Tim Farron had appeared to believe that the public’s decision should be final.
Rather than trying to prevent Brexit from happening, I would like to see the party speaking out about issues that are relevant to Brexit. Especially, I would like to see the party speaking out and affirming our belief in the positive benefits of immigration. Support for immigration seems a more essential liberal policy than support for the single market. Theoretically, Britain could have a very liberal immigration policy despite not belonging to the EU. We need to do all we can to influence the debate, and try to ensure that Britain, post Brexit, has liberal values.
Lorenzo, Thank you. And you are absolutely right to say that the party does need to consult more with members and supporters to develope a response to Brexit. I know that people who comment on Lib Dem Voice are not necessarily typical of Lib Dem members and supporters, but it very clear that a high proportion of people on this site are not happy with the leadership’s current approach.
Catherine Jane Crosland – ‘Support for immigration seems a more essential liberal policy than support for the single market. Theoretically, Britain could have a very liberal immigration policy despite not belonging to the EU.’
Now there’s a statement!
For some years now I’ve not really understood what exactly is so undoubtedly liberal about EU free movement. However dressed up what we have is a seriously asymmetric set of intra-EU migration patterns. The stark truth is that if we had a real union then 2+m un/underemployed young UK people would have headed to the A8/A2 for wages/housing/in-work welfare and we probably would have had a 95% IN vote at the referendum. The EU institutions seem to fall back on the idea that a single market needs full-blown free movement, but to me that is arrant nonsense. Free movement of labour is one thing, an open-ended right of immediate establishment for 500m+ people is quite another. What exactly is liberal about immigration as asymmetric as we are seeing? I noticed a Dutch politician recently talked about free movement as ‘business model,’ again what is liberal here?
You are of course right, nothing prevents an OUT UK from having a liberal immigration policy – just I’m not really sure I know what that term means. If it simply means ever higher immigration, no-questions-asked forever then fair enough, but I don’t think anyone has really said that in bald terms to the voters.
Indeed, what is so liberal about an arrangement that effectively prioritises EU passport holders over everyone else, irrespective of circumstance?
As I said in my earlier post I sympathise with the idea that successive UK governments (Coalition included) have not managed the relationship with the EU to the optimum, politically speaking. But I don’t think anyone has really set out a better way of working within the EU’s rules on free movement or much else. Certainly I don’t see how a referendum on the exit deal really addresses any issues raised during the referendum campaign.
As to single market access (as distinct from membership) I guess we’ll just have to wait and see.
“What if” scenarios are normally not a lot of use. But just suppose there had been no 2016 referendum, whatever Lib Dems had said about such a process. If it was simply about fighting a Tory government determined to get Britain out of the EU come what may, then much of the campaigning would be firmly about what sort of country we want to be – the internationalist political and cultural priorities for Lib Dems. Of course the agenda is set by the Government and their newspaper cheer leaders and most Westminster by-elections come at times not of our choosing – but assuring people that our nation deserves something much better than the shrivelled, contradictory nationalism peddled by a Conservative government that has turned its own internal problems into national priorities would resonate with core and increasing supporters.
The referendum did NOT give the “will” of the people (as it was advisory) it gave the “opinion” of the people.
So we are faced with a single decision of the Tory party alone to leave the EU.
This is the battle we face: and the way to do it is by promoting the advantages of the EU. Geo-political, economic, personal…
Proposing and voting for a referendum was always a stupid mistake because nobody, including LibDems, ever thought through the consequences. All tactical “let-the-people-decide freeriders” were implicitly betting on remain to win and closed their eyes on the alternative outcome.
The LibDems have subsequently been practially eradicated from Parliament for other reasons you all know better than me; but could it have to do with loss of distinctiveness? What do you have to loose now? Richmond Park was won with an unconditional remain stance; this is the way back to significance.
Be assured, the UK will bitterly regret June 23 2016. Every Article 50 supporter, no matter which qualifcations he/she will add, will find him-/herself on the side of a political class that has miserably failed.
@Katharine Pindar “we didn’t know that much about what ‘ In’ meant either, but it doesn’t matter because the EU is a fast-changing scene where previous conceptions would be out of date anyway”
Unfortunately, this is undermined by Nick Clegg who famously answered the question, “What will the EU look like in 10 years time” with “it will be much the same as it is now”.
The first referendum determined we are leaving the EU.
Once negotiations with the EU have been completed the decision that will have to be made is between:
a) the terms negotiated with the EU
b) leaving the EU without agreement but under World Trade Organisation terms
At least three of the nine Lib Dem MPs are thought not to be voting against triggering Article 50 (probably abstaining).
Those not going to vote against the result of the referendum are said to be Norman Lamb, Greg Mulholland and John Pugh.
Those supporting the proposition of another referendum in order to reverse the result of the first one should think back to the 1966 World Cup final.
As older members will remember clearly, the result was close, in fact 2-2 at full time and it was only after the third goal for England, which was later shown not to have fully crossed the line, that the German team folded. England won and the World Cup was theirs.
No amount of protesting by the losing side after a result could change the result back then and I suspect that calls for a second referendum will fail for a similar reason.
Helped by Tim’s own comments detailed by Peter Watson above, especially his words,
“The idea of a second EU referendum, suggested by Farage earlier this week, is not only a pathetic attempt at a comeback by a failing “Leave” campaign, it also ignores the history of these sort of referendums.”
It is time to accept the result and move on.
Hello, everyone! Well, what a torrent of negativity. In the spirit of fairness much lauded by Lib Dems, it would be good if people stopped trying to find and proclaim past quotes to knock our leaders, who like all of us can be inconsistent at times but work tremendously hard and selflessly and achieve much; and noticed how much the Party has already done, how it has passed excellent policies to carry out when able to share power, and how it is working hard to develop more and to serve our local communities. For example, John, I like your ideas and hope you will advocate them locally and nationally, but for example it was the Lib Dems in Coalition who got free meals adopted nationally, got the Green Agenda and Green Investment Bank accepted, and promoted many apprenticeships. Catherine Crosland, of course Lib Dems do speak out in favour of immigration, and defend the EU’s freedom of movement principle as firmly as that of movement of trade – we believe in it, and we accept that the EU insists on both.
But, Little Jackie, do I not remember you taking part in the extensive comments on two recent threads about freedom of movement? Do I really need to go over all I read and followed up there? There is an EU conditionality principle which limits it anyway – please go back and read it – and as I said, and as has been widely reported ( in The Times for example) EU nations are moderating their own stances now.
Please, people, if you are Lib Dem members ( but, David Evershed you are stating what is not party policy), develop your good ideas, demand the Federal Policy Committee take them up or go to a regional party meeting and promote them, and support our Party. I am cross now, but personally, I’ve got a by-election to help fight, and there is just as much chance for Rebecca to win in Copeland as our good candidate in Stoke, so I’ll be working for her wholeheartedly (just got back from Keswick) – please come and give us a hand if you can in beautiful Cumbria, it will be exciting and worthwhile.
Last word to Matt – ‘try and get a second referendum if it looks like what has been negotiated is not going to be acceptable to us or our members’ (or the public, Matt). Just so.
P.S. Just to thank Nick Cunningham, one of the few positive voices here, thanks, Nick! I was reminded by seeing another comment of yours on the Stoke by-election thread. I note you are a new member, and you are very welcome! Though far from new myself, I have only been fully active since the May 2015 disastrous result, and I have been so much inspired by going to the Witney by-election and reading all about the later two that I now hope for equal commitment and enthusiasm in both of the new contests. Yes, in both we did badly in the last General Election. But certainly in Copeland we have advantages over all the other party candidates and should win voters from Labour, Tories and Ukip alike. Even if our give-the-people-the-final-say stance is not fully understood, we can say loudly and clearly that our party is united on wanting to stay in the internal market, and in accepting that some sensible management of immigration within the EU can be achieved. Moreover we can meet most of the wishes of the neglected Remainers, and should expect quite a few votes on that account. All to play for!
@Katharine Pindar “it was the Lib Dems in Coalition who got free meals adopted nationally”
It was the Lib Dems before Coalition who opposed universal free school meals when Labour trialled the idea. I don’t remember any Lib Dem mentioning it after 2010 until Nick Clegg sprung it on the party in return for allowing the Tories to spend the same amount on a tax break for married couples that Lib Dems opposed. The evidence showed there were better ways to reap educational benefits from the £500 million spent on universal free school meals but those alternatives wouldn’t have involved a £400 per year bribe to middle class parents.
P.S. Labour and the Conservatives had a Green Investment Bank in their 2010 manifestos but the Lib Dems did not.
@ Peter Watson. Peter, I was tempted not to reply to you again, but memory of positive past exchanges, plus the feeling that building walls (i.e. silence in this case) is never the answer, has led to me re-opening my laptop. Please consider whether exploring the past decisions of our Ministers in Coalition, as with exploring what Tim Farron had to say before June 24, is at all constructive now? It seems to me that you are without intending to cutting off the possibility of useful debate on this thread.
I want to see explored ideas of, for example, whether there will need to be crowd-funding for legal exploration of whether Article 50 can be revoked, and how that might be sought. I should also like us to consider the best ways of debunking the pretensions of UKIP, which party is above us in both of the current contests. There are many undecided, fairly open-minded voters to whom we can talk and whom we can probably persuade to vote Lib Dem. I have been turning over possible conversations with them in my mind for weeks now, as well as trying some out in two days of canvassing locally; and you, as a centre-left person, I think, could if you wished contribute to such useful discussion. I very much hope you will.
Hi Katharine, I feel rather sad that you seem to have been upset by what you consider to be negativity in the comments in this article. I do apologise if I seemed too negative. As I have said before, you are one of the most interesting and thought provoking writers and commentators on this site. I always look forward to seeing what you write.
The people who wrote the comments that you perceive as negative were not being critical of you, but of the approach that Tim Farron and some of our other MPs are currently taking. I understand that you may feel that it is disloyal to criticise our leader and our party’s official policy. Sometimes I do worry about whether or not I should make a particular comment. But many of us make critical comments just because we do care so much about the party. If we feel that there is something wrong with current policy, then perhaps it is our duty to say so. Just repeating the official line unquestioningly is not really the Lib Dem way. I do try to make positive comments whenever I can.
So Katharine, please do not take it personally, and please do not be discouraged from writing more articles. Your positive attitude and enthusiasm are inspiring. I hope the campaign in Copeland is going well. I hope to be able to come and help some time soon 🙂
If Katharine is ever dejected she only has to read Catherine to not be ! Two of the finest contributors here, cannot and must not agree at all times, that would be odd, and tedious!
I am somewhere between the two on all this . As often is so with me !
@Katharine Pindar “Please consider whether exploring the past decisions of our Ministers in Coalition, as with exploring what Tim Farron had to say before June 24, is at all constructive now?”
With respect, the past decisions of Lib Dem ministers in coalition were raised by you when you claimed, “it was the Lib Dems in Coalition who got free meals adopted nationally, got the Green Agenda and Green Investment Bank accepted”. From the outside it looks just as likely that the Tories had to persuade Lib Dems to accept universal free school meals and even a Green Investment Bank.
I also think that it is wrong to ignore what Tim Farron said before June 24, just as it is wrong to ignore what the Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage said. Inconsistency and flip-flopping would be poor leadership so it is important to demonstrate that his position has been clear and consistent.
My biggest concern about the Lib Dem approach to Brexit is that while it looks like a good way to gain votes and members from those already in the Remain camp, I fear it might be a self-defeating strategy that makes Brexit no less likely. Seeking to block Brexit and thwart the wishes of those who voted to leave the EU could provoke an electoral backlash that delivers a worse parliament and government than we now have, particularly when those people are dismissed as uneducated racists who will die soon. Scare stories did not work before the referendum and polling suggests that those still supporting Brexit have already factored in an expectation that there will be a negative impact on the British economy though may expect it to hit others more than themselves. If the dire predictions are correct then waiting until they hit might cause damage that is difficult to repair either inside or outside the EU.
If Lib Dems want a UK with a healthy economy to remain in the EU then I believe they need to win hearts and change minds with a positive message about membership of the EU which addresses honestly and openly the concerns of those who are unhappy about their lives in the EU, including immigration and sovereignty. From posts you have made I get the impression that you do take such a positive approach when canvassing and you have even suggested that some sort of control on immigration could be contemplated, but there are millions of Brexiters to speak to and it is the message put out nationally by the party that worries me.
P.S. Katharine, sorry if above message seemed a bit impersonal but it was getting a bit long so I did not want to fall foul of site rules. While I find a lot of the anti-Brexit anger on this site these days a little discomforting, your posts rise above that and are always polite and positive. Any perceived negativity on my part is aimed at the party rather than any individuals on this site, and if my posts ever appear challenging it is because I am trying to explore whether or not I could support the party again. I’m still none the wiser, and because Brexit overwhelms other debates at the moment I have even less idea than ever about the party’s position in a number of areas, especially with so many new supporters who share an opinion on Brexit but who knows where they stand on everything else?
Catherine, thank you for your kind and encouraging comment (and your backing for it, thanks, Lorenzo) and it will be lovely to meet you if you can make it here. We have a campaign manager and an office now in Keswick to help Rebecca, and I have been working there this afternoon. The point you make about people being critical of Tim is interesting, because I was just musing on the other thread whether my consistent support of his view was one reason why not many people have responded here; but I don’t think about ‘disloyalty’ at all, because we are all equal and free to disagree, though we should uphold Conference decisions on policy as far as possible. (Yes, I know!)
Peter, I was just trying to remember bits of the leaflet I wrote about the Coalition, but your knowledge goes further back than mine. Now I just want to concentrate on present policy and ideas, what we can say in leaflets and on the doorsteps, and what we should develop as policy after February 23. I do feel concerned for you, that you think the Lib Dem approach to the Brexit debate is a cynical tactic, because I think Tim and the party members who backed his approach at Brighton are being sincere. They/we/I do believe that Brexit will be bad for this country, and do honestly think that this view will become that of the majority in due course, so that people – the people – must be given a final chance to say so and stop this disaster. But you are right that we the party must put forward a positive message about the EU and ‘address honestly and openly people’s concerns’. I happen to think that the immigration issue is less of a problem than it was, as Nick Clegg suggested on the Andrew Marr program last Sunday (it is being rethought in other EU nations as well as here), but ‘sovereignty’ I like you have imagined that it is still an issue. Again, you are right to challenge us on policy, if not perhaps on direction of travel : much is already in hand beyond the Brexit debate, but Brexit does necessarily take up much time and effort for everyone, unfortunately,
Apologies to other contributors whose ideas I haven’t yet responded to on this thread, but I will read all the comments again and perhaps reflect once more.
@Katharine Pindar “I do feel concerned for you, that you think the Lib Dem approach to the Brexit debate is a cynical tactic”
I don’t think the Lib Dem approach is cynical insofar as I don’t believe it is intended to attract a disparate bunch of disaffected Remainers to the party while failing to prevent Brexit (at least not with any stability), I just fear that will be the consequence.
Also, it is not yet clear what else unites new supporters other than a desire to remain in the EU since the divisions over Brexit don’t divide people along traditional party lines, so I don’t know what sort of Lib Dem party Tim Farron is accumulating regardless of whether that is inside or outside the EU.
@Peter Watson – “the divisions over Brexit don’t divide people along traditional party lines, so I don’t know what sort of Lib Dem party Tim Farron is accumulating”
But haven’t Liberal Democrats been across “traditional party lines” all along? Do you not remember Charles Kennedy refusing to be put on the traditional left-right spectrum?
There have been some interesting recent analyses, e.g. Eric Kaufmann’s on the LSE blog, suggesting that Brexit is resetting the political divide to one between “order” and “openness”. This could be hugely helpful to us, as we are so clearly on the openness side of this divide. If we can just set out our stall clearly, we can expect to attract refugees from the divided Labour and Tory parties.
Katherine, I’m popping in late to this thread after a mental pledge to visit LDV less and do more other useful things was broken by my responses to another thread on this site…
I really hope that in Copeland your team do well, and will be contributing. It is important that nominal ‘Leave’ areas are not seen as ‘no-go’ areas for the party, and – just as importantly – ‘no go areas’ for a strong ‘remain’ message.
My overall feeling is that it is important, during the periods of parliamentary debate, for LibDems to push hard for the position the party has agreed:
1) a referendum on the terms of the deal, that, where possible, has remaining in the EU as an option
2) If that is not achievable, advocating a Brexit that includes remaining within the SIngle Market, the Customs Union and as many of the other EU institutions as possible (including non-EU ones like the ECHR)
It needs to be recognised that this position – well articulated by both Tim and Nick – is (presumably) deliberately chosen as a compromise around which a coalition can be gathered. It is not for outright rejection of the (legitimate but flawed) referendum outcome, nor is it for outright acceptance of it, and certainly not of the false ‘spin’ which right-leaning Tory and UKIP ideologues have put upon it.
One reason I feel we need to fight this fight – in the teeth of majority apathy and furious scorn from certain parts of the press – is the LibDem longterm advocacy of a democratic process that considers the wishes of large minorities and tries to broker a consensus. Already, refusing to say die on the Remain side – in the person of the Gina Miller et al legal case – has secured key changes in our understanding of the British constitution, and prevented the aggregation of power by the executive. A vital process in the defence of civil liberties, so not to be sniffed at.
But it is, however, possible that the utility of the Lib Dem ‘referendum on the terms of deal’ proposal will be time-limited, and that will give the party a tactical problem. After the opportunity to resist Article 50 and insert a referendum on the terms of the deal into law is gone, will we still hold to the idea we can reverse Brexit, or will we move to the point 2) position, trying to secure a Britain that still looks to Europe, trades with Europe and participates in its institutions (that seems hard enough at this stage)?
Hello everyone, I’ve abandoned the by-election for today, and have reread all the comments here with interest, seeing they go beyond just decrying the prospect of a follow-up referendum. @ George Kendal (January 24) you consider two possibilities of why one could be called, including ‘if it becomes clear that enough Leave voters feel that what has been negotiated is not what they voted for’, and say explaining these possibilities would be better than to ‘appear to deny people what they voted for’. I think you define the problem there, George: we do indeed give reasons like these for seeking another referendum, but they are not well enough understood to get over the popular misconception that we want to deny the people’s rights. Convincing people that really we want to EXTEND their democratic rights is too intellectual for popular consumption, so we must just try on the doorsteps to explain our honest intentions.
@Tim 13, I do think you and PJ are right that the question of Article 50’s revocability now needs urgent further consideration: I’m not aware of the Supreme Court helping with that, Tim? – and so as you say, probably the European Court of Justice needs to be asked for advice. And you ask further, is the jurisdiction of the ECJ really of much concern to voters? It clearly is as you say to Theresa May. I think myself this ties in with the whole subject of sovereignty and control, which, as has been raised in previous threads, is not resolved – people may be persuaded that the migration problem can be ‘managed’ now, but they can still demand an end to ‘rule by foreign courts’, innocent as the ECJ is of such a role. (I guess this is as much space as I’m allowed for this comment, so I will respond to one or two other contributors in a later one – thanks to you all.)
Katherine,
I support the current policy and see it as democratic, not a cynical tactic, even though it is unlikely to happen given the craven lack of support from Labour. It lays down a path away from the brink of disaster for Britain (in my opinion!) should public opinion on Brexit change in favour of Remain. I actually believe that May will take us out even if the polls show opinion has changed, partly because I think that like Boris Johnson she took the other side of the fence from what she actually believed in the referendum in an attempt (successful in her case) to gain control of the Tory Party. Even if public opinion swings against Brexit, Tory activists will not, and that is who she will listen to..
Meanwhile I don’t know if I will get to Copeland but I have made a donation.. It seems to be hard to get onto your Facebook page to find out more however – I made a request 3 days ago but with no sign of a response (possibly because I basically don’t use Facebook so people may think I am a troll)
Matt (Bristol), I agree that there will come a point when the referendum idea will no longer be possible, when we have actually left. At that point I think Party Policy will become to Rejoin the EU as a medium term goal (assuming the EU does not collapse in the meantime as Trump, Putin and many Brexiteers and right wing demagogues in Europe want). That will not be a very salient issue for a while but it is one of those “valence” issues that Mark Pack talks about that will help secure us a “core vote”
OK, one comment has gone into moderation for some reason… maybe it will appear eventually
On the revocability of Article 50, it is clearly only revocable if the remaining EU countries want it to be. I am sure the ECJ would say that under current rules, then it cannot be revoked. We need to talk to our friends in the Council of Ministers, not the ECJ
@ Denis Mollison – thank you, Denis, for that link to the fascinating Eric Kaufmann analysis, and your conclusion that the distinction between people wanting ‘order’ and those needing ‘openness’ could be useful to us. I am not sure that ‘order’ is quite what I take from the analysis, because ‘closed minds’ is also a possibility: the sort of closed mind that, if you showed that the death penalty (or torture) was ineffective, would still believe in it. Pat Dade’s conclusion that ‘belonging, certainty, roots and safety’ are paramount with the people opposing immigration and showing Euroscepticism also seems highly relevant, though not so much ‘safety’ since I know as a counsellor how much both ‘safety’ and security matter to everyone. Anyway, this is all relevant to considering, as you suggest, the attitudes and values which people hold, and those people whom we as a party can most firmly address. I really appreciate you deepening the debate like this.
@ Matt (Bristol), thanks, Matt, your finding time to drop by with a really useful comment is also much appreciated. I absolutely agree that we must not consider Leave areas as no-go ones for us, and have been advocating wider distribution of leaflets as a result, but that is going to depend on outsiders coming to help us. (I guess you are one of Rebecca’s large and growing list of supporters on Facebook, etc., which I don’t have, but which must be valuable.) I take your suggestion that our demand for a second referendum may be time-limited, having wondered myself whether it is going to be possible in the end, and it’s good to consider as you do our fall-back position. But of the options you list, I fear that staying in the Customs Union may be impossible, because I understand that would prevent separate trade deals with the rest of the world – and now of course people are focusing on the probable fantasy of a valuable and rapidly arranged free trade deal with Trump’s America – as if (as others have pointed out) any such deals could cumulatively even begin to equal the value of our EU trade. (And what about the scores of free trade deals the EU itself has negotiated, which benefit us?)
@Katharine Pindar & Denis Mollison
Denis, thank you for that link, it was interesting and goes along with other things I’ve watched/read.
Although Eric Kaufmann does seem to have a handle on why people voted as they did, I think he may have missed the signifance of some points (e.g. London v Regions). If it is an area that you’d like to look into in a bit more depth, I would suggest that a good start point would be the Jonathan Haidt videos on You Tube.
As a starter, try watching this talk between him and your very own Nick Clegg (I would have thought it would have deserved an article on LDV in it’s own right).
@ Andrew McCaig. Thanks for joining in, Andrew – I wasn’t able to read you until now – and of course I also think the follow-up referendum is democratic, despite all the nay-sayers we have seen on earlier threads. But I am not so pessimistic about the PM as you are; she has bent enough now to promise a White Paper, and is surely always aware of the smallness of her majority. We mustn’t even contemplate leaving unless the terms of getting back in change radically, since, as people here have pointed out, we would be required to use the euro.
I will look forward to the moderated comment! As for Article 50 revocation, there has been a legal opinion, linked to by one earlier commentator though unfortunately I didn’t record the link, that it would be possible. So it should be worth pursuing legally, and that doubtless expensive option may need crowd-funding.
Thank you for your donation for Copeland, and I was sorry to hear of your Facebook difficulty. It’s not my side of things, but I am manning the office tomorrow morning, and will put the problem to Rebecca Hanson, our candidate who is also the social-media expert, when she returns with agent Andy from a working engagement.
@chris_sh, interesting video link, thank you. I was vaguely aware of that public meeting where Nick Clegg and Jonathan Haidt discussed populism, so perhaps it was publicised here. I was interested because I had read a book of Haidt’s called ‘The Happiness Hypothesis’ which I thought very good. I’d like to explore more why people vote as they do, but fear it must wait till after February 23!
The trouble with the order/openness dichotomy is that many of those you characterise as brexiteers would argue that the EU closes off from the rest of the world and that they want to open our country to the rest of the world. This argument can’t be dismissed out of hand.
I accept that there is nothing undemocratic about calling for a second referendum, provided that there is a groundswell of support. I detect no popular appetite for a second referendum. If people are forced to vote again against their will then the risk that they will vote against the people who called for a re-vote.
As a remain voter I am against any attempt to subvert or block Brexit not because I do not worry about the possible damage to our economy but because like Martin Lewis on Any Questions last night I believe the damage caused to our democracy by a successful attempt to block Brexit would be ten times worse.
@ Andrew Tampion. I agree with you that holding the proposed referendum would depend on there being a groundswell of support. There would undoubtedly be an outcry if there was no such groundswell, and I doubt that we would either demand or expect it in that case, nor would it be granted. I can’t see that people would vote against their own interests out of pique at being asked to vote, but at the moment as you say there seems to be ‘no popular appetite’ for it.
However, it is good that we continue our clear opposition to Brexit and commitment to the EU, leaving no doubt about where we stand, unlike in the Labour Party. As for the Tory Party, they supported staying in the single market in their 2015 manifesto but Theresa May has now ruled that out, despite massive popular support for it. Leaving the single market is not the same thing as leaving the EU, and Tim Farron insists that any deal must include continuing membership of the market, because it is vital for our country’s economy.
@ Andrew McCaig. Hi Andrew, I asked in the Copeland by-election office today about your not having heard after your Facebook request, and Rebecca Hanson’s agent Andrew Sangar (NB spelling) suggests you go on to Facebook Messenger and send him a Private Message, as he is in charge of the list which now numbers more than 900 people. We did try to trace you without success, but trust this method will work for you. You and any other Lib Dem reading this are of course most welcome to come up if you can manage a visit, and you will find us well organised, hard at work, and full of purposeful enthusiasm! We have such a good case and excellent candidate.
Maybe not? Definitely not, now. That picture of Theresa May, holding hands with the new American President who then enacted that hateful Executive Order in contradiction of the principles of their Statue of Liberty, will be iconic in the story of her Government’s slow slide to defeat. Her repudiation of the policy on Britain’s behalf was all too slow. What British values will her government compromise in pursuit of trade? What unseemly efforts will be made next to secure the distant, doubtful vision of a lucrative trade deal with America, while the huge value of the internal market with the EU is set aside? This government will be known for the personal compromises and untruths told in its pursuit of success and power, but it must not be allowed to sacrifice
our country’s values. More than ever, we need to fight for them in Parliament and through the by-elections.
Katharine, Trump’s policy of banning refugees and people from Muslim countries is so horrible, and the whole situation is so profoundly depressing.
Perhaps I’m being naively optimistic, but I’m trying to give Theresa May the benefit of the doubt. It may be that she has been much more outspoken to Trump in private than she has been publicly. It may be that she genuinely hopes to influence him. To have any chance of influencing him, she does need to build a reasonably amicable relationship with him. We might prefer it if she spoke out and condemned Trump, but perhaps she fears that if she did so, she would alienate him so completely that there would be no chance at all of influencing him in the future.
Perhaps I’m being too charitable in my interpretation of Theresa May’s behavoiur. But perhaps we do need to acknowledge that she is in a very difficult position. Tim Farron is absolutely right to condemn Trump. But if he was Prime Minister, even he might feel forced to be more “diplomatic”.
By the way, I’m pretty sure the holding hands wasn’t Theresa May’s idea. Its quite likely that she was horrified!
I do feel that it would be a good thing if it was made clear to Trump that the state visit will only take place when he lifts the ban. It seems that he is a fervent royalist, and is keen to meet the queen. The threat of losing this opportunity might just be the incentive he needs to make him think again.
Katherine, It’s hard to be charitable to Teresa May, but there may be a different explanation for the hand holding.
I’ve seen the video a few times and it was Trump who took her hand at the top of the steps entering the Rose Garden – as if to escort her down the steps. She let go at the bottom of the steps.
The initiative came from Trump (no surprise given past history) and I think it was pre-planned. She knew the cameras were on and it would have been embarrassing and difficult to pull away from what (he would say) was a chivalrous gesture. My view ? She was hi-jacked by a PR manoeuvre.
No doubt the Queen has been forewarned. He’ll get a chilly reaction if he tries it on there.
David Raw, I think you are right in your explanation of the hand holding. I can’t help feeling a bit sorry for Theresa May. It must have been extremely awkward and embarrassing – You are quite right, she couldn’t really pull away in front of the cameras, as Trump would say he was just being chivalrous.
I expect the Queen is secretly hoping the state visit is cancelled!
David Raw 30th Jan ’17 – 11:07am………….I’ve seen the video a few times and it was Trump who took her hand at the top of the steps entering the Rose Garden – as if to escort her down the steps. She let go at the bottom of the steps……….
I’ve read that Theresa May had to take hold of Donald Trump’s hand because ‘the US President has BATHMOPHOBIA’ – a fear of falling down steps and slopes!
It was in the ‘Daily Mail’so it must be true…
Mind you, ever since Shakespear’s ‘Henry VI’, ‘Rose Gardens’ have never boded well for UK governance…
I doubt if holding hands with Donal Trump was Theresa’s idea at all..
However arbitrary and unfair policies on immigration and refugees are just true to form from this most illiberal of Prime Ministers…
@ Expats “BATHMOPHOBIA” Daily Mail ? Yes, must be true.
On youtube there’s the classic of President Gerald Ford descending the steps of Air Force One – accelerates somewhat towards the end.
Video for Gerald Ford falls down steps▶ 0:26
Catherine, I didn’t say that Theresa May should have openly condemned this President with whom the British Government has to work, but she might have said that this was a policy with which Britain could not agree as soon as she heard of it. As to how it came about that she was holding hands with the President, whether one was helping the other or just being polite, the point is she should not have allowed it to happen. Her unawareness of the force of the image suggests a tolerance of Trump’s views which would surely be deeply unacceptable to most British people. More than ever now we need to support British values by opposing this Government, both in Parliament and in the streets of the Copeland constituency , where we ask as many of you as possible to join us in the coming weeks in support of Rebecca Hanson.