Following yesterday’s Parliamentary votes, we now face the following
1. We cannot have a no-deal Brexit because Parliament has voted against it
2. We cannot have no-Brexit because the referendum voted for Brexit
3. Therefore, we have to have Brexit with a deal, but
4. We can’t have Theresa May’s deal because Parliament has voted against it twice
5. The groups opposing Theresa May’s deal are:
- The ERG/DUP who want to remove the Northern Ireland backstop
- The Labour party, (maybe plus SNP and Lib Dems), who want a customs union
6. To get her deal through Parliament, Theresa May needs to agree to one of these diametrically opposed demands
7. The EU will not accept the removal of the Northern Ireland backstop, and are immovable on this because
- a border is universally ruled out, and
- logic dictates that no border requires a common customs area, so the ERG/DUP option is out
8. The EU would likely accept a customs union, so the Labour option is workable
So, the choices really available are
- A new deal including a customs union, therefore backed by Labour and agreeable to the EU
- A People’s Vote
- A general election
A new deal with a customs union is a softer Brexit, and this is a reasonable interpretation of the close 52%/48% referendum result. The 48% vote against Brexit gives no democratic basis for a hard Brexit. The ERG/DUP group is then hung out to dry.
This is probably the preferable option, but if, as seems likely, Theresa May declines to take it, then, given that a general election may well deliver another hung Parliament, a People’s Vote is the only other logical way forward. It should offer the only two logical options of Brexit with a customs union, or Remain.
* Geoff Crocker is a professional economist writing on technology at http://www.philosophyoftechnology.com and on basic income at www.ubi.org. His recent book ‘Basic Income and Sovereign Money – the alternative to economic crisis and austerity policy’ was recommended by Martin Wolf in the FT 2020 summer reading list.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Latest voting intention and leadership ratings opinion polls
Urban ReLeaf Dundee
Welsh Labour hospitality row
Morecambe and Wise and Leonard Rossiter
Colin Brown
Steve Trevethan
Jenny Barnes
David Warren
Mick Taylor
20 Comments
Brexit with a customs union is not what Lib Dems want, but if it is the best option to break the deadlock we should support it. It is the next best option after remaining in the EU, and reflects the closeness of the vote.
Leadership please!
Excellent summary of where we are and I agree with Geoff’s conclusion. Brexit with a customs union is not what the Lib Dems want in a perfect world, but this is far from a perfect world and this seems like a fair compromise that gives everyone a bit of what they want.
Occam’s Razor suggests “If you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.
The cross-party group headed by Nick Boles argue that the Common Market 2.0 (Norway plus option) is the only option that can command a significant enough majority on both sides of the house to pass a vote. This future relationship working group is pressing to take control of the government’s legislative timetable for a couple of days in order to hold a series of indicative votes, By eliminating all options that cannot muster the majority support of Parliament; whatever option(s) remain would indicate the only feasible course of action that the government can pursue. Whether a second referendum would survive this whittling out process remains unclear, but there is a certain logic to it as a means of breaking the impasse.
AT LAST, a bit of common sense. But will it survive? I sincerely hope so.
What is the situation with Freedom of Movement and striking trade deals under this customs union plan?
I could not agree more with the two previous posts, this Brexit mess has been crying out for a compromise like that but Mrs May has only got her eyes on the ERG group and the DUP . If only we had a Prime Minister who genuinely cared about bringing this country together, some hope I am afraid. As ever a Conservative leader who cares more about their party above national interests.
Sorry chaps, but I’m a ‘No surrender’ guy on this one. For me the only solution is no Brexit. You can’t compromise on principles and any so-called ‘soft Brexit’ isn’t acceptable to me and shouldn’t be acceptable to Liberal Democrats. I don’t see the ERG and Mr Farage offering to compromise and neither should we.
We know that any other solution is worse than what we have now. So staying in a fighting for change is easily the best option.
Let’s hear no more talk of compromise. We know that an exit from Brexit is the only way and we have to fight for what we believe in and what’s right for our country.
Geoff,
9. Any future arrangement should be sustainable.
Once in the customs union, continued single market membership is a logical conclusion: in the absence of UK-only trade deals, i.e. tagging along the EU, continued full EU-alignment becomes the logical default in terms of commercial orientation (also called Norway+). Becoming a rule-taker will be rightly challenged from day 1, as the UK would gain nothing from giving up its seat at the table.
Mick Taylor,
“I don’t see the ERG and Mr Farage offering to compromise and neither should we.” I would say the uncompromising hard brexit strategy of the ERG and Nigel Farage has been wholly unsuccessful.
Libdem Policy has two strands https://www.libdems.org.uk/europe-policy:
1. To put whatever deal is agreed between the government and the EU to a referendum with an option to remain.
2. To campaign for an exit from Brexit.
The campaign message is the Liberal Democrats want to give people the final say on the Brexit deal. They should be able to choose whether the deal is the right deal for Britain’s future. If it’s not, then they should be able to reject it and remain in the European Union.
That necessarily involves getting to a point where there is a deal endorsed by Parliament and agreed by the EU that can be put to a confirmatory referendum.
I think there is unlikely to be a parliamentary majority for a referendum if it is simply seen as a ploy to scrap Brexit altogether rather than presenting a real choice to the voting public between remain and a credible deal that could be delivered.
If that deal is the Common Market 2.0/Norway + http://betterbrexit.org.uk/ than I think there would be a good chance of winning a referendum campaign to remain.
What makes you think a GE would result in another hung parliament? I think it much more likely that it would return a tory majority which would inevitably result in a hard brexit.
Sarah Wollaston of TIG has tabled a motion for a referendum with a choice between May’s deal and remaining in the EU. Labour and the Tories have advised their members (I’m not sure whether they are whipping them or not) not to vote for it, so it will probably be defeated by a large majority. But how will the eleven LibDems be voting?
@ Graham Martin-Royle: “What makes you think a GE would result in another hung parliament? I think it much more likely that it would return a tory majority “.
Many of us thought that in 2017, but we reckoned without Theresa May’s special talent for muffing a campaign.
@Nick Collins “Sarah Wollaston of TIG has tabled a motion for a referendum …”
The BBC refers to the “cross-party amendment (h) from independent MP Sarah Wollaston, the SNP’s Philippa Whitford and Joanna Cherry, Lib Dem Tom Brake and Labour’s Neil Coyle”.
The timing of this amendment may or may not be wise, but if Tom Brake and the Lib Dems are involved then it begs a question about why Lib Dems aren’t seen to be leading on this.
There is no “a”>/b> customs union. There is ‘The Customs Union’. Pick and mix does not exist. Moreover for the Irish border to be invisible each side has to be in ‘The Single Market’ (also known as The Internal Market or the Common Market).
The indefinite article is a meaningless sleight of hand.
It would be utterly pointless for Liberal Democrats to support something that is not supported by all of the governing party (or parties), because the government has to be able to govern, which is not possible if there is a sizeable faction of dissenters.
If Corbyn formed a coalition with May, then they might be able to push through some sort of aberrant accord and then go on to cobble together a post Brexit deal, but that still would not mean that Liberal Democrats would have any call to have anything to do with it whatsoever.
There is no “a” customs union. There is ‘The Customs Union’. Pick and mix does not exist. Moreover for the Irish border to be invisible each side has to be in ‘The Single Market’ (also known as The Internal Market or the Common Market).
The indefinite article is a meaningless sleight of hand.
It would be utterly pointless for Liberal Democrats to support something that is not supported by all of the governing party (or parties), because the government has to be able to govern, which is not possible if there is a sizeable faction of dissenters.
If Corbyn formed a coalition with May, then they might be able to push through some sort of aberrant accord and then go on to cobble together a post Brexit deal, but that still would not mean that Liberal Democrats would have any call to have anything to do with it whatsoever.
Sorry about the formatting error.
@Nick Collins “Sarah Wollaston of TIG has tabled a motion for a referendum with a choice between May’s deal and remaining in the EU …”
The BBC reports that “Independent Group MP Dr Sarah Wollaston’s amendment, which called for an extension of Article 50 for another referendum to take place, has been rejected by 334 votes to 85 – a majority of 249.”
Regardless of Labour abstentions and concerns about the timing of the amendment, that is a majority of the House of Commons voting against it. Might some present this as a final rejection of another referendum or does the wording of the amendment allow more flexibility than that?
@ Peter Watson: To give a definitive answer to your question is, by some distance, beyond my competence.
But:
1 The “People’s Vote” Campaign counselled against moving the amendment now because they feared it might weaken their chances of succeeding later.
2. Theresa May, the ERG, etc. might well seek to present the situation in the way that you suggest. But they might not win the argument.
3. Vince Cable was asked this question by a BBC journalist shortly after the debate and responded ” Theresa May has brought her motion back to the House on more than one occasion; we can do the same” or words to that effect.
4. I believe that Erskine May does say something to the effect that it is normally not ok to bring a motion which has already been defeated back to the House within the same session. But we are not in “normal times ” (see 3 above) and it is ultimately up to the Speaker to decide.
Can any of the LibDem constitutional experts who frequent this site help with an answer to Peter’s question , or are we in uncharted territory?
Mr Burke
At the risk of being a pedant “If you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” is a quote from the Sherlock Holmes story The Sign of Four. Occams Razor is the philosophical principle that in the absence of any other evidence the simplest of two or more competing hypotheses is more likely to be correct
A customs union is not a soft Brexit – unless you are a manufactured good.
If you are a person, a soft Brexit would involve freedom of movement.
Brexit has become something akin to the movie Groundhog Day.