Just about every government in the world, except (UKIP’s favorite) Russia, has expressed a view that it hopes Britain remains in the EU. This includes Commonwealth countries and allies in North and South America, Africa and Asia.
President Obama intervened again this week by advising David Cameron in a phone call on Tuesday that the US sees Britain’s interests as best served in the EU rather than outside.
Of course, the White House will fully expect that this information will become public knowledge and will hope that it will have a positive impact on the prospects of an IN vote. Barack Obama is probably more widely respected by the British public than any leading UK politician at the moment.
Obama & IN or Putin & UKIP – who do you trust?
Euractiv reported the phone call.
* Antony Hook was #2 on the South East European list in 2014, is the English Party's representative on the Federal Executive and produces this sites EU Referendum Roundup.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
1963: London's summer of the Hoverbus
High Fell by-election leaflet watch 3: the proof is in the reading
Have resignations led to a rethink?
Stefano Brunesci
Robert Doyle
Peter Martin
Simon
Ben Austin
33 Comments
We should be pro EU and pro Commonwealth. Not unquestionably so, but I think what a lot of Brexit sentiments by politicians is about is people hankering after the empire. Of course, we can’t go back to the empire, but at least the Commonwealth isn’t just about one continent.
Yes, I think you are right about that Eddie
Barack Obama is probably more widely respected by the British public than any leading UK politician at the moment
Though I suspect he’s mainly respected by people who are already strongly on the ‘Remain’ side, so his intervention is unlikely to do very much to convince undecided voters.
Since the eu expanded into Eastern Europe things have become more difficult for those at the bottom in society, increase competition for low skilled jobs, a lack of social housing, mass influx of non-English speakers into working class areas including the schools in working class areas).
Businesses and landlords on the other hand have done very well out of it.
If you don’t want the working class to turnout in droves to vote against EU membership what are the in campaign doing to address these concerns?
Rsf7,
I don’t think this is just about the working classes turning out in droves. The basic problem for the in campaign is that if it turns into a referendum on immigration it’s lost. The reality is, if the stats are to be believed, over 70 % of the population want lower immigration. That is the majority of the population across the classes. The other reality is that we are down to 8% in the polls and have 8 seats. My view is that the Lib Dem leadership needs to think about what it is going to do if the EU vote goes pair shaped because there is a danger in being too strongly identified with what might very well turn out to be a lost cause.
@glenn
The pro EU group keep telling us the EU is a good thing and improves the economy so millions of people are going to say “ok then, how exactly has this improved my quality of life? Jobs are harder to come by now and I’ll never get a council house as Eastern European families are a priority as they have children”.
The economy has been improved for those at the top. For the few not the many.
For those who have suffered as a result of the mass migration to their areas that’s not going to be an easy question to answer. But some answer must be given.
I have repeatedly asked that question on this site and it has never been properly answered, if the stay in campaign haven’t got an answer to this for the millions directly affected by this then they are going to get truely stuffed in the campaign and lose the vote. Without a real answer to this those people are going to turn out on mass and vote to leave.
So, any answers?
The Lib Dems must aggressively argue in favour of free movement, defend migrants, expose the “undemocratic” myth of the EU, counteract the hate being thrown around at the TTIP, and make the case for open borders and open markets.
Stimpson suggests Lib Dems must :
,,,,expose the “undemocratic” myth of the EU”
Problem is, it’s not a myth, it’s an indisputable fact . There is no democratic control of,… Juncker, Tusk, or any of these other, myriad of *untouchable*, self imposed EU commissioners, and their equally unelected gravy train, hangers-on? Seriously,..Stimpson,.. Who voted for these people, who have decided amongst themselves that they are in charge,..certainly not the average voter?
When you can explain [in detail], the EU democratic process whereby a voter in Athens, and a voter in Scunthorpe can potentially get rid of Tusk or Junker, then I’ll sit up and take your declarations of EU democracy seriously. Until then,.. good luck in finding that so called ‘EU democracy’, … because it just doesn’t exist, and you must sooner or later face that reality.
@Stimpson
So what you’re saying is that you are not going to give any credence to the objections I have raised and your answer is to tell those affected by mass immigration that you’re not interested in their complaints, that you are in favour of what happened to their communities, and you have no intention of giving an inch to those who object to any of it?
Well that’s honest, principled and going to lead to defeat I guess.
The ironic thing is it will be ultra the pro EU crowd who refused transition periods and went ahead regardless of what their policies did to the working class who end up destroying the European Union.
Hi Rsf7
“For those who have suffered as a result of the mass migration to their areas that’s not going to be an easy question to answer.”
The answer is that they’ve been sold a dud. We’ve had the Thatcher years’ dismantling of Council Housing, a government now proceeding to destroy Social Housing and have little inclination to steer the benefits of growth away from their cronies and into the hands of the people.
They’re screw you, pretend it’s the foreigners’ fault and carry on regardless. Some pretend that if you just let them free of EU oversight then we can get rid of the foreigners. They don’t tell you that we’ll starve if we don’t have a trade deal and any trade deal (e.g. EFTA) comes with free movement of workers, and contribution to EU funds. They dangle a bait in front of you that wont cure your hunger and you wont get to eat anyway.
On the one hand we’ve got a government elected on a little over a third of the vote actively pursuing policies that have made and will make people homeless.
On the other hand we have an EU who want to make housing a basic right.
Who would you give more power to?
“When you can explain [in detail], the EU democratic process whereby a voter in Athens, and a voter in Scunthorpe can potentially get rid of Tusk or Junker, then I’ll sit up and take your declarations of EU democracy seriously. ”
Hi Indigo,
The process is this:
The voter in Scunthorpe and the voter in Athens elect a European Parliament and the European Parliament remove the commission (as the European Parliament removed the European Commission in 1999).
So, let’s suppose Junker’s et al come up with a terrible policy that has dire effects on the people of the EU. The Parliament may inform him that he either abandons the policy or is removed.
Now, let me ask you a question. Angela Merkel comes up with a terrible policy that has dire effects on the people of the EU. How do your voter in Scunthorpe and your voter in Athens get rid of her?
“Some pretend that if you just let them free of EU oversight then we can get rid of the foreigners.”
No-one wants to ‘*get rid* of foreigners Tony. Foreigners are very welcome. It’s about control of who comes through your border. It seems to work very well for the Australians .. .. the Canadians,… and the USA,.. who all do it quite successfully?
“They don’t tell you that we’ll starve if we don’t have a trade deal..”
Seriously… ?? You’re saying an exit from the EU means we in the UK will all starve ..?. You’ve taken this scare mongering thing, to a whole new bizarre level Tony.
“On the one hand we’ve got a government elected on a little over a third of the vote”
And we’ve got a whole EU commission gravy train,.. who were never elected at all ,… and have *zero* vote or mandate from the electorate.
@Tony Lloyd
“… we’ve got a government elected on a little over a third of the vote … ”
I’ve often wondered about people who use this sort of phrase, are you suggesting that only getting a third means that they shouldn’t be able govern as they have not achieved a mandate of 50%+?
Ironically, if we had PR we would have a Tory/UKIP coalition instead of a purely conservative one? Would that be legitimate Tony? Or would it still be illegitimate for different reasons?
We need a Global Democratic Union. The Commonwealth can only have limited appeal and the EU is very Eurocentric. People could be free to come and go. We could base it somewhere like Switzerland. If they wanted it.
Still vote for staying in the EU, but we need to look further afield.
That’s a really intriguing thought, Rsf7. Might I suggest a scenario?
A lot of voters that liked UKIP because they were ‘agin the government’ would desert them for another party, such as the LibDems or the Greens.
Then UKIP would discover that some of their MPs were naughty or embarrassing and expel them. Some of their other MPs would fall out with their leadership and defect, perhaps to independent or other parties. That’s exactly what happened to UKIP in the European Parliament in the last dozen years, but most of the British public don’t know that. European Union politics is scandalously under-reported here.
They would lose support, by-elections and council seats. At the next election, the Tories would have them for breakfast.
As Tony Lloyd says, many of the things complained about here are down to our own government – who like to blame others (foreigners, the last government, world affairs) for their own failings.
What are we doing to address genuine concerns? Among other things, Tim Farron has made a campaign for more and better housing a priority.
Democratic? At least the EU does not have one chamber of its law-making process containing people appointed by the Head of Government, possibly 500 years ago.
The Commissioners are politicians nominated by elected Governments; have to be approved by elected MEPs, and can be removed by them as well. Rather more democratic than the Head of the Civil Service in any country.
The Scunthorpe voters cannot get rid of David Cameron (let alone Angela Merkel) even if they and all their neighbours always vote Labour.
There is democratic oversight of Juncker, albeit indirect: by the Heads of Government.
If we had PR we would not necessarily have a Con-UKIP Govt as people would have voted differently.
@Ian Sanderson
Isn’t that pretty much the scenario of what happened to the Lib Dems after 2010 as well?
Chris_sh. Well spotted, but to a certain extent it’s what can happen to any smaller party in coalition; if we go into coalition again, we’ll know more about the dangers. UKIP would have had the additional problem that it would not have been able to make much progress on its own policies.
However, I must point out that UKIP’s travails in the EP were definitely unique to them among British parties.
@ Stephen Robinson
I work on the ‘sweat on the brow’, principle. If a voter [ or group of voters ] can put sweat on the brow of a politician, you can confidently say you have a line of sight to something resembling democracy.?
Nothing within the confines of the EU puts sweat on the brow of Juncker, because no [voter initiated], democracy can shift him. Ironically you *can* find pictures of Juncker with sweat on his brow. And that sweat is due to his worry that U voters [democracy?], will go for Brexit.
In short, to test just how democratic, any proposed system of democracy truly is, use ‘the sweat on the brow principle’.
Indigo – I assume you mean “fear they might be removed”. By that test, you have proved that the UK parliament is less democratic than the EU one. At any General Election it is rare for more than 15% of the MPs to get defeated, often less. And none of the 820 Peers of course! Whereas at the last EU election around 20% lost.
And the President of the EU Council is likely to only get one term.
Stephen Robinson
You will never see Juncker or Tusk, in anything like a leaders debate [with sweat on their brows !], . Why should they given that voters have no leverage on their positions.? They got their positions through an elite EU selected ‘buggins turn’ process. Real voters didn’t put them there and real voters can’t remove them. Ergo,… no democratic mandate?
Juncker is Commission President because his party won the largest number of seats in the Parliament.
The Parliament can vote to remove the Commission if it wants to.
That is quintessential parliamentary democracy.
Juncker is Commission President because his party won the largest number of seats in the Parliament
No it didn’t. Not one single person in Europe voted for the EPP.
Some people in Germany voted for the CDU; some in Ireland for Fine Gael, soem in Poland for the PPP.
But nobody voted for the EPP, because the EPP isn’t a party and there is no such thing as a pan-European electorate.
A ‘European election’ is really no such thing; it is 28 national elections, contested by national parties, that happen to take place on the same day.
@Dav: that’s like saying no-one in the UK voted for the Conservative Party; they just voted for local MPs who took the Conservative whip in Parliament. People in most other European countries are much more aware than here of the European party affiliations of the candidates and national parties they are voting for. The lack of awareness here is a direct result of the conspiracy of silence on EU politics by our country’s political classes. Unfortunately, the Lib Dems participated in this conspiracy of silence, instead of challenging it; we did not mention the ALDE candidate for Commission in our literature, and missed a trick by not attacking the Tories and their raving-right allies in ECR (as well as UKIP’s raving-right allies).
that’s like saying no-one in the UK voted for the Conservative Party; they just voted for local MPs who took the Conservative whip in Parliament
Well no it’s not, you see, because the Conservative party is a national party which stands in general elections in a single country, on a single manifesto, and is answerable to that electorate should it be elected and fail to deliver.
Europe is not a country, and it does not have a single electorate. Parties are not answerable to the electorates because, for example, even though there were no EPP-affiliated candidates even standing in the UK, they still ‘won’ because of votes in foreign countries!
Fundamentally, the point is that Europe is not a country. It’s not like the UK, where administratively things might be divided with parliaments in Edinburgh and Cardiff, but basically everybody is part of the same nation (the Scots even had a vote on that and decided they were, in fact, British).
The French and the British and the Germans are not part of the same nation, therefore they can’t form a single electorate. You can’t have democracy without a demos.
Indigo
Surely your, and such as the Daily Mail’s, problem with “democracy in the EU” lies with the views of some who created and negotiated for it. The 3 Pillar structure – Parliament, Council of Ministers, and (powerful) Commissioners, were in there at the behest of the early member states. Britain’s role, of course, has always been to water down the EU’s democracy. A good example of this was when we first signed up to accepting the European Parliament, we decided we couldn’t allow our voters to vote for it – oh, no, that was far too dangerous! We have always been on the side of giving more powers to the Council of Ministers and the Commission than to the Parliament. Gradually direct democracy has been gaining somewhat more power, but of course, Cameron’s renegotiation is aimed at depriving them of powers again! Britain fights against parliamentary democracy! Sounds good, doesn’t it. Europhobes often describe the powers of Commissioners as undemocratic, partly because they sometimes propose Directives or other schemes. In essence, the Commissioners are Civil Servants, and if the two democratically elected bodies do not like their proposals, they are thrown out. Civil servants in any country are tasked with drawing up schemes to manage public affairs in a country. This is a normal and sensible part of life. This has been mixed in the EU of Commissioners being selected on an equal basis from each member state, so their names and countries of origin are better known than, say, UK Civil servants.
And how democratic is the Council of Ministers, which does democracy at second remove? I merely pose the question, as it seems to me that representative democracy is best done by direct election. There is often a case for electing reps on other bodies, but it doesn’t have the same direct accountability that those directly elected have. Our distorting media have a great deal to be blamed for in this, of course. The only times they report on the EP, is when something goes wrong, and they can slate it as “gravy train, corrupt” etc etc. What chance to ordinary mortals have against a media dominated by transnational moguls with an agenda to destroy any democratic power which looks as if it might hold them to account! Bit like King Herod and the hunt for male children who needed elimination, it seems to me!
Dav
I don’t think ANY Lib Dem thinks like that! Most of us are quite comfortable with democracy at different levels for different issues. The more issues that cross borders, the more we need the supranational electorate you claim cannot (or simply does not?) happen. And why can’t local areas decide more things?
I don’t think ANY Lib Dem thinks like that! Most of us are quite comfortable with democracy at different levels for different issues
Indeed, that’s why you have 8MPs and 1 MEP.
@Stephen Robinson
“…Whereas at the last EU election around 20% lost.”
Are you not running the risk of comparing apples and pears though? After all, we have a system that is basically winner takes all, where as the EU is more a prize for everyone. Both systems have good and bad points, but as the bar for entry is a lot higher for an MP then you would expect it to be harder to remove them (failing some extraordinary disaster of course).
@Ian Sanderson
” if we go into coalition again, we’ll know more about the dangers. ”
Ahem, at the risk of upsetting the apple cart (and going off topic), you were the Party that spent years telling people that coalitions were the way to go. You would sort of expect that the Party would have known the dangers (especially as you’d worked in coalitions at other levels).
The Democratic Party and Republican in the US has a federal manifesto and state level manifestos.
It is just the same that the European parties have European manifestos and manifestos of their state level parties.
And of course individual candidates make personal commitments for what legislation they will and will not vote for – or who you vote for for Commission President.
Immigration – in the sense of the increasing tendency of people who are either under threat or facing deprivation to seek a solution by leaving their own country – is unquestionably a problem. The relative wealth of even less well off citizens in the richer countries which worldwide electronic communication displays is bound to have this effect and it will increase rather than decrease. This is a world problem. And it needs a world solution or at least amelioration. No one country can tackle this on its own and it is certainly not a problem created by the EU. Like so many other problems – such as climate change and international crime the EU can if it gets its act together be a major factor in working together with other continents. We cannot stop the world and get off.