Why do we accept that leaving the EU is going to happen, when we believe that doing so is harmful to our country? Why do we pussy-foot about, saying that we want a referendum on the terms of our leaving, when we could say, if the people who want to stay in are perceived to be becoming a majority, then there should be another referendum? And there are plenty of reasons to suggest that sufficient leave voters could change their minds in the next few months.
We know that misleading and untruthful information was knowingly peddled by Leave leaders, such as the claim that much of the money currently paid by Britain to the EU could go to the NHS if we leave. In fact, those funds are being promised widely elsewhere now.
We know that Scotland and Northern Ireland had majorities for Remain, and their leaders along with the Welsh are demanding a say in the terms of leaving. Nicola Sturgeon insists that Scotland must keep access to the EU’s single market.
We know that the country’s economic prosperity is threatened by leaving, that Theresa May herself saw the dangers of doing so and the advantages of staying, and that price rises which will hit the poorest first can be expected soon. Staying in the single market seems vital for our economy.
We know that a majority of young voters, who will be most keenly affected in years to come if shut out of the EU, voted to remain. We also know that a majority of present Parliamentarians voted the same way.
What, though, of the apparent major motivation of leavers, to be governed solely by the British Government and British courts? Well, we know that this can be argued against by showing the many advantages of shared sovereignty, for instance on crime and security matters.
What of the demand of many leavers for reduced immigration? We can easily show the value of immigrants to the National Health Service, to agriculture, to businesses and the universities, and in doing work which British people don’t want to do.
Still, it will be said, those arguments were known before, and yet there was a majority to leave the EU. Yes, but now that the arguments to remain are stronger and better known, enough of those who voted to leave may be changing their minds. If there becomes a majority to stay in, it will not be undemocratic to ask for another referendum which could reverse the present decision. If a strong movement develops this winter that recognises leaving the EU is harmful to our country, Theresa May could be forced to reconsider.
Let’s fight to stay in the EU, and never activate Article 50 to leave. It’s a fight Britain needs Liberal Democrats to lead.
* 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
Cameron Thomas was arrested on suspicion of controlling and coercive behaviour and assault
A bumper set of of council and Parliamentary by-elections
Makerfield: we can breathe again.
Brexit has cut trade in almost every sector of the UK economy
Tom Bailey
Tristan Ward
Tristan Ward
David Sparrow
87 Comments
Once Scotland and Northern Ireland becomes independent there will be an increased rUK majority for Leave thus validating the original Leave decision.
If the EU grants membership to Scotland we’ll also be able to better compare whether Leave or Remain was the right choice.
At the end of the day, where does (or should) responsibility rest? If as time goes by it becomes increasingly apparent that leaving the EU is against our interests, should we blunder on because of a ‘non binding’ referendum?
It may require political leadership of the stature that we have seldom seen – but if we stare into the abyss and see potential disaster, should not the PM of the day have the courage to say ‘enough is enough, I have a responsibility to the British people and I cannot lead them down this path’.
Of course, pigs might fly.
I think we should consider adding “Stop Brexit” to the masthead on all our literature, perhaps even on Ballot Papers. We are the only mainstream Party committed to opposing Brexit all the way &, if neccesary, reversing it & Brexit is the central political issue in Britain for the next few years, maybe longer.
John Peters
Who says Northern Ireland is going to become independent? There is little support for an independent Ulster. The reunification of Ireland is a different question, the majority in Northern Ireland do not want to become part of the Republic.
Do you think Britain’s manufacturing industry will magically come back if the UK leaves the EU?
Burma is set to become a manufacturing hub. Do you know how much the Burmese workers will be paid?
It was the Leave voters who were starting to call for a second referendum. They wouldn’t have accepted the result if they had lost. Not every British citizen was given a vote in the referendum.
@Manfarang
Personally I don’t think Northern Ireland or Scotland will leave the UK. However that is outside any influence of mine and up to the respective peoples.
However I don’t believe we should unduly concern ourselves with the posturing of the likes of Nicola Sturgeon in deciding what is best for the UK.
I agree with you 100%
The brexiteers are behaving like a spiv salesperson who conned a cheque out the British public and can’t wait to get to the bank and cash it before the the public find out they have been sold a pup. I think enough people already realise that this vote was a mistake but they can’t find a way to correct it. If it was re-run tomorrow, I honestly think it would go the other way. We need to keep believing and maybe an opportunity will present itself.
Let us remember there were scare stories and lies on both sides and at the end of the day the people voted. As far as the extra money for the NHS is concerned this was was just silly. But the point remains that we were giving the EU a lot of money and there was little accountability as to how it was spent. As a liberal I would rather that money went downwards rather than upwards. I just worry that if we are seen to be going against what the people voted for it is a dangerous path.
We don’t even know what the deal is yet, it might be decent. The party should remain flexible and focus on pursuing a soft brexit. It can’t just be the same conditions as last time but worse, it needs either a budget cut or a cut in free mocement for the public to accept it. We are losing votes in the EU parliament after all.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-37805720
Mrs Foster said that she respected those who wanted to remain, but that she has “no time for those who want to re-fight the referendum”.
“That debate is over. Rather than talking up the challenges, we should be looking forward to the opportunities.
“Brexit represents the biggest economic opportunity for this country in decades.
“But, the only way we can ensure that Northern Ireland’s interests are best served is if we are united and determined.”
And in the case of Scotland where we voted 62% to Remain and where this party with its supposed commitment to federalism, why have we pulled out of discussions as to how best to keep Scotland in the EU, opposed independence in any circumstances and essentially schackled the allegedly sovereign people of Scotland to this Brexit folly. I am so disappointed in the paucity of thinking as to how the present UK could restructure to reflect the desires of all its peoples… I voted with the majority here to remain in the U.K. and in the EU, and I want a solution that encompasses both those aspirations or in extremis the chance to choose between them.
You argue that there should be another referendum, because some Leave voters may have changed their minds by now. If this argument was carried to its logical conclusion, there would have to be a referendum every four months for ever, because whatever the result, inevitably after four months some people would have changed their minds.
There was a lengthy campaign leading up to the referendum, and people had plenty of time to weigh up the evidence.
The government leaflet that was sent out to every home, said “This is your decision. The government will implement what you decide.” So although the referendum may not have been legally binding, the government clearly told the public that it would consider itself bound by the result.
I had understood that the Lib Dem policy, voted for at Conference, is not to ignore the result or try to prevent article 50 from being triggered, as you suggest, but to campaign for a “soft Brexit”, and for the public to have a chance to vote on the eventual deal.
Personally I feel that the “referendum on the deal” is not really practical, as the deal will probably only emerge about two years after article 50 is triggered, so there would not be time to renegotiate another deal, and deciding to stay in the EU might not even be possible by this point. But this policy is rather more democratic than what you are suggesting – another referendum right now, just because you didn’t like the result of the first one.
I realise that a few liberals don’t like the phrase ‘left behind’,.. but it seems evident that many Leavers felt that the EU doesn’t work for them, and hence being ‘left behind’.
We’re also told that the UK poor will suffer most from Brexit. This overlooks the point that the poor, constituted many of the ‘left behind’, who already felt poor and suffering anyway, whilst in the EU. So the choice you are giving them appears a lose-lose,.. feel left behind and remain in the EU, or feel left behind post Brexit. Not much in it for the left behind..?
Surely the resolution to this dilemma is :
1. Create real policy here in the UK, which is designed to give inclusion, of the left behind,.. and by definition,…stop them feeling left behind.?
2. Attack the EU at source, by putting your political shoulder to the wheel of reform, in order to make it actually representative, and actually democratic, and less of a gravy train for a self selected political class, all of which got it rejected on June 23rd.?
Assume for a moment, that Tim got his way and overturned the June 23rd referendum, with a second referendum,.. the new result being :
17.4 million for Remain to 16.1 million for Leave
Now what..? Does Tim think that fixes it.? Do you think a whole lot of ‘left behinds’, now converted into ‘cheated ~ left behinds’,.. are just going home,..to make a pot of tea, and forget about it.?
I mentioned the point before, to cries of alarmist,.. but don’t you think we’re entering the world, of not just,.. the ‘left behind’,.. but ‘the ungovernable’.?
That is an interesting view, but, not one that I share in any way.
Thank you for sharing.
I think another referendum is for the birds. The only option is a general election on a no brexit ticket. Why aren’t the Lib Dems calling for one?
John Peters
“Brexit represents the biggest economic opportunity for this country in decades.”
The economic powerhouses are in Asia and I can tell you for sure Britain is not poised for a massive expansion into these markets. In the last few years get efforts have been made to increase trade in the east Asia region but it is hard to see this being doubled in the next few years.
Of course there are good business opportunities there but not enough to create some kind of British economic miracle.
(anyway the Northern Irish economy is largely agricultural)
For those of us who believe that Brexit will lead to the nation’s wholesale impoverishment and to other unacceptable outcomes, it was a mistake to talk of ‘respecting’ the result of the referendum. We should merely have acknowledged it, pointing out that following every election and indeed after the 1975 referendum, the losers immediately set about becoming tomorrow’s victors.
How can politicians convinced Brexit is a disaster be expected actually to help bring it about? Instead, whilst doing what they can to mitigate its worst effects, they should be seeking by all means possible to stop it happening.
So what if this means arguing for another referendum as soon as popular opinion shifts? A new referendum bill could include a majority clause of, say, 55%. That should restrain demands for future re-runs. The higher threshold would be tough for us to meet, but the inevitable fall in living standards will be an unpleasant, but I think irresistible ally.
Catherine Jane Crosland: Well, a close election result often leads to another election being called soon after (see UK 1974, or Spain now). So you could argue, why should it not also apply to referendums? And the EU referendum result was certainly close enough that it might sense to repeat the exercise, especially as a lot has happened in politics that might lead people to change their minds.
And of course we have elections every 5 years anyway, and between them the opposition continues to campaign against the government. We do not say that the Tories won the last election, so we should respect the election result and not campaign against anything the Tory government does, or that it would be “undemocratic” to vote down any government legislation or to fight elections on a platform of opposition to the Tories. And we certainly don’t say it would be undemocratic to have another election following the previous one. The democratic process continues after elections, so why should it not continue following a referendum?
The government may have said it will honour the result of the referendum, but in case you have been on a desert island for the past 18 months, we are not in government. The result was not (legally) binding on the governement, and it certainly isn’t binding on the opposition, as the whole point of being in opposition is that you oppose the government. So we can do what we like as far as the referendum is concerned: we can absolutely campaign for no Brexit following the referendum, because in our democracy we can campaign for what we like. It is profoundly undemocratic to suggest that the opposition should be barred from campaigning against something because of government policy. And seeking a fresh mandate to keep the UK in the EU, or to rejoin it, is also democratic because part of democracy is that no Parliament can bind a future Parliament, and no vote can restrict the terms of a future vote. People get this when it comes to parliaments and elections, so why do they have such difficulty with it when it comes to referendums?
Katharine
Yes to our agreed policy of a decision by the electorate on the deal, no to us advocating strongly against Brexit altogether , until we see that deal. We make no friends that way , talk of twenty five per cent backing that is actually about the public wanting a new party politics more than it is a real belief in that policy .
We must look to talking up this country too !
And we must see that our party is far more than this issue too !
Why not? The clue is in the name… democrats.
Leavers are claiming that the decision on June23 was “democratic”. It is true that those who were allowed to vote were in a majority.
1) Since then the government has announced its intention to allow more British citizens to vote in FUTURE elections.
2) When David Cameron signed the Edinburgh Agreement he enfranchised British citizens in Scotland aged 16 years plus for this unprecedented and historic vote. Although a little older some of those people were disenfranchised for the 2015 general election. They were also disenfranchised for the EU referendum, which is inconsistent at best.
3) Citizens of two EU member states were enfranchised for the EU referendum because they are also member states of the Commonwealth. People who have exercised their legal rights and chosen to make their lives in the UK were not allowed to vote, French, Italians, Spanish, Portuguese etc. They told us about their resentment, with passion. These are also NATO partners.
4) David Cameron was explicit that the ballot paper for the EU referendum would be simple. That is on the record. Not for him the lengthy, detailed and precise language that is seen in California. He therefore left the detail undecided in the event of a vote Leave, which must now be dealt with by our elected representatives.
5) David Cameron’s resignation as PM has led to a change of government without a general election. The referendum has caused a change of government policy. The combination is unprecedented.
6) The PM wants to use the “royal prerogative” on this important issue, which is a slap in the face for every MP.
Well said Lorenzo.
There are those in this party positively willing the UK economy to falter and fail. Shame on them. I hope they will be exceedingly disappointed.
A third of Lib Dem voters voted Leave. Many others, myself included, voted Remain based on the false prophets of doom. The punishment budget never happened, the FTSE is riding high, growth is above expectations, no recession. Nissan are staying, the single market in manufactured goods actually doesn’t work to the advantage of a net importer of such goods, there won’t be a second referendum and even if there was, I can only see a bigger margin for Leave emerging. In a second referendum or single issue election Remain can’t use their only effective tactic of fear mongering again, it won’t be believed.
Richmond Park was a very strong Remain electorate so making the by-election about Brexit may work. The latest polls disagree though and have Goldsmith 27 points ahead and nationally we’re on 6% to 9%. Being the only Party still trying to reverse Brexit is really doing us no favours. Can we please move on and focus on the best Brexit deal.
I agree with Steven Rose. The Guardian wrote about moral pressure in an article the other day, recognising its benefits, but where’s the moral pressure on the EU not to punish us after brexit? Hardly existent.
I’m either very wrong or very right, because I feel strongly that remainers are making a mistake by refusing to stand up for Britain besides saying “we should stay in the EU”.
Stevan and Eddie
It is good we can all discuss these things properly , and I believe both of you , member and voter for our party, should stick with it , though you are downcast often about our direction.I am not , for , as I have said , I accept the idea of a referendum on the deal. It is true , we would have to win an election to do that !
We must get on , as Nick Clegg does , with being pro European and Brexit consructive , rather than obstructive. It is a bit like the whole notion of ,like, rather than , love , and , again , in love ,or lust . Tim is in love with the EU, or maybe it is love , but seems as if he is, in love. Nick seems to have a longlasting , practical love , a comfortable marriage , not of convenience, but with no illusions. Many of us on here only like the EU , nothing more. No great emotion , no real love . But we like it knowing we could like it a whole lot more if it would get it’s act together! But it still would not be true love !
David,
If liberals were afraid of opposing parties with big majorities then they would have given up politics years ago. The whole idea of a political party should be to promote what you believe in, because your opponent will not.
In my perspective, soft Brexit is worse than our current membership because it actually reduces Uk sovereignty in a real and significant way. But then, so does hard Brexit. Soft would allow us to retain trading rights even though we lose in sovereignty, so is to be preferred to hard. However we should not stop fighting for the best available deal, which can only be as a full member.
Catherine Crossland,
‘The government said it would implement the people’s decision’. This is only meaningful if the people are fully informed about all the issues and, yes, are given the right to change their minds as many times as they wish. If the facts have changed so that people do change their minds, then the logic of asking them at all has to mean accepting their change of mind. This may be inconvenient for politicians, but ny other course is a sham. The truth is the result was not decisive, and that is why the government is running around trying to reinforce it in the face of wavering. Part of reinforcing it has been to persuade the other parties to accept the result and not oppose it.
J Dunn,
I am not sure how you meant it, but whether the government decided to support remain or decides to support leave, the nation is in danger of becoming ungovernable. Either way half the voters are bing ignored on something they believe to be of fundamental importance. No amount of pushing through brexit makes that better. The roots of this all lie in the UK, not the EU.
Stevan Rose,
” Being the only Party still trying to reverse Brexit is really doing us no favours”. Did you miss Witney? The only party to gain votes and vote share was the libs. The most pro brexit party. And the one doing worst was UKIP. I would go further and say the only reason the public is paying attention to libs again is because of its pro eu position. The conservatives have ducked out of 2 recent by elections for fear of the results.
By the way , to add , there are some , of course, who , rather in the way of an ardent jilted lover , or one who feels unrequited passions , are feeling lust for the paramour , yet ,we must feel for them, they cannot cope for the need of , the beloved EU !
I often think it is a pity that the passionately pro EU views that so many have expressed since the result, were not more in evidence when they were needed and would have made a difference, ie during the referendum campaign.
Of course some people always were passionately pro EU, but the official Stronger In campaign was very halfhearted, focusing mainly on economic issues, and ignoring the
more idealistic case for Remain.
The Lib Dem Remain campaign was rather better than Stronger In, but was still not idealistic enough. Tim Farron did make some inspiring speeches before the referendum, but both he and the party in general seem far more passionately pro EU since the result, than before.
If only the pro EU rallies that happened around the country in the weeks after June 23rd, had instead happened in the weeks *before* it.
We do need to accept that the main reason for the result was the weakness of the remain campaign. We had the opportunity to put the pro EU case, and we failed to use that opportunity.
It now seems to be a case of only appreciating something when it is gone.
It is not really appropriate to think we can just hold our referendum campaign several
months too late. Having sadly not taken the opportunity when we had it, the appropriate response now would be to accept that a democratic decision has been made, and respect that decision.
“Did you miss Witney? ”
Witney was a majority Remain area and UKIP are currently out of contention. Typical by-election result that we would have won in the past. The last national poll puts us on 6%, and the maximum in recent weeks has been 9%. Richmond Park is a former Lib Dem seat 70% Remain voting yet Goldsmith is 27 points ahead. We may be getting attention but 94% are dismissing the message. On current showing we’d be lucky to retain all 8 MPs, particularly in seats with Leave majorities.
> a democratic decision has been made
Referendums are an illusion of democracy. In fact, worse than that, because the winner can claim a mandate when they may well have slanted the thing in their favour in the first place (AV being the prime example, status quo versus poor and confusing alternative).
If you reran June 23 today, you’d get different numbers (maybe more voting Leave, who knows?), because some people would’ve died since, others would’ve turned 18, others would’ve changed their minds (either way), people who didn’t vote might now do so. Etc.
Further, as has been said many times before, unlike any election, a referendum is a one-off, you’re stuck with it forever, even if you never wanted the thing in the first place.
Older folk had to wait 40 years for this vote. Which was only called because the PM of the day thought it would heal rifts in his own party.
Called at the whim of government, the question perhaps framed to suit the ruling party, any referendum is a snapshot of opinion, held up as a set-in-stone-for-eternity, ‘will of the people’.
CassieB, but at one time it was Lib Dem policy that there should be a referendum on whether to stay in the EU
“Referendums are an illusion of democracy.”
No, that’s a straightforward category error. Referendums are surely the most democratic part of our constitutional practice (well, except juries, arguably). Whether they’re a good way of making decisions is another matter, but let’s be honest about what’s wrong with them.
Of course, I’m aware that “(un)democratic” is often used as a sort of general like/dislike word (much like “(il)liberal” is on this site); but I find that highly annoying. It’s a usefully specific word and we shouldn’t go along with emptying it out.
Catherine, my memory fades, but I thought that the official policy was that there would be a referendum only if the EU proposed a substantial change, such as admitting a new member state; not on actually leaving the EU.
Catherine Jane Crosland 30th Oct ’16 – 8:18am….I often think it is a pity that the passionately pro EU views that so many have expressed since the result, were not more in evidence when they were needed and would have made a difference, ie during the referendum campaign………
IMO it was the ‘passionate pro-EU views’ that lost the vote….After 40 years of blaming the EU for just about everything the sight of those same politicians explaining ‘how the world would end’, if we left, was too much for many to believe….
About the only honest assessment came from Corbyn who ‘awarded’ continued membership “7 out of 10” (a good pass mark in any exam) which was derided as ‘pro-leave’ and ‘negative’ by those passionate ‘Remainers’…
Alan Depauw, in 2008 Nick Clegg called for an “in-out” referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU.
Katherine suggests that Leave voters could be persuaded that they were wrong and that the UK could therefore remain in the EU after all.
I was a Leave voter and have done virtually nothing since 23 June except try to persuade myself that I got it wrong. I worked hard on getting my vote right beforehand, so that I wouldn’t regret it, and then because of the immense reaction against the vote, I have felt obliged to search my soul all over again. Being middle-class, professionally qualified, well-educated, pro-immigration, liberal and living in the south, I know plenty of like-minded Leavers, contrary to the media image of us, but am also surrounded by devastated Remainers. I have owed it to them to review my vote.
But in the process I am more convinced I and the 52% were right. Katherine is right that the Leave campaign came out with a lot of nonsense, but no Leaver I know took much notice of the campaign anyway, and made the decision on the grounds that the EU organisation has become so dysfunctional as to have become at least a hindrance, if not actually harmful, to the interests of its member states. Katherine also refers correctly to the main motivator of Leavers being a wish to be governed solely by our own government and courts and then cites the advantages of shared sovereignty. Indeed there have been some, but sharing sovereignty with such a dysfunctional outfit is no longer in the UK’s interests. Further, when looking at the Lib Dems’ founding principles of democracy and grass roots decision-making, it is very difficult to conclude that the EU is a good fit for any liberal. Likewise the courts – the CJEU and ECJ have as their guiding principle the furtherance of the “acquis communautaire”, not justice as we have always known it in the UK.
So I’m afraid I’m pretty resolute but determined at the same time that the whole point of Brexit is to take the country back 100% into our own hands. That means not leaving it up to the Conservative Party to decide how post-Brexit Britain will look. The Lib Dems need to grab Brexit like Mrs Foster of the DUP and run with it for a better UK. There is no party holding the centre ground and bring positive about life outside the EU – the Lib Dema should be that party.
Annabel, Leave voters have been most unfairly stereotyped by some Remain supporters. It is important that people should be reminded that there are plenty of Leave voters like you, who are liberal and pro immigration. Thank you for sharing your perspective with us.
Referenda have classically been the instrument of choice for Dictators, I wont mention the most obvious example for fear of Godwins Law.
Democratic Countries that make regular use of Referenda (eg Switzerland) usually wrap them round with all sorts of safeguards like minimum levels of support or a plurality of Regions or Nations voting in favor. The Leave vote would have failed on both those counts with less than 40% of the Electorate voting for Leave & only 2 out of 4 Nations. Thats a pretty poor basis for a decision that may break up The UK & will probably lead to our worst Economic crisis in 85 Years.
@ Annabel – “I worked hard on getting my vote right beforehand, so that I wouldn’t regret it, and then because of the immense reaction against the vote, I have felt obliged to search my soul all over again. Being middle-class, professionally qualified, well-educated, pro-immigration, liberal and living in the south, I know plenty of like-minded Leavers, contrary to the media image of us, but am also surrounded by devastated Remainers. I have owed it to them to review my vote.”
I could not have put it better myself. 110%.
I agree with the author. One vote does not represent the settled will of the people. The result of the 1975 referendum certainly didn’t and the leavers didn’t stop agitating for Brexit. Nor shall nor should we stop opposing Brexit. In so doing Lib Dems will attract support.
Stevan Rose: In Witney we had been 4th in the previous general election. It took the first two weeks of the campaign to get ourselves established as the main challenger to the Tories. Also David Cameron’s resignation as MP was completely unexpected, so the constituency was not on a by-election footing, unlike Richmond Park where a by-election has been anticipated for years.
That by-election opinion poll putting Goldsmith 27 points (in a fawning article on him in the Evening Standard) ahead was done before the campaign had begun. A lot can change in the intervening 4 weeks. We have gone on to win by-elections starting from further behind. What the poll does show is that we are clearly the main challenger to the Condependent candidate. The swing to us required to defeat Goldsmith is the same as the one that happened in Witney.
And national opinion polls are of little relevance at this stage in the electoral cycle. What matters much more is actual votes in actual elections.
@ Paul Barker
“I think we should consider adding “Stop Brexit” to the masthead on all our literature, perhaps even on Ballot Papers.”
During the coalition I still stood as a paper candidate knowing that what the leadership was doing was not what we really wanted, but I would not be able to stand if I had to identify as a Stop Brexit candidate, we are more than a single issue party. I know we have supported membership of the EU, but if we ever had a clear policy of reform I have never been aware of it, and I don’t recall us setting out a programme for reform either in 2014 or 2016. If we wanted to convince people to stay in the EU we would need to convince them that free movement of people would end (at least until the levels of inequality across the EU were closer to those across the UK); we would need to reform the EU so decisions once made could be reversed; and that the European Central Bank would have as its first priority reducing inequalities and as its second full employment in all EU countries no matter how high inflation rises in Germany.
Annabel
Not quite sure whether I have the right “end of the stick”, but it seems to me that Acquis Communautaire, informs law of precedent (as we might have in English Common Law). Why is it any less related to justice than any other set of laws?
Do you have any other reason for regarding the EU as dysfunctional?
Tim, the best I can do on CJEU and the ECJ is point you in the direction of an article by Marina Wheeler QC (Boris’ wife) in the Solicitors’ Journal on 26 April, where she explains what’s wrong with the ECJ and why the UK needs to leave.
Other dysfunctional areas are the Euro and the way Greece, Spain, Ireland and Italy have been treated in order to keep the Euro going. All countries which were at least partly the authors of their own problems, but they have all been put into a far worse state than they would have been in, had they been outside the euro, or even the EU, and in charge of their own destiny more. And I would refer you to “Public Law”, by Profs Mark Elliot and Robert Thomas (OUP) in which, at chapter 8, they discuss the structure of the EU (Commission/Parliament/Council) in terms of separation of powers. They of course don’t say the EU is dysfunctional but it is helpful to understand how it works in forming your own views.
My view is that I would probably have voted in in 1975 ( I was only 9 then) – ok to concede some sovereignty and glaze over the poor EEC structure, as there were only 9 countries and a proper veto system, in return for increased trade and co-operation. But then, with nobody asking us properly in the UK, we got signed up to ever closer union in 1992 (Maastricht) and to more in 2004 (Lisbon). These were game-changer treaties and we weren’t given a say. Maybe if we’d had a vote in 2004, I might have voted to stay in. But now the EU is headed in the wrong direction.
I am very pro-Europe and indeed, in the immediate post-referendum period we had our lovely German exchange friend to stay, age 16, on her 2nd visit to us. We are not inward- looking. France, Germany, they are all our closest friends. It’s the EU structure that is at fault. If the relevant European leaders could only see this and reform the sclerotic, labyrinthine and undemocratic structure that has developed, I for one would happy to stay in. But they have made clear that won’t be happening and their tin ear is going to propel them to disaster. We must unfortunately let them continue on their way, and we will do things our way, but continue as good neighbours and friends.
Tim, the best I can do on CJEU and the ECJ is point you in the direction of an article by Marina Wheeler QC (Boris’ wife) in the Solicitors’ Journal on 26 April, where she explains what’s wrong with the ECJ and why the UK needs to leave.
Other dysfunctional areas are the Euro and the way Greece, Spain, Ireland and Italy have been treated in order to keep the Euro going. All countries which were at least partly the authors of their own problems, but they have all been put into a far worse state than they would have been in, had they been outside the euro, or even the EU, and in charge of their own destiny more. And I would refer you to “Public Law”, by Profs Mark Elliot and Robert Thomas (OUP) in which, at chapter 8, they discuss the structure of the EU (Commission/Parliament/Council) in terms of separation of powers. They of course don’t say the EU is dysfunctional but it is helpful to understand how it works in forming your own views.
My view is that I would probably have voted in in 1975 ( I was only 9 then) – ok to concede some sovereignty and glaze over the poor EEC structure, as there were only 9 countries and a proper veto system, in return for increased trade and co-operation. But then, with nobody asking us properly in the UK, we got signed up to ever closer union in 1992 (Maastricht) and to more in 2004 (Lisbon). These were game-changer treaties and we weren’t given a say. Maybe if we’d had a vote in 2004, I might have voted to stay in. But now the EU is headed in the wrong direction.
I am very pro-Europe and indeed, in the immediate post-referendum period we had our lovely German exchange friend to stay, age 16, on her 2nd visit to us. We are not inward- looking. France, Germany, they are all our closest friends. It’s the EU structure that is at fault. If the relevant European leaders could only see this and reform the scledrotic, labyrinthine and undemocratic structure that has developed, I for one would happy to stay in. But they have made clear that won’t be happening and their tin ear is going to propel them to disaster. We must unfortunately let them continue on their way, and we will do things our way, but continue as good neighbours and friends.
Katharine I 100℅ agree. We must not give up on this one. The question is how we get the BBC etc to recognise that staying in must be a possibility.
Catherine: ‘but at one time it was Lib Dem policy that there should be a referendum on whether to stay in the EU’
I thought it was a daft idea then.
Malcolm: ‘I’m aware that “(un)democratic” is often used as a sort of general like/dislike word’
Indeed. Usually by people saying Brexit was ‘the will of the people’ and that to disagree with it is ‘undemocratic’.
By ‘an illusion of democracy,’ I meant they can create an exaggerated and possibly false cloak of justification to proclaim whatever the outcome is as being pure and unquestionable.
Even when they give voters the choice of devil, deep blue sea, or not voting and leaving it to others to make the decision.
Hi, everyone. I have of course been happy to see a fair amount of support for my proposition. It seems to me that campaigning for a soft Brexit, aiming as Nick Clegg seems now to do for continued access to the single market and maybe some restrictions on immigration (?), even if allowable by the EU would neither be flesh, fowl nor good red herring. And our current stance of calling for a referendum on the terms agreed has actually been shown up by Catherine, even though she is generally in opposition to the proposition, as probably impractical at the end of the allowed two years.
No, I think the only logical way forward is to denounce Brexit altogether. You may be right, Annabel, that many will continue to want to leave the ‘sclerotic’ structure, but actually I think only the highly educated will see it like that, and my answer is that of J. Dunn above – we should work with our European partners to try to reform the system.
Above all it seems to me that the developing economic downturn, the threat to the country’s economic well-being, the dismay of businesses and the financial sector, and the effect slipping living standards will have on ordinary people, will soon enough change many minds and put pressure on Mrs May. Whether she felt obliged to call an early General Election, Frank Booth, rather than another Referendum doesn’t much matter – the object must be to stop the implementation of Brexit. J. Dunn, I quite agree we need to have policies to help the ‘left-behind’, but happily we do – for instance the excellent Social Security policy passed at Brighton, and we must keep developing more. Richard Underhill, let us by all means also call for the widening of the franchise.
Frank Bowles, I agree we should consider the Scotland position more – we don’t want again to have the threat of another referendum there, with the possible break-up of the UK following. Anyway, thank you all. I believe we must campaign hard this winter, at Richmond and everywhere, to convince the country that Brexit must not happen.
PS. I should add that I know Nick Clegg is producing a brilliant series of papers on every aspect of our relationship with the EU, and we are very lucky to have his unrivalled expertise and absolute commitment to the EU, in his work as our spokesman on this. But I think our Party policy, which I voted for along with everyone else at the Brighton Conference, has to adapt to changing circumstances. As increasingly we ourselves see how disastrous Brexit would be for the country, it is not unreasonable or undemocratic to say that if this perception comes to be widely shared among our fellow citizens, we should question whether the majority for Brexit still exists, and seek for it to be tested again. This is too vital a question to be left unanswered, if our country stares into the abyss.
Catherine Crossland,
“I often think it is a pity that the passionately pro EU views that so many have expressed since the result, were not more in evidence when they were needed”
Every politician seems to have believed remain will win, and perhaps this is why rremain did not campaign harder. There are some uncomfortable truths politicians on both sides were unwilling to discuss because it reflected badly upon them or their party. For example, most leave politicians believe in the levels of immigration we have now and really see no problem with it. Free movement is a simple policy which has been shown over 40 years to work. But no one wanted to admit this. The real problem has been a policy of expanding UK commerce, thus requiring additional labour, but never willing to make the corresponding infrastructure investment. Moreover, never explaining to the areas which never saw an immigrant that they too were benfitting from the policy.
I have seen calls elsewhere for the found of a return party, on similar lines to UKIP but in reverse. The libs need to take up this political campiagn immediately or they may miss the boat on this too.
Stevan Rose,
“Witney was a majority Remain area and UKIP are currently out of contention. Typical by-election result that we would have won in the past.”
In the past yes, in 2016 no. If the vote had been to remain, the libs would have done dismally in this by election just as they have done dismally everywhere since the start of the coalition. This is a traditional liberal issue which attracted back traditional liberal voters.
“… particularly in seats with Leave majorities.”
But starting on 7% or so in the polls, 40% for supporting remain looks very attractive indeed.
expats,
“About the only honest assessment came from Corbyn who ‘awarded’ continued membership “7 out of 10” (a good pass mark in any exam) which was derided”
He got it right. It has faults. It is however the only show in town. I have argued several times that people decided first on what they thought about the economy, and then if they thought that would be OK after Brexit, looked at some of the faults and rejected the EU. A logical position. There are reasons other than the economy why we benefit from the EU, (for example it increases Uk sovereignty hugely), but the obvious one everyone understands is the economy. But no one managed to explain to voters how a cheap Polish worker competing with them for a job helped them personally. There are some ugly truths about the UK needing to boost its own competitiveness politicians do not want to tell.
Annabel,
“There is no party holding the centre ground”
Because it cannot be held and is eternally fought for. The libs well nigh destroyed themselves seeking the centre ground but losing their natural support. The centre ground cannot be the base of any party. To return to the quest for the holy grail of centrism is a suicide wish.
I thought your defence of leave well argued, but I do not see that a case has ben made that the EU is terminally disfunctional. All I really see is world economic dislocation caused by the US bank’s fraud, heaped upon an international finance system dependent upon debt. That is a completely different can of worms. No US bank fraud and people would not have voted leave now. This disaster has caused the Brexit vote, but has also meant it occurs at a time least favourable to anyone seeking a total revolution of the national economy.
I suspect a growing number of Brexiteers have started to twig going forward bad things will happen, they are holding onto the hope that in the long term it will be a positive for Britain (they may be right, I rather doubt it though). There strategy seems to be to try to convince us that we are all in it together and should pull together and not point fingers when it goes wrong. Please note not a chance, I’ve spent God knows how long having all the faults in the world being laid at the EU by Brexiteers and the press that supported them; as Nick Clegg pointed out to Hannan your in charge now, you’ve got what you wanted so prepare to suck up the consequences.
@David Pearce
“No US bank fraud and people would not have voted leave now.”
I wish people would not use their own prejudices to make assumptions about why people voted the way they did.
I assure you bank fraud, US or not, played no part in my decision to vote Leave.
Annabel says (comment on 30/10 @ 10:54 am):
[Leavers] made the decision on the grounds that the EU organisation has become so dysfunctional as to have become at least a hindrance, if not actually harmful, to the interests of its member states. …….. Further, when looking at the Lib Dems’ founding principles of democracy and grass roots decision-making, it is very difficult to conclude that the EU is a good fit for any liberal.
Absolutely. The EU has been on a path to failure for many years but particularly since the Maastricht Treaty and for those in the Eurozone – circa 50% unemployment in several countries, life expectancy declining in Greece, distain for democratic decisions when they don’t suit TPTB in Brussels and ever-increasing centralisation of top-down power. All this is going to get worse as the design flaws fester over the next few years. I’m astonished that some above don’t see that; I dread to think how bad things would have to get before they would deem it a failure.
But surely such problems only mean we should have worked to reform the EU rather than, as the Lib Dems have always done, merely acting as cheerleaders for it. If we were truly an internationalist party we would make alliances with others in Europe to force change on a self-serving bureaucracy and limit the powers of the centre to no more than they need to be.
That may seem a tall order but Lib Dems failed to take an opportunity to force change when Clegg & friends did all sorts of intellectual handstands to pretend the Lisbon Treaty wasn’t, as it clearly was, merely a reheated version of the constitution that had just been voted down. Absent Lib Dem support it is unlike the UK would have supported the Lisbon Treaty and we could have proposed a wholly different and, ahem, liberal approach to running the EU.
The main problem with Remain is that it was based on the idea that cultures are interchangeable and everything boils down to economics. So there was no understanding of the deep seated pull of nationhood. There still isn’t.
Glenn
The Germans are our cousins.
@Manfarang
The Germans are our cousins.
Yes, because you choose your friends.
Boom, boom.
@Gordon
“But surely such problems only mean we should have worked to reform the EU rather than, as the Lib Dems have always done, merely acting as cheerleaders for it. If we were truly an internationalist party we would make alliances with others in Europe to force change on a self-serving bureaucracy and limit the powers of the centre to no more than they need to be.”
Within UK politics we may have come over as uncritically pro-EU, but in the European Parliament we did indeed make alliances with others across Europe to work to improve the system.
@Catherine Jane Crosland
“I often think it is a pity that the passionately pro EU views that so many have expressed since the result, were not more in evidence when they were needed ”
I did my best, if only within the confines of LDV –
https://www.libdemvoice.org/a-postal-vote-for-the-eu-50805.html
I continue to be dismayed at how arguments over Brexit focus so much on its economic effects – though undoubtedly both the EU and UK need to find a new economic paradigm. But as someone put it, the economy is a wholly owned subsidiary of society, which in turn is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Environment.
Glenn,
The “deep-seated pull of Nationhood” has been one of the most dangerous forces in the world over many centuries. Most people under 30 instinctively realise it is an outmoded concept, which is why the young voted so strongly for Remain. If the referendum had been held 5 years later the demographic tide would have guaranteed a Remain vote. I see Brexit as a last stand by the Nationalist tendency in the UK, and a supreme act of arrogance by the older generation, who of course are quite sure they know best.
Well, in 100 years either Brexit will be seen as just a blip in the inevitable tide of International co-operation and pooled sovereignty, or some bunch of nationalists somewhere will have succeeded in plunging us into a new dark age…
Andrew.
There is nothing inherently bad about the nation state. In truth imperialism, fascism, politicised religion, and communism all refuse to recognise the sanctity of borders. Also I am not convinced that young people are fonts of wisdom and that instinctive equals good or that it even is instinctive. Also they get old
I don’t believe in referenda, much preferring representative democracy. However, the referendum did I believe give us a true snapshot that all in our society and democracy s not well.
I believe that ‘ignored. rather than ‘left behinds’ is a more apt description for many who voted ‘Leave’ Until our political representatives start to listen to their opinions and grievances, any attempt to overturn the way they voted in the referendum will be met with further anger.
The issue of control is an important one. Those who feel that they have not shared in the economic benefits of belonging to the EU had little positive to balance against a desire for the idea of control, or in their case, lack of control over their lives. A focus group ( yes one of those) to look at why Labour is losing votes to UKIPin the North, found that issues of identity, community and entitlement were more important . Until politicians start to listen to people who feel this way, rather than assuming the reasons why they voted in the way they did, one cannot start to formulate the arguments, let alone develop progressive policies that will address these fears.
I wouldn’t use Witney and any increase in vote in Richmond Park ( the area with one of the highest number of graduates per head in the country) as a reliable indicator that large swathes of people regret voting Leave.
Much of the discussion by remainers , ( and I remain one), about the EU seems to be a continuation of previous behaviour where people feel that they are once more being talked at, or over, rather than listened to, in a nutshell that they are being blithely ignored. This it seems is hardening attitudes not softening them to the idea that being a member of the EU can work for them.
Katherine’s view (30 Oct) was that LD should fight to stay in the EU and not settle for a soft Brexit. I feel I’ve done my best to explain my view that the EU is not, sadly, capable of reform. You have all read/commented most courteously, for which I am very grateful – between us we have managed to bridge, just a little bit, the enormous gulf in understanding between Beleavers and Remainers and that must be a good thing. We must agree to disagree -how lucky we are that our system is designed to allow for such plurality. (Unlike the EU, where if they don’t all agree, there is foot-stamping. Sometimes I think the EU believes there is only agreement or war, with nothing in between).
I am not thrilled at the prospect of the EU being incapable of reform. I wish Mr Cameron had indeed clubbed together with some of the other countries, like the Netherlands and Sweden, to push for reform, rather than simply focussing on what the UK wants, and maybe they would have got somewhere. But the bottom line is that the leaders of Germany and France, for the most honourable of reasons (inability to let go the ghosts of war), will never wish to tear up the current unworkable (for us) treaties to draft new and better ones. So we have to leave them to chug on and figure it out for themselves, while remaining staunch allies next door.
I’ll bow out now but want to say thanks.
@ Denis Mollison
“Within UK politics we may have come over as uncritically pro-EU, but in the European Parliament we did indeed make alliances with others across Europe to work to improve the system.”
We certainly did come across as uncritically pro-EU within UK politics. That despite longstanding and abundant evidence that there were severe problems in the EU (inevitably so given it is such an ambitious and newish construct) with democratic deficit, with the euro, with the thoroughly illiberal drive to centralise power and much more. As such, the steady fall in Lib Dem support in successive European elections was both inevitable and deserved. Contrast that with UKIP’s approach; their proposals were always snake oil but at least they talked publically about some of the issues and that was all they had to do to surf to success.
Such alliance-building efforts as the Lib Dems did make were very minor, no more than debating the best positioning for the deck chairs on this particular Titanic and certainly not asking substantive questions about the direction of the enterprise or how it might be steered away from danger.
Except Gordon, you simply, for the most part, repeat Europhobe nonsense. In fact anyone who understands how the EU works and wants it to develop is always portrayed as “uncritically pro”, come what may. Unless there is some drawing back from Brexit, the UK will learn the cost of the caricature of the EU.
You are possibly another one who unthinkingly describes Juncker as unelected, when there was very obviously a vote to elect him in the European Parliament soon after MEPs had been elected where (apart from most in the UK) they had clearly set out which candidate they were supporting. In voting for Graham Watson, I was very aware that I was also voting for Guy Verhofstadt. Verhofstadt, Juncker, Shultz and others had, during the elections, been engaged in a series of televised debates around the EU. These debates were almost completely ignored in the UK: if there is a democratic deficit it is in the UK and the EU is only incidental to this glaring democratic deficit; it is a deficit that is ingrained in UK politics.
At least the Liberal Democrats are a party that recognise the problems and want change.
Our mistake in European elections was to go along with the UKIP narrative that they were referendums on UK membership of the EU, instead of talking about our policies AS LIBERALS for the EU.
Except Martin that I am a Europhile or, more accurately, a Euroreformer. The EU is a hugely important innovation in governance but with crucial design flaws that threaten it with ultimate collapse as evidenced by the rise of a motley collection of pretty unlovely Eurosceptic parties across the EU. Central to the design flaws is the built-in drive to centralisation signified by “ever-greater union”.
At issue here are not the EU’s organisational details but its direction of travel and, unfortunately, that’s never been a Lib Dem strong point. I remain mystified as to how liberals claim they stand for maximal decentralisation in other contexts while supporting the opposite when it comes to the EU.
Yes, I agree we should avoid caricatures but in recent Euro-elections Lib Dem candidates (in my area at least) avoided discussing the EU as far as possible giving UKIP a free run by default so it’s not only the media to blame. I fear the cost of Brexit will be horrific and that is why I voted Remain despite my unhappiness about the direction of travel.
Incidentally, to suggest I might consider Juncker to be unelected when he plainly was is strawmanning and doesn’t advance the debate.
Gordon:
I think you have to be more specific with what you take to be “design flaws”. In many ways the EU is very devolved. There is no central Party Government, though the parliament does have more powers than it did, hence the vote for Juncker as the choice of a majority of MEPs. Regulations and directives have to be assimilated by each of the governments, but they are only passed under conditions of widespread acceptance.
I am sure that it is possible to find regulations that need not be applied in the same way across the EU, but you have to accept that in very many cases lack of cohesion and lack of common standards would create inequalities, injustices and a plethora of bureaucracy that really would mean that the union was not working.
p.s. If Juncker was so ‘unelectable’ how did he achieve support from so many elected MEPs, many of whom were standing on a ticket that avowedly supported his candidature? I suspect he is more respected around Europe than you think. From around the EU, I heard more criticism of Borroso than I do of Juncker.
Gordon
In your criticism of Lib Dems you seem not to understand that Lib Dems (and I think the Liberal Party before) stands for devolution to lowest level for various issues. However, the Party has a strong understanding that democracy functions well when it is multi-level or multipolar. The problem with (especially) Ukippy thinking is they find it impossible to visualise different levels. Having seen their operation at Council level, you realise why they can’t visualise a supranational democracy.
You seem to share this in your description of confederation moving towards federalism as “centralisation”. This is just what it isn’t.
I agree with you that Lib Dems have shared in the genuflection to the Europhobe press in failing properly to campaign on issues where our MEPs had real impact. When some design of campaigning material was decentralised (2004), I was the local PPC, and we certainly campaigned on themes, although I am not sure how far we got in gaining extra votes!
Our mistake in European elections was to go along with the UKIP narrative that they were referendums on UK membership of the EU, instead of talking about our policies AS LIBERALS for the EU. Alex Macfie
I agree and it would seem that history is repeating itself now over Brexit. Where people are getting hung up about Article 50 rather than the destination…
From what I can determine people want to be ‘free’ of Brussels, yet want to benefit from the single market. This is very similar to a two-tier Europe, which was much discussed a few years back.
In which case the discussion isn’t so much about Brexit and Article 50 et al, but more about how do we achieve a workable two-tier Europe, in say 10 years?
[Aside: I choose this number because by the end of March next year we will have spent a year discussing Brexit, potentially followed by a further 2 years of Article 50 negotiations, which in turn could be followed by 7 years of trade negotiations…]
I suspect that in this time frame, more would be achieved in moving towards our objective by remaining in the EU and working from within than by invoking Article 50 and going through the pain of leaving and then negotiating new access agreements.
Yes, I expect the idiots to jump-up-and-down saying “Brexit means Brexit” then losing the power of speech when asked “what does that mean exactly?” The real key to ‘Brexit’ isn’t so much the actual leaving, but for Westminster to be seen to proactively do something in Europe and push UK interests, in this instance the creation of a two-tier Europe with the UK seamlessly positioned as the leader of it’s preferred tier…
I think the discussion of attitudes to the EU by several contributors above is very interesting and helpful. It led me to feel that Britain has always shown too little interest in EU governance, hence the election of many completely useless UKIP MEPs, while we Lib Dems have mainly taken the advantages of EU membership for granted. We surely need now to work out and promote the sort of EU we want in future, rejecting ever-closer union, but with more democratic involvement. Meantime the appalling costs of Brexit if allowed to happen grow ever more evident – see eg the argument about the uselessness of pursuing worldwide trade deals when we already have the best possible ones, put forward by John Littler et al on the earlier Brexit thread. Foreign countries want deals with the entire EU, British-based foreign companies not only want free access to the EU but also to be free to bring in workers from other EU countries, and so it goes on.
Jayne, you are right to raise the question of how people’s wish for more control over their lives can be satisfied by staying in, and it isn’t easy because this is a question of perceptions. But we know that it isn’t the EU that has caused their economic grievance but our own government, and that the EU has done good for everyone in promoting workers’ rights, in environmental controls, and in help for the poorest regions, to name just some of the advantages. The best way to give ordinary people more control would be to bring in PR here, so that their votes count wherever they live – greater democracy in Britain! But meantime our government is hurtling towards hopeless independence in this inter-dependent world, towards a poorer isolated beggary Britain. Surely we can change perceptions by pointing out that genuinely fearful prospect?
Martin,
Yes, of course common standards are needed even if the tabloids like to brew up the occasional storm in a teacup. My sense is that the worst of the heavy lifting in that regard has already been done; that’s not what I’m talking about.
The key to making such a large and diverse polity work is to manage boundaries effectively; nothing else will keep popular support. By and large the EU’s geographic boundaries are mercifully no longer disputed. However, where functional boundaries should best be drawn is a judgement call and moreover one that may need to be revisited if circumstances or appetites change e.g., in the UK public’s view, the scale of immigration from eastern Europe. This approach opens the door to a positive language about pooling sovereignty but only where justified and pulling back powers from the centre when it becomes clear that pooling has gone too far. What we actually have is a one way ratchet, the “ever-closer union”.
Dispensing with the ratchet would be a big change in approach but since “ever closer union” has always been UKIP’s most effective recruiting sergeant it would very effectively shoot their fox (not to mention Le Pen’s et al). I think it would even enable faster convergence because of the greater public support.
With more tightly defined powers for Brussels, we would have a good chance of moving to a more politician-led rather than technocrat-led EU with all sorts of benefits, not least a less dogmatic approach to implementing the single market. Had that been in place the Brexit vote would never have happened.
Tim13,
I don’t know where you get the idea that I don’t get devolution – see above plus my first comment on this thread. The thrust of my argument is that Lib Dems have supported the ‘establishment’ over ‘devolution’ and grass-roots in the public’s understanding. That was also Annabel’s point (the one I first responded to).
As for “federalism” it’s now understood to mean “centralisation” by most people. I know that’s wrong but that’s how they hear it. When I asked a friend if he would support a more ‘federal’ Europe I was answered with an explosion of anger at the creeping centralisation of powers that was happening.
So, the public demand is for more control, more devolution which is philosophically the Lib Dem position – but the Lib Dems have managed to get on the wrong side of the argument in the public understanding. Bizarre.
Gordon
You don’t seem to be answering my argument at all, ie that the Lib Dem “philosophical position” as you call it, is NOT just about devolution, it is about the need to have different levels and locuses of decision-making, and therefore bodies at various levels with elected representatives of people. That is what I said you did not seem to understand, and your reply seems to confirm my view! The original and powerful reason for a political Europe was to bind nations into a common structure, so that there would not be future motivation for war. In many years of operation we have discovered there are a considerable number of internationally-driven issues which can benefit from international solutions. These can be debated with a firm supranational democratic base, or we can just send ministers overseas with a carte blanche to do whatever they feel like. It is no good devolving those issues to a District Council, for instance. Surely a democratic / political Europe should give us MORE control, not less?
As you have developed your argument you seem to have decided that “the public’s perception is x”, therefore we must accept that. I have always argued that if we hold to that view, then we will resort to backing up a Daily Mail / Express view, because the europhobic press is where many get their arguments from. Surely we need to develop narratives to challenge this?
Gordon:
Borders within the EU are undisputed because they really do not matter. Go to the continent, go to Schengen for example and see for yourself where you can camp in Germany, shop in France and have coffee in Luxembourg. Really the days of land borders are over. Technology is making a mockery of borders, functionally the world is shrinking. This is something to manage rather than to fight against. “Dispensing with the ratchet” as you put it of ‘ever closer union’ looks so much like an attempt to turn back the clock and resist the laws of thermodynamics. I doubt you could even make sense of what you appear to suggest; what could it mean in practice? How whatever you suggest might have any effect on Le Pen, Wilders, Farage etc is beyond me
At the same time there is a risk of stagnation that has enabled the UK to successfully press for the Eastern states to be admitted. The opportunity is that these states present big opportunities for investment and growth that can benefit all. Germany has certainly understood this and the UK would be foolish to let go opportunities. Instead the UK is reacting against the very policies that it had advocated. No wonder there is much distrust of the UK.
Also, Gordon, we are already moving towards a more politician led EU – the introduction of co-decision-making by the EP for an increasing range of topics is ensuring that. Actualy, prior to his calling of the referendum, one of Cameron’s most damaging acts was to withdraw from the EPP in the EP, thus isolating the Tories, and making Britain as a whole look more one on its own to the British people.
Tim13,
I’m not disagreeing with you one little bit. I regard it as totally obvious that there need to be elected bodies at different levels with responsibility for those things appropriate to that level. What may be confusing you is my approach to discussing it, namely that the best way to define the responsibilities of each level is in terms of functional boundaries – who is responsible for street lighting, who for trade treaties and so on – hence my earlier comment.
The last few years have shown that the ‘who does what’ questions are not entirely settled even in the UK – hence the establishment of Scottish and Welsh assemblies, the devolution of some powers to them and the possibility of yet further devolution. As the world changes around us we must constantly find constitutional clothes that fit better than the old ones. That’s especially true of the EU where we are feeling our way into new territory, never before explored in history. Hence my opposition to the ‘ratchet’ which I see as an unhelpful rigidity in this exploration.
Also, you are wrong to conclude that I have decided that we must limply accept the public’s perception on any matter. We should be aware of it as any politician should but whether that should lead to a change of policy or a better narrative or some mix of the two is case-specific. The party’s policy-wonks have been known to be wrong on occasion!
Martin,
When I said that geographic borders are mercifully no longer disputed I was thinking of instances such as Alsace and Germany/Poland so I imagine we are agreed there.
For the rest, what I called “functional boundaries”, I agree the world is changing and economic and political structures must change to reflect that. But that can be difficult to get right, the prime example being the Euro. Politically, the attraction is clear but economically it’s a nonsense the way it’s been done. Europe has paid a heavy price for that mistake with worse to come; economic reality will eventually re-impose currency borders where the Euro has abolished them for now. Sometimes ‘closer’ isn’t better.
@Tim13
“we are already moving towards a more politician led EU – the introduction of co-decision-making by the EP for an increasing range of topics is ensuring that.”
I think this is where you are out of step with the majority of the country. Many of the people I know who voted to remain, did so only for perceived economic benefits. Those remainers had real grievances about the political encroachment of the EU over national affairs. Those combined with the leaver’s….. I would guess at about 2/3rds of the country would oppose more sovereignty transfer to a transnational body like the EU. Because it is seen as unrepresentative, unaccountable and corrupt.
I read your previous posts about various levels of governance, I think it is accepted that different area work best at parish, local, regional, national levels work. I do not detect and desire to have trans national decision making bodies covering the EU though. In fact I find resistance to the idea. People I think prefer cooperation via inter-governmental bodies rather than an over arching transnational decision making body. In truth this is probably where the EU has gone wrong.
Even at the highest level of transnational decision making.. i.e. the United Nations, I would say does not work at all well. I’d much rather have the UN than not, its done some good things on health and social side. As a political decision making body though it is highly dysfunctional. As is the EU.
Maybe these large trans-national setups just don’t work? to far removed from those they profess to represent? lack of accountability? lack of transparency? with this last bit, I’m just putting ideas out there to be honest
Dennis Mollison, thank you for the link to your article published in Lib Dem voice before the referendum, which puts the idealistic, visionary case for the EU. What a pity the official Remain campaign did not take this approach
@ethicsgradient
You are right that democratic international cooperation is difficult, but is that a reason to give up on it, whether at EU or UN level. Surely the alternative of leaving it all to inter-governmental diplomacy (/argument/war) is even worse as respects accountability and transparency – and does not have a great track record over the millenia.
As a matter of interest, what were the kind of “grievances about the political encroachment of the EU over national affairs” that your remainer friends had? The kind of non-economic “encroachment” that I am most aware of is in the fields of environment and human rights, where I have welcomed it in almost all cases.
Ethicsgradient and Denis Mollison
Yes, we cannot give up on supranational democracy. As you will imagine Eg, I have had this discussion many times with many people. I think working in several different environments overseas has at least honed the view I have held for many years, that we all have similar problems, obviously expressed through our different living, income and working and family environments, but it is all there. Maybe, in Europe, which I tend to think of as a prototype in this sort of thing, our income and development levels are more similar, which could tend to make the whole process of what you might call “ever closer union” easier. Maybe the integration of eastern European states has made this somewhat more difficult? Which, of course, was probably why the Tories at the time were pushing hell for leather to get them in – playing the long game?
However, I remain of the opinion that there are three main factors which have pushed us to where we are now:
1 We have no land borders with what we call continental Europe, allied with no physical invasion during WW2, leading people to think that we are in some senses “separate” – I have lived on other islands in the course of my life, and there is insularity of mindset, although expressed in various ways. This SHOULD be offset by the realisation that our whole history has been in a mainly European context, and there should have been little reason why our views on it after WW2 should be any different to the other big countries in Western Europe.
2 The tenor of our press media, increasingly reflected in the broadcasters, even the BBC, which has given us a distorted view of what the EU and its predecessors were, are and work over many years.
3 The insular attitudes within our Civil Service in particular, which has passively opposed joining in with a political Europe, going back to the days when de Gaulle famously said “Non, non, non” to Britain!
A fourth issue would be the importance, increasing even more over the years, of the English language, bolstering Britons’ view they can “go it alone”, a sentiment we heard a fair amount during the 2016 campaign.
Tim13:
… and aligned the Tories instead with a group of extreme right-wingers, including the Danish People’s Party and the Law & Justice Party of Poland, and SGP, the Dutch Christian fundamentalist party that wants to deny women the vote. Turkey’s ruling Islamist AKP also belongs to the same group. Yet in our European election campaign we never even attempted to make political capital out of the company the Tories keep in the European Parliament. And this does matter, as it meant that Tory MEPs were whipped (for example) to oppose climate change targets and to oppose recognising marital rape as a crime. Before anyone says “no-one cares” the reason for this is that UK voters have been conditioned to think that MEPs don’t matter, and we should have been challenging this narrative, rather than meekly going along with it as we did.
The Lib Dems’ failure in European elections is that we did not campaign on our record as liberals in the European Parliament, or on the political differences between our MEPs and MEPs of other parties. If we had done so, we would have been able to communicate the idea that it is possible for voters to have a democratic influence over EU law and policy, thus refuting the common Eurosceptic claim that the EU is “undemocratic” (something Clegg did not challenge in those mistaken debates with Farage). Our last Euro election campaign didn’t even mention the Lib Dem or ALDE Euro manifestos. Our best chance during the Coalition to promote the undiluted Lib Dem view and show the Tories in their true colours was totally squandered. And we validated the UKIP idea of the election being a referendum on the UK’s place in the EU, thus contributing to UKIP success.
Alex
I have been campaigning for years with the Powers that Be to run European campaigns on liberal issues – we have had very little of this. We have to realise that unless we take on Express/Mail/Sun/Telegraph thinking in our campaigns, we will ultimately get nowhere!
By the way, Alex, I wholeheartedly endorse all your comments in your recent post.
@ Katherine Pindar,
When perceptions have been shaped by politicians who have attributed their failures to EU membership, only for them to change their tune and tell the electorate that if we leave the EU we will all go to Hell in a handcart, I think it unlikely given how deeply ingrained these perceptions now are, there will be any substantial change in perception.
The chickens have come home to roost.
This discussion has been sobering but constructive, it seems to me. It becomes clear to me how the country has shown little interest in the democratic side of the EU governance, what our MEPS do and how for example they have to confirm appointments. We Lib Dems have not been able to, or not tried hard enough to, tell the public about their achievements – I happen to know some of the achievements of Chris Davies when he was a NW MEP, but we did not shout about such achievements, or point out the lamentable performance of UKIP MEPs, or as Alex Macfie says campaign on our record as Liberals there and show how the Conservative MEPs were failing. Moreover, on a deeper level, as Tim 13 suggests, we should combat insularity with affirmation of our shared history and culture, our Graeco-Roman heritage for a start perhaps: we are Europeans.
Let us not give up either on account of a hostile media, or because of the faults and difficulties the EU has. The discussion of different levels and locuses of decision-making (Tim 13 again), the possibility of a more democratic and political EU (Gordon and Martin) – these should be developed into policies our Party can advance if and when we remain in the EU. The uninterest our country has shown in the EU is, at least, now at an end!
Jayne (please note how my name is spelt), we can’t and mustn’t give up: Lib Dems are fighters, and this is a battle that the country needs us to win.
@ EG – “Maybe these large trans-national setups just don’t work? to far removed from those they profess to represent? lack of accountability? lack of transparency? with this last bit, I’m just putting ideas out there to be honest”
Absolutely correct.
I’d make the point that just because governance is conducted in a democratic manner, does not mean that is to be deemed representative or accountable. That decision is made by the ‘demos’, and this essentially was what the referendum is about; do the british people consider themselves to be an integral part of a european demos.
I have no problem with europe dealing with issues that are explicitly transnational, such as trade and environment policy. However, the EU as it is today, on a trajectory to economic and political union, has moved far beyond mere transnational issues. Common consolidated tax bases, in the dry jargon of the EU, means that EU is making social decisions on behalf of the member states. Indeed, the very principle of whether regulation should be formulated on the precautionary principle vs demonstrable harm.
Should the state tax (and spend) 50% of national economic output, or just 35% accepting the consequences for the good it could no longer do? Should business flexibility trump job security, or financial services need to demonstrate social benefit? Does the EU have the right to reinvent the social fabric of its member nations in this way?
It may well be that some nations can accept that; creating an EU as a multi-nation-state much as Britain is already. Equally, an EU that recognised this divergent opinion might have made more effort to differentiate between the eurozone and peripheral states, allowing those that do not accept this to remain within. This is not what happened, and thus we had the referendum result that arrived.
While i find the original goal of the EC/EEC to be a noble one, when it was essentially an intergovernamental mechanism for cooperation and collaboration, what we have in the EU today is not that. Since Maastricht, and the introduction of the euro, the EU as it now is is a suprnational entity, and in being unrepresentative and unaccountable it is actually breeding resentment between nations. The opposite of its stated goal.
@ Katharine Pindar,
I apologise for the rudeness in not paying correct attention to your name.
We have several ‘Katherines ‘ in our family. It is a beautiful name, but the lack of respect shown to you as an individual, by not addressing you by your correct name is inexcusable.
I’m not a Lib Dem any more Katharine, but I am still interested in all arguments that help me to formulate my revised view of the world and how best improve it for the next generation. At the age of 71, I am not proud of the inheritance that we are leaving behind.
Tim13 re: 2nd Nov ’16 – 8:24am:
Your comment contains interesting reflections that I very much agree with. Some of what Jedibee says is relevant; the UK did push hard for EU expansion, when there should have been more caution, which is one reason why Brexit is running away from our responsibilities and a display of bad faith. Even now Johnson is pushing for the accession of Turkey after using Turkey as a bogeyman in his Brexit campaign.
Incidentally, I think it was this push from the UK that then made it difficult for the UK to adopt the same transition arrangements in 2003. The UK probably hoped other countries would follow their lead and thought that if they too took the same course the accession would be held back. I was doubtful at the time and now more strongly believe it should have been more gradual. But the UK, urged on by the US, had its own geopolitical agenda.
Generally Jedibee is in a minority on taxation, because these days there are more people complaining about tax advantages in various countries in the EU. Obviously a balance has to be agreed, which takes us back to the EU intergovernmental processes overseen by its parliament.
Katharine Pindar: I very much agree with what you say about a shared culture and history and am saddened that the UK is turning its back on this, very much to its detriment in the Arts, Sciences and Education.