I voted Remain in the EU Referendum. I still think we should remain a member of the EU, for a wide variety of reasons. I also think our policy on Brexit- to push government to negotiate the best possible deal, and then call for a referendum on the final result- is broadly correct. Certainly, people have a right to change their mind as we find out more details, or even decide that they were once wrong about something. However, one major amendment is needed.
As things stand, the polls look like they’re turning. If a new referendum were held today, there is a wealth of evidence to suggest that Remain would win it. The polls say something else, too; people don’t actually want a second referendum. Therein lies the brick wall we’re banging against, as our poll numbers continue to stagnate. It is also the key flaw in our strategy.
I’m not going to suggest that we could take the UK back into the EU without a second referendum. Although constitutionally possible, it just doesn’t make political sense to discard the result of a first referendum under any different measure. That even goes for the more democratic ‘actually take it to election, so those who would be responsible are bound by their campaign pledges, and held accountable for their lies’ option. The thing is, ‘let’s just do it again’ doesn’t resonate with voters.
There is a reason we lost the first referendum, and it isn’t that we’re all ‘elites’, or the EU is secretly making people’s lives significantly worse (rather, it is secretly making people’s lives better, but that’s an argument for another day). We lost because, when the Leave campaign set out their vision, we got far too pre-occupied by the fact it wasn’t true, was unattainable, and was largely nothing to do with leaving the EU. People chose to believe a message of hope over a group of politicians and campaigners pointing out that it wasn’t true.
Indeed, as I’m sure we all know now, Vote Leave’s campaign director has explicitly said that the referendum was won on the £350 million a week to the NHS lie. The crucial swing amongst moderate Tory voters came when key figures started talking about a ‘Norway model’ and instant liberal free trade deals with the rest of the world. Some of the more liberal Brexit campaigners even advocated continued free movement (though I’m relatively sure few people listened). If you exclude Farage and his band of hatemongers, the referendum was built on hope rather than fear. That hope may well have been unfounded and manipulated, but it was always going to be difficult to kill with mere numbers. ‘Forecasts have been wrong before’ and the like.
These are the messages that resonated with the leave voters who may change- or have already changed- their mind, and with many remain voters who now don’t want to re-run the referendum because ‘Brexit is an opportunity’. These are people are not convinced by a party determined to remain no matter what, and are certainly not convinced by a party that simply assumes that they want a second referendum.
The solution to this isn’t a revolution. It’s merely some re-wording. Rather than declare that we’ll push for the best possible Brexit and call for a referendum no matter what, we should be demanding that certain terms – based on the claims of the more liberal Brexiteers – are met, and demand another referendum if they are not. Things like £350 million a week for the NHS, a ‘Norway Model’, paying no fee whatsoever to the EEA but retaining full access to all the benefits it provides, agreements for Brits to retain their rights to live, move and work freely across Europe, and a Britain that has more moral clout and works at the heart of the global community to drive positive change. Oh, and the significant and immediate economic growth Leave promised during the Article 50 process.
This is no significant departure on substance, but there is one key difference. Hope. Those desperate to see Brexit succeed, who understand what a bad Brexit would look like and may have voted either for or against, do not want a party to call a referendum ‘no matter what’. That ‘no matter what’ caveat makes a lot of difference- standing in the way of voters hopes, no matter how slim they are, is a sure fire way to alienate them rather than convince them that a referendum is a good idea, even if they’re starting to think that those promises were, shall we say, shaky.
And if we get that deal? Well, we spent much of the last few decades asking what on earth, hypothetically, could make people like John Redwood or Ian Duncan Smith support our EU membership. We ridicule the stubborn Eurosceptics, who blindingly hate the EU for the fact its European alone. Maybe we should ask what, hypothetically, would make us support Brexit.
* Adam Hyde is the editor of GreatBritishPolitics.co.uk, and works for a global development think tank in London. He has been a Lib Dem since 2015. Prior to that, Adam was on the liberal wing of the Labour party, leaving after the 2015 leadership election.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Dominika the roving Braybrooke skunk is found again - in Corby
Starmer kills off Leveson two
Michael's weekly ward surgeries today! #dundeewestend
Bye bye coal: A Net Zero milestone
Helen Dudden
Roland
Suzanne Fletcher
Joseph Bourke
Steve Trevethan
35 Comments
You link to 51% Remain/49% Leave when only Mirror websites polled is a “wealth of evidence” re: “Bregret”: don’t polls normally have a “margin of error”, or has that been factored in to that claim?
“The Google survey of more than 44,000 readers of Mirror websites reveals”.
“The survey finds that if the EU referendum were held again the result would be reversed with 51% voting for Remain and 49% to leave.”
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/britains-brexit-regret-survey-shows-9805513
I may stand at least partially corrected:
“The Google survey of more than 44,000 readers of Mirror websites reveals that 13.5% of people who voted “out” would vote “in” if there were a second referendum.
By contrast 9.3% of people who voted “in” would how vote “out”.
Alright, perhaps a bit of movement – is that the same for all demographics, if only for Mirror websites and did some people move to “don’t know” and how would that effect the approximate “4% shift”?
And how easy is: “The Google survey” to manipulate?
Adam, I think your original proposition is sound, and you are onto something when you talk of giving people hope. But I don’t think your argument really stands up. You are presenting certainties where there are none, such as ‘There is a reason why we lost the referendum’ – there surely wasn’t ONE reason. And I don’t think we are advocating a referendum ‘no matter what’. This is a time of great uncertainty, a year of possibly great changes in the EU, and it seems to me our party is right to stick to our principles and develop our policy as need be in accordance with them. Meantime, our peers continue the struggle on behalf of us all.
An average of all the polls show a marginal increase for Remain. This will only get bigger over the next few years as the consequences of Brexit become increasingly apparent and, regardless of how tasteless you may find it, the country’s demographic becomes increasingly better educated due to higher levels of people going on to HE compared with previous generations. There is an overwhelming correlation between being a graduate and being a Remain voter.
What is important is that we negotiate a method whereby the UK can easily rejoin in a few years time. This is an achievable goal that could be thwarted by May in her bid to appeal to the populist right-wing vote. There is no need for a referendum to rejoin as we have a representative democracy and it is now clear to everyone that referendums are too simplistic and divisive.
The Leave campaign bus didn’t actually say they would spend all the money on the NHS. Read the bus: “We send the EU £350 million per week. Let’s fund our NHS instead”. As long as some of this money is sent to the NHS then I see it as no different to many other misleading political campaigns, from right and left. So I doubt that if they don’t find the £350 million for the NHS then people are suddenly going to become remainers.
Soft brexit is the best strategy considering remain lost and it enables people to focus on things that actually materially affect their lives, such as the NHS, social care, the economy, the environment. Banging on about the EU is too much like identity politics for my liking.
@Katharine Pindar first, thanks 🙂
Secondly, I’m not so sure. Though I have simplified to make a point, I’ll admit, there are a significant amount of people who now want all of those leave promises to come true. And this demographic constitutes a significant amount of the people we’ll have to convince if we want to change anything- which, yes, will require a solid and well developed policy, but I’m not sure saying we’ll stop Brexit no matter what is the right way to go about it right now. And keeping those who eventually feel let down by Brexit on side and highlighting the gulf between the promises and the results is crucial.
@Eddie Sammon I’m too tired to source the links, but they certainly did in any meaningful sense just on the bus. ‘The EU costs £350 million. Lets spend that money on the NHS instead’ is, in any meaningful way, a pledge during an election campaign. And people voted on that basis, especially older people. We might all now have just accepted that everyone thought it was silly, because we knew the numbers didn’t add up, but most people who don’t spend their time writing and reading about politics (which, I have to say, is most people, and I really don’t blame them) didn’t see it like that.
1. We lost the referendum because we failed to educate enough people (who value British values) that they would not be better off, if we turned our backs on a block of Nations who think pretty much like we do.
2. The rise of China, India, the Middle East, Russia, Indonesia etc means that a fragmented Europe (us included) will almost certainly be weaker and the values we hold dear will in all likelihood be eroded faster if we don’t act together with the power and unity of a league of similar thinking Nation states.
3. We have to accept that there were many reasons that EU support was lost (or never gained).
4. The task now is not to try to crowbar a result our way by another tiny margin (which will simply anger the other half of the country). That is no way to run a Nation or bring it together untied behind a vision, but to start to educate people in ALL those issues that lost support – or at least the most important ones.
This means regardless of why they are an issue or how unfair or unjust it may seem, success ultimately relies on communication and education around:
– Immigration – Tony Blair’s speech actually made a positive case very well, we need to be sharper here. A ‘lets let all the people who want to come’ approach is simply not going to be taken seriously.
– British values – and where support in the world is likely to come from, for them
– Political correctness – what role Europe should play here and what needs to change
– Refugees – what is fair and just and will be supported by a good majority. Europe needs to show a clear lead here in order to win support not just from the UK.
– Europe – What is a vision that a good majority will buy into – what does Europe need to do in order to deliver the required flexibility to keep Nations on board and moving forward together.
All the talk at the moment is of punch and counterpunch, opportunism and revenge.
It’s depressing and what turns people off politics in the first place.
People need a vision, hope and a ‘club’ they want and are proud to be part off.
It will not be achieved overnight, but a start on a clear vision of what it should look like is the only prosperous and worthwhile route that will lead back to the EU in my opinion.
There will be a “deal”. We don’t know what it will be and we certainly won’t have much influence on what is agreed.
Given those two facts surely the ONLY sensible approach is to say that it needs to go to a referendum?
My brave Brexiteer in laws believe that Labour will get rid of Corbyn and then win the election on a policy of deporting all immigrants, especially the Muslim ones. When your dealing with that level of delusion you really can’t have a rational discussion with them. I’m afraid fools like that will only learn in the school of hard knocks and learn I fear they will.
I think the present Lib Dem policy may be very useful for winning by elections in Remain areas. In Leave areas, it will brass people off. Regardless, over time, an increasing number of people will think “we’ve done this already – move on to someone else please!” Others ( including me ) will think the party is becoming preoccupied with Brexit at the expense of very worthy issues like the funding of health and social care.
It may take time, but the issue will run out of road. What have you got for voters afterwards?
It is interesting noting the main focus of attention on Article 50 has todate been on: it’s invocation and whether the UK can withdraw it’s notice of withdrawal.
Both Adam’s article and AngrySteve in their comments draw attention to what is probably the most significant part of Article 50, namely: ” setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. ”
Another area where Article 50 is, I suggest, open to interpretation is the meaning of the words “conclude an agreement with that State”. It would seem that there is room for an agreement to be reached in principle, and then for relevant ‘consents’ to be obtained. Obviously, the clock will be ticking but in principle a referendum could be held…
Whilst, I have mixed feelings about a second referendum, because it will basically be accept or decline the negotiated agreement, potentially it will be less divisive and not just a simple rerun of last year’s referendum. Thus I think the HoL’s need to think about how the final deal is ratified and whether the British system will require “the people to speak” or if the simple ‘Leave’ referendum result is sufficient consent.
To be honest, I am not convinced that there is a great deal of difference here. Pretty much everyone knows that it is impossible to meet all the Leave pledges so it is just playing with words to say “if the pledges aren’t met, let’s have a second referendum”. That said, I think we do need to get the tone right and entirely support the idea that we need to focus on the fact that because the Leave campaign was so full of misinformation, people need a vote on the final deal (or indeed, no deal which seems increasingly likely).
I will probably write something longer on this but British politics are going to get uglier before they get better. Because it is impossible to deliver a deal which will satisfy all Leave voters, the only way for the Government to preserve popularity will be to be blame the EU and foreigners (they will be assisted by sections of the press0. Expect some very nasty rhetoric in the months ahead. In that context, we need to constantly bang on about the fact that people were sold a pup by the Leavers in the first place and the EU is doing absolutely nothing surprising.
Most of the Lib Dems still don’t get it. We’re moving away from an `EU first` mindset to one where we negotiate toughly commensurate with our hard and soft power. It’s a completely different mindset to the past thus creating new realities.
On migration for example the focus is shifting from `Migration always good` to `why do we need the particular migration and how does that dovetail with the need to lift every BRITISH (hint: not just EU) citizen` ie not numbers but reasons. This is not only more progressive, it provides a firewall to protect Liberalism. The EU isn’t a value – the things projected onto it are.
I’m still trying to think why there WOULDN’T be tariff free trade with the added advantage of FTAs with our other erstwhile partners like Australia. If the EU is so intransigent then it’s a club we’re better off out of.
Philip Rolle’s “the issue will run out of road” is worth taking seriously.” As someone who was against having any referendum about anything I struggle with the thought of a third EU referendum. The democratic issue, albeit in our imperfect democracy, is how do we get to the next General Election. I am convinced that many people will simply get bored with the issue of Brexit even as the process begins to damage families and the country. So let’s hear it for delay! The Government deserves rigorous opposition and obstruction on Brexit while we get stuck in on wider campaigns. The Lords can probably contribute a few weeks of delay but there are other useful tactics which can slow things down until we eventually breathe the fresh air of a General Election campaign and have a chance to get an accountable House of Commons in which people can vote for what they actually believe in.
Sorry but this is hopeless advice.
The word ‘survey’ and trying to confuse it with ‘polls’ should ring alarm bells with everyone. Most people who read this site will immediately ask, what’s the sample?
Well, we know that from comments above.
They probably also know the info on polling that Mike Smithson and Rentoul have been tweeting: here’s the yougov chart they have been focusing on: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C48QCPsXUAMGpaR.jpg
What Adam does do is set out our strategy viz “to push government to negotiate the best possible deal, and then call for a referendum on the final result- ”
What is our advice on the best possible deal? As far as I can see what Tim and Clegg have been saying is what I have argued here since April 2016: EEA non EU.
OK, so will we be able to make it clear to the public over the next two years that we are arguing for EEA non EU, but in a subsequent referendum or in the parliamentary vote on the deal in say autumn 2018 we shall argue that we actually prefer not to leave/to request re-entry/to tear up the Article 50 requisition letter?
To me that sounds a difficult argument to sustain. Of course any reversal of that ambivalent position opens us to accusation of going back on a word and of re-awakening memories of 2010.
How are we doing? 10 – 11% in the polls.
I agree that the strategy should be to nail the Leave promises to the mast. However, care must be taken to decide which ones are chosen. May is not bound by Leave promises, as she did not campaign on them. Leave proponents are not in power, or at least do not have the final responsibility. Should the promises be chosen to drive home the point that Brexit was stupid, win the next election or prepare the way for a return to the single market? It seems to me that the third is the main point, as it will be the focus of progressive intent for the next decade or two. As such, I think it would be best to chose May’s promises (and that of several Leave promoters) regarding an open border in Ireland and near barrier-free access to the single market. This would push towards a Norway-style solution for the UK – a purely mercantile argument for better trade relations. If the goal is to push for reentry in the EU, additional attention should be paid to the promised influence that post-Brexit Britain will have, and the promise of full sovereignty over law.
James – struggle as much as you like, but just because we cancel our trade agreements doesnt mean that all the existing trade agreements between 3rd parties are also cancelled. What we are currently heading for is a huge increase in prices, lowering standards, job losses, oh and immigration will drop, not because May, who as a home secretary always cut border funding when she could, will have any more control, but because the UK will become a hugely unnattractive place to live.
The Tories may as well use the tagline “We will make the UK such an economic basketcase that noone will want to move here”
I’d make four observations, in no order.
1 – A few comments here talk about a general election. That would mean working around the Fixed Term Parliament Act. As far as I’m aware neither Corbyn nor Farron have talked about a general election and the process the FTPA calls for. May can’t just call a snap election.
2 – Several comments here seem to work on the rather easy assumption that just because some LEAVE referendum ideas probably won’t come good that somehow constitutes a ringing endorsement of the EU. Stark fact is that the EU has for about a decade been one fiasco after the other and you don’t have to be a screaming racist to have severe doubts about the EU’s political construct and direction. There aren’t too many people out there looking for a ‘hard remain.’ I’d be rather happier if there was a real, genuine idea being presented about what UK governments could change WITHIN the EU, beyond vacuous talk of, ‘reform.’
3 – Personally I’m inclined to agree that EEA non-EU probably is a sensible position, alongside some other things, notably action to reduce immigration (EU and non-EU). http://europeanlawblog.eu/2016/08/18/could-it-all-have-been-avoided-brexit-and-treaty-permitted-restrictions-on-movement-of-workers/. I’m not sure in my own head whether or not a Norway option would get through a vote. But it is worth pointing out that a lot of Eurosceptics, notably Christopher Booker have been talking about a Norway option for decades. Booker has made some of the best criticism of the ‘hard’ approach – http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/01/this-is-the-only-way-brexit-wont-plunge-us-over-the-cliff/ and
4 – I still remain concerned that a second referendum, on any formulation, will just lead straight into referendum 3, 4 and so on. I suspect this is a big part of the reason that a lot of the public aren’t keen on another referendum.
As others have noted, a survey is not a poll. In this case the survey is an online, self-selecting sample of readers of Daily Mirror group newspapers. The raw data is then adjusted for demographics, but the fact remains that it is driven off a self-selecting sample of the readers of a particular group of newspapers who are sufficiently motivated by the subject to complete the form. This is nothing remotely like a poll.
There is no link to the data. So it is impossible to make anything of the claim of a 25% swing to remain in Camborne or a 16% swing to leave in Reading. In the absence of raw data this might simply reflect a change of opinion by 1 person in a sample size of 6 or so for each of those locations.
See http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2017/02/bregret-what-new-poll-reveals-about-chances-staying-eu
@Alistair
“but because the UK will become a hugely unnattractive place to live.”
Quite. And because the economy will decline also.
It’s already happening. Applicants to UK universities from EU nationals has dropped by 7% despite the fall in the value of the pound supposedly helping export industries. The reason is because EU nationals now see the UK as an unfriendly place to come to or do business with.
There has to be a General Election in 2020. Does anyone outside the Government and Tony Blair’s head seriously think everything will be sorted in three years?
“As things stand, the polls look like they’re turning.”
Really?
Before pinning too much hope on polls, remember what they were saying before the referendum. Even on the day of the referendum it looked like the pound was rising on the back of exit polling commissioned by financial companies that predicted a victory for Remain. Too much of this analysis looks like wishful thinking and cherry-picking polling data that supports an opinion. Possibly more reliable (?!?) polling (e.g. https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/auuihsqsjz/TimesResults_170213_VI_Trackers_W.pdf) suggests there is little sign of “Bregret” or a change of heart by either side, and if anything (picking up on the conclusion from the Mirror’s voodoo poll), more Remainers may have changed their minds than Brexiters.
That said, I agree with much of the article, and if Lib Dems want to prevent Brexit they should change from the negative strategy that failed so dismally last June.
Brexit is going to be a long process. The political outcome will depend on how public opinion changes.
The reasons for thinking public opinion will change far outweigh the reasons to think it won’t. Some of these reasons are non Brexit reasons but when the public votes they all count. (Timescale? My guess is over the next 4 years.)
So what will happen if people do change their minds about Brexit?
Without a referendum to confirm the Brexit deal, the Government could spend the next ten years trying to push through changes that the people have decided they now don’t want.
It could be the end of the Conservative Party as we know it, and with the Labour party also riven, the political fundamentals are set to change. And it’s going to be bumpy.
What about fighting on the simpler proposition that the government has a duty to act in the best interests of the nation – and incidentally, fighting for Brexit at all costs fails to consider the best interests of the nation? If you scratch the surface of the evidence that has been gathered about the costs of Brexit, it is clear that not even putting in place a default option (that is, the existing arrangements, not the illusory WTO arrangements which would be subject to negotiations in their own right) that we can go back to in case of failure of any part of the government’s negotiations is certainly not in the best interests of the nation.
At the end of the day if Brexit brings all the benefits the brave Brexiteers have promised the remain argument will die, if as I think it will just bring pain well I suspect the brave Brexiteers will disappear.
Frankie
You could just have easy said that if the EU had brought all the benefits the brave remainers claim the leave argument would have died. This argument will go on for a long time after we have left the EU, people – on both sides – are sticking to their guns and refusing to change.
It’s amazing how many people rail against Blair for Iraq despite the fact that his decision to invade was quite popular at the time (not with me, I should add).
It will be the same with Brexit in 10 years time. Everyone will be saying how stupid it was and that how Cameron and May destroyed the country.
@ Mike S.
Yes.
We need to articulate our positive vision, our hope, of what Europe means to us. And set about persuading people of its value for them…
This is all just a phony war at the moment.
Everybody is talking about impact on economic growth being a bit less or bit more. Immigration being a bit less or not. I hope it doesn’t happen but if one of the major car manufacturers were to pull the plug then the proverbial will hit the fan and there will be some very angry people out there. May and Corbin will have no place to hide.
@ Malc. Whereas I don’t see eye to eye with you on this issue, I mainly respect the rational of your argument. That latest comment however just doesn’t hold water.
The referendum has caused a great deal of anger and split the country. A different final referendum on accepting the deal brought back by May & Co or status quo anti, could go a long way to joining the people again- I would accept it more than the “just leave” one.
“the result of a first referendum ”
The first referendum was in 1975.
We are leaving the EU, stop the navel gazing; get over it; and move on.
“Move on”??? (a very different Martin says)
Suffer the appalling consequences more like.
You do not understand, just because you have decided to jump, does not mean that you are able to fly. Voting against gravity will not get you anywhere.
This might be the basic theme of a Party Political broadcast:
Cameron might as well have put a different question in the referendum:
“Do you agree to the appointment of a new Prime Minister without election, with full powers to pursue the re-shaping of Britain’s trade in exported goods and services, as well as any future relationship with the 27 EU countries and the 53 Countries with EU free trade agreements, without challenge by Court or amendment by Parliament and for the pursuance of a low tax, low spending and low regulatory regime?”
In other words the May government is attempting to act as a dictatorship and to impose the most severe shock measures on jobs and investments, while planning to tear up what taxation and spending regime that remains of the post war settlement, post Thatcher and soon to be “post May”.