Over the weekend Jeremy Corbyn said he would not be prepared to overturn Brexit. He said:
I think we’ve had a referendum, a decision has been made, you have to respect the decision people made. We were given the choice, we after all supported holding a referendum so we must abide by the decision.
In comparison Owen Smith has committed himself to offering a second referendum if elected as Labour Leader.
Sal Brinton, President of the Liberal Democrats, has has responded to Corbyn’s comments:
Jeremy Corbyn was virtually invisible during the referendum campaign. He has hauled up the white flag on Europe, sacrificing worker rights, environment protection, economic prosperity and perhaps freedom of British people to live and work on the Continent.
Jeremy Corbin is clear favourite to win his leadership race, so this is likely to become the Labour stance.
I know many decent pro-Europeans in the Labour Party who will be devastated by how he has rolled over.
Since the referendum, 18,000 members have joined the Liberal Democrats, making our party the largest it has been this century. People have responded to our positive message, which is that we will be the only UK-wide party that will go into the next election still determined to defend our European future.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Professor Joad sees his play at the Theatre Royal, Northampton
The DVLA's problem with number plates
Is Kier Starmer the new John Major?
A bargain at 23 guineas?
20C night
Chloe
Tom Bailey
David Allen
Nonconformistradical
44 Comments
What does “defend our european future mean”?
Say, for example, if a member of the public asks for an explanation.
I see 18,000 new members has replaced stronger economy fairer society as the meaningless mantra to be trotted out as an all purpose response.
The Labour Party has half a million members, they excluded more people from voting for leader than the entire Lib Dem membership. The flow of new members to the Lib Dems has obviously dried up.
Blaming Jeremy Corbyn for losing the referendum is fine if you want to ignore all the other reasons, but it shouldn’t really be in the top 10.
Brian: I think Tim Farron made this quite clear a couple of days after the referendum (http://www.libdems.org.uk/lib_dems_commit_to_take_britain_back_into_europe). A Lib Dem government would seek the UK to rejoin the EU. That seems pretty straight forward to me.
Caractacus: I can’t see anything in Sal’s piece where she says that Jeremy Corbyn’s actions (or, rather, inaction) during the referendum was one of the top 10 reasons that Remain lost. She’s simply saying – as I read it – that Corbyn is clearly not personally overly bothered by the result to leave and that Labour party policy appears to be that the UK should leave the EU. As such, if you’re a Labour party member who wants the UK to stay in the EU, then Labour will do nothing for you. Only the Lib Dems would keep the UK in the EU (or rejoin it if we’ve left by the time of the next election).
I’m in full agreement with her. We never supported the referendum as a party and we shouldn’t simply roll over and accept the its result when it goes directly against such a core tenet of what we as a party believe. If a Tory government had had a referendum on the death penalty and a majority voted in favour of its return, the Lib Dems wouldn’t just accept that. We’d, of course, continue to oppose it as party policy. It’s the same here. We live in a representative democracy where Parliament does not make decisions based on public opinion but where our MPs do what they believe is right for the country, and I’m proud that our MPs will stay true to their beliefs, even if they’re in the minority.
Richard is absolutely right. Of course we will continue to argue for Britain remain in the EU: It is part of what this party is about, spelt out in the preamble to our constitution:
“Setting aside national sovereignty when necessary, we will work with other countries towards an equitable and peaceful international order and a durable system of common security. Within the European Community we affirm the values of federalism and integration and work for unity based on these principles. We will contribute to the process of peace and disarmament, the elimination of world poverty and the collective safeguarding of democracy by playing a full and constructive role in international organisations which share similar aims and objectives”
Are we supposed to throw that overboard just because the inept Leave campaign managed to lose a referendum we did not support?
Richard
You make a good case for what you believe on this , but a word or two if I may . Tim Farron can say he thinks what he does, he can advocate a policy , he can even persuade our party , but he cannot tell us what the policy of our party shall be in three months or three years if it is not one that has been discussed , quite apart from voted for , by our party !
I support our leader. I do not support knee jerk decisions on weighty matters .Tim has a position on this that , in contrast to Corbyn , is staunch. Therein lies the mystery.We need stability and caution now , and not hasty rush to anything. The Labour leader would have us rush to Artilcles of Brexit invoked day one .Our party leader must not rush us to day goodness knows when overnight either !
I am a moderate on the EU. It is moderation now I cave on these issues. Am I to feel alienated so new members can feel elated?
And compared to some on this I am positively elated by Tim! What of the peers who have just resigned our party whip ?
And what of the enthusiasm of the Liberal leavers, yes , many of them younger members and newer ones who , guess what , actually wanted to leave the EU and are , Liberals and Democrats ?!
That is what this party is .
It is not the Fanatical Europeanunionists Party .
Owen Smiths view carries as much weight as mine – none.
The Liberal Democrats have no role to play in Brexit. Brexit will be decided by the (Tory) Government.
The electorate have moved on. The snowflakes have melted. MoreUnited.uk has fizzled.
It is clearly Lib Dem policy for the UK to be a member of the EU and the referendum doesn’t change that. As Allan has pointed out, our Constitution explicitly refers to us being a member of the European Community (now Union) and our last election manifesto said the UK should be a leading player in the EU. In fact, looking at our previous manifestos, we have since 1955 consistently supported the UK’s membership of the Common Market / EEC / EC and EU. Tim Farron is simply repeating what has been our policy for 60 years. If anything, to change tack and say we as a party will support the UK’s withdrawal from the EU would be a kneejerk response and go against agreed party policy.
There is no moderation on this one. You can either believe we should follow the views of just over 51% of the voters at the referendum and leave the EU, or that, whilst acknowledging the public (by a slight majority) wishes to leave, we should nonetheless stay in the EU. The Tories and Labour believe the former, and our policy is the latter. Unfortunately there’s no middle ground.
A second referendum is unacceptable to the public, because it is clearly an attempt to overturn the result of the first one. That’s not how referendums work, you don’t get to re-run them until you get the result you want.
Now If the second referendum was a question of “the EU will not allow us to have free trade without the free movement of people, which type of exit do you want 1. to keep the four freedoms in the EEA or 2. lose access to the single market as the price for limiting Immigration from the EU”, that would be an acceptable referendum to have, because what future we will have outside Europe is a seperate question to if we are leaving or not, and would not overturn the decision to leave. But I suspect the lib dems would have no interest in a referendum like that unless the government had already made it clear that they favoured option 2?
I suspect that the only type of referendum Sal and the liberal democrats are interested in is one that can overturn the result of the first one? Is this correct?
Anyway, I would advise the party not to go down this route, 30% of lib dem voters voted for Brexit and it’s far easier to lose voters than pick up new ones. If you picked up 5% of the vote spread evenly across the UK and lost 30% of the vote where the lib dems did well the party could lose all its seats. Refusing to accept the result could cost the party the 8 parliamentary seats that it still has, but people must follow their own conscience. Is the decision to refuse to accept the results one of genuine conscience? Because in a democracy the voters usually get their way, eventually.
Me & Corby come from roughly the same generation, we were glued to our TVs watching The Events of May 1968, we read colourful papers like Black Dwarf & Red Mole or their dull cousins such as Socialist Worker or Workers Fight. “Bliss it was in that dawn….”
As you can probably tell, part of my head is still nostalgic for those days of Revolution but I have mostly moved on. After a lot of thought about what the coming Revolution would actually be like & the Society it would probably produce, I reluctantly signed up to mainstream Politics, Democracy, tolerance & moderation. Corbyn didnt though, for him & some of his core followers it sstill 1968 or 1917. That probably sounds mad to most of you but its what hundereds of thousands think & the Glamour of Revolution has an attraction for millions more, quite enough to support a significant Party.
The break up of The Labour coalition is going to be slow & very painful but there is enormous potential for a “Re-alignement” of our Politics. Its not inevitable that it will lead to decades of Tory domination but it is possible.
A Lib Dem government would seek the UK to rejoin the EU
Even if that means losing the rebate, the opt-outs, having to join Schengen, and replacing Sterling with the Euro?
Like most Lib Dems, I voted to Remain – but let’s face it, by the time of the next election we will be out, and will require the consent of all 27 member states to re-enter, and as a new member without all the concessions and opt-outs. Once everything has settled down and markets etc. have re-adjusted, we do not need further instability in asking everyone to re-adjust to coming back in! What we should argue for is positive engagement with our European neighbours and favourable terms for trade, travel, working abroad etc.
In addition to Dav’s excellent questions:
> Being subject to the legal meaning (as used in ECJ judgements) of ever closer union?
> Allowing EUrozone policy to predjudice the Euro-outs by working at the level of the single market?
@Dav 9th Aug ’16 – 5:37pm
“A Lib Dem government would seek the UK to rejoin the EU
Even if that means losing the rebate, the opt-outs, having to join Schengen, and replacing Sterling with the Euro?”
Especially if it means joining Schengen, losing the outputs and adopting the Euro. The liberal democrats rather like Schengen, they rather like the Euro too and generally see no good reason why the UK should get special opt-outs that other member states don’t get. The lib dems biggest gripe with Britian’s place in Europe before Brexit was that we weren’t a ‘core’ member right at the heart of it like Germany and France were. They would like Britain to have the same sort of terms as Germany and France and they same amount of influence.
I suspect that the public however will take a rather different view when being out is the status quo and joining means adopting the euro and joining Schengen. Then I think support for Britain being in the EU will be about 38% rather than 48%
To those of us north of the border the question is……. which will come first – an ‘social democrat’ independent Scotland remaining in the EU or a Liberal Democrat Government in Westminster ? I think you know the answer.
We’ve already got PR at both Holyrood and local government, and thank goodness Mrs. May’s grammar school nostalgia will be limited to little England (welcomed by far too many Lib Dems for comfort judging by some of the posts elsewhere on LDV).
PS We would get rid of Trident too.
As for Sal’s claim of being “the only UK-wide party that will go into the next election still determined to defend our European future” , the tectonic plates are moving and not just in Corbynland.
“Jeremy Corbyn was virtually invisible during the referendum campaign”
I do not support when criticism of other parties ignores factual based evidence and becomes playing into the spin.
“I know many decent pro-Europeans in the Labour Party who will be devastated by how he has rolled over.”
Are the Lib Dems still trying to attract those “decent” people in the Labour party who want to deny their supporters a say? How will that fit in to the Lib Dem conference?
This is hilarious / embarrassing. Why is anyone trying to make policy based on a whole load of unknowns. We do not know what Brexit will look like and if it’s EFTA/EEA to try and salvage the UK, coupled with the fact that the end of the world is clearly not nigh, it might be political suicide to campaign on a single core policy of rejoining something few people care about. We could easily go from 8 to 2. On the other hand if we start to fight to influence the shape of Brexit, and push constructive post-Brexit liberalism, and identity and embrace the opportunities.
We have no idea what the EU might look like in 4 years. More recession, serious issues with Greece and other poorer members, perhaps more exits. I’ll pretty much guarantee we won’t get a unanimous welcome back either so it’s a pledge in the hands of others who have the power to say no and will use it. If we’re out by 2020, that’s it for a generation. Other than the certainty of Turkey not being members, nothing is certain so why pin the future credibility of this party on a huge risk. If we are heading towards hard Brexit that has only 25% public acceptance, the EU hasn’t collapsed into a heap, and out isn’t working, then we can have a rejoin policy that makes sense. Right now it’s a knee jerk as Lorenzo puts it, and a ludicrous and potentially highly damaging commitment should we end up appearing to back a basket case organisation in serious decline. Here’s a radical suggestion: define and found an EU2 that eliminates all the flaws of EU1 and invite others to join us.
We are in the ludicrous position of needing to beg Norway not to veto our entry to the EFTA. Why shouldnt there be a 2nd referendum if Boris and chums fail to negotiate anything of consequence?
@”David Raw 9th Aug ’16 – 6:49pm
To those of us north of the border the question is……. which will come first – an ‘social democrat’ independent Scotland remaining in the EU or a Liberal Democrat Government in Westminster ? I think you know the answer.”
Neither are likely our life time in my opinion. But in terms of probabilities I would say that there is more chance of the people of the U.K. electing a liberal democrat government than there is of the Scottish people voting for independence. The lib dems could change and become electable, especially if the Labour Party collapses and the Tories do something really terrible that people won’t forgive, but I can’t see how things could change in Scotland to make a case for independence that would convince the Scottish people to vote for it. I think if there were to be another referendum yes would get less than 45% of the vote this time now that the promise that oil and gas drilling was going to pay for everything has been shown to be false. I believe the electorate are far more savvy than some on this site give them credit for.
‘“defend our european future mean”
Does anyone have a clue what this means ?
@DJ
” ‘Jeremy Corbyn was virtually invisible during the referendum campaign’
I do not support when criticism of other parties ignores factual based evidence and becomes playing into the spin.”
I think the facts include:
1. that Corbyn has spent most of the last 30 years being opposed to the UK’s membership of the EU
2. that he then did as little to promote the Remain case as one would expect of someone to whom 1. applies
3. that his “rolling over” is merely him using his position to promote his own personal view rather than that of the members of the party he currently leads
Corbyn clearly hoped that Cameron would lose and he would have a pop at an early General Election.
Allan Brame
You refer to our party constitution preamble which is an excellent summation of what we stand for.But the US constitution gets people into a frenzy or a lather on issues , even it can be ratified. The very fact that you quote the reference to the EU and it actually states European Community, proves , we can move on !
Paul Barker
We are all the better for intelligent progressively minded people like you becoming grown ups , personally and politically , unlike certain elements of other parties you eloquently refer to !
Stevan Rose
If party leaders read this site they would see that when people like you with years in our party and mainstream views , feel as vehemently as you do , on an , I would say not especially divisive issue , and so , Tim caution !
“‘“defend our european future” – Does anyone have a clue what this means?”
Well now, Naysayers, when a pro-European calls for an election, you Naysayers say that that’s the wrong tactic. When a pro-European instead calls for a second vote, you Naysayers say that that is eityher too soon, or else it is too late, or else just the wrong tactic. When a pro-European calls for us to abandon Brexit and stay In, you Naysayers say that that is inadmissible. When a pro-European calls for us to rejoin after we have Brexited, you Naysayers say that that is also beyond the pale.
So I tell you what, Naysayers, we’ll just stand up for our European future every which way we can, OK?
Ps meant to say amended, not ratified , re the constitution.
‘A lib dem government would seek the UK to rejoin the EU’ – why?
Even with our so called ‘special status’ in the EU, Brits voted to leave. Separation is painful and divorce inevitable … it’s time to move on from this unhappy relationship.
I’d also like to know what ‘defend our European future’ means? My guess is it means getting the UK back into the EU whatever the cost. Further clarification please!
Pat
We have an unhappy and dysfunctional relationship with our right wing press. I use the word “our” ironically, but looked at calmly coolly and rationally, the Brexit disaster is only the latest (albeit, possibly, the worst) example of this. Perhaps not, in that the reasons some have given for many voters choosing Leave was “left behindness”. That in itself has been caused, or at least exacerbated, by prejudices whipped up over many years in self-same press and acted on by self-serving politicians. Are you to ask us all to move on “from that particular unhappy relationship”?
I have often felt that attachment to Europe for the LibDems corresponds to Labour’s Clause 4 (which they dropped, and won elections, and now seem to be trying to bring back, probably losing elections).
“We live in a representative democracy where Parliament does not make decisions based on public opinion but where our MPs do what they believe is right for the country,” Richard Wingfield is absolutely correct to say this.
A referendum is purely a consultative process. The two-thirds of the Members of Parliament who (we are told) are for Remain must stand firm and remember Edmund Burke’s famous speech to the lectors of Bristol:
“To deliver an opinion is the right of all men; that of constituents is a weighty and respectable opinion, which a representative ought always to rejoice to hear; and which he ought always most seriously to consider. But authoritative instructions; mandates issued, which the member is bound blindly and implicitly to obey, to vote, and to argue for, though contrary to the clearest conviction of his judgment and conscience – these are things utterly unknown to the laws of this land, and which arise from a fundamental mistake of the whole order and tenor of our constitution.
“Parliament is not a congress of ambassadors from different and hostile interests; which interests each must maintain, as an agent and advocate, against other agents and advocates; but parliament is a deliberative assembly of one nation, with one interest, that of the whole; where, not local purposes, not local prejudices, ought to guide, but the general good, resulting from the general reason of the whole. You choose a member indeed; but when you have chosen him, he is not member of Bristol, but he is a member of parliament.”
Separation is painful and divorce inevitable
Wish people would stop saying ‘divorce’.
This isn’t a divorce. It was never a marriage, based on love and meant to last for ever. It’s a business partnership we entered for as long as it was useful to us, that has run its course and now has to be wound up.
Getting all emotional about it by using marriage metaphors helps no one.
Alistair 9th Aug ’16 – 8:47pm: We are in the ludicrous position of needing to beg Norway not to veto our entry to the EFTA. Why shouldn’t there be a 2nd referendum if Boris and chums fail to negotiate anything of consequence?
This is also my opinion. Both the main EU block of 27 and the Norway group of 4 are clearly concerned by the Brexit group of middle England and the damage the Boris revolutionaries can enact upon their various groups. During the coming negotiations the EU will insist on free movement of people and Norway will fear a middle England take-over led by the inconsistant Boris. Furthermore, the Brexiteers will split into factions because they don’t actually have a policy greater than “control immigration and keep the 350 million pounds a week”.
After all the confusion of re-negotiation and consolidaton of what it means for the UK, there will come a point when the people should engage in a ‘finalising referendum’ to decide whether the UK remains in or leaves the EU for the best alternative available. As remainers, we should all give the re-negotiations our best shot [in government, parliament, political parties, and the regions] and make clear that the first referendum was a Tory idea to foist the first decision on the people [to help that party to stay in power]. Please don’t let the Tories make all the decisions for the UK.
David Allen,
“So I tell you what, Naysayers, we’ll just stand up for our European future every which way we can, OK?”
Many of us “Naysayers” are also devout Europeans. We are just trying to find something to say to the voting public that they won’t just dismiss as emotion fuelled grief and denial.
The boat has sailed and we have missed it. There is no point in standing on the jetty angrily demanding that it return. Its crew is ignoring every demand and we look impotent and sidelined. We need a more presentable response.
As said boat just disappears past the headland you can still just make out the name on the stern. “RMS Titanic”.
there will come a point when the people should engage in a ‘finalising referendum’ to decide whether the UK remains in or leaves the EU for the best alternative available
A very silly idea: it gives the EU no incentive to negotiate in good faith, and every incentive to try to make the so-called ‘best alternative’ deal as bad as possible in the hopes of having the voters reject it.
If there is a second referendum, the options must not be between ‘accept this deal’ and ‘remain’, but between ‘leave with this deal’ and ‘leave on other terms’.
Stevan Rose,
“We do not know what Brexit will look like… If it’s EFTA/EEA (and)… the end of the world is clearly not nigh, it might be political suicide to campaign on a single core policy of rejoining”
Yes – If everything about Brexit unexpectedly starts coming up roses, we might then want to go a bit quieter about rejoining. If. If pigs fly.
“If we are heading towards hard Brexit that has only 25% public acceptance, the EU hasn’t collapsed into a heap, and out isn’t working, then we can have a rejoin policy that makes sense.”
Yes – Though if we have shilly-shallied, and dropped our “rejoin” policy only to revive it when it starts to look like more of a vote-catcher, then we won’t look so good. I could describe this as “political suicide”, if it wasn’t too hyperbolic.
“Why is anyone trying to make policy based on a whole load of unknowns?”
Now I agree with you there!
I fully support Al Brintons critique of Corbyns stance; I especially refer everybody to the recent BBC TV reconstruction of the Brexit campaign by Laura Kuensberg.
Labour put itself apart from the Remain Campaign (which was organised by and as a coalition on purpose) from the beginning, ,running its own “Labour for IN” sideshow; and the leader of that Remain Campaign, Jack Straw’s son, said in the BBC programme he felt badly “let down” with the whole “”Labour for IN” campaign. At no point did he get any active collaboration from “Labour for IN”; he clearly implied that the Corbynistas blocked that actively.
We could have been warned when Clement Attlee wrote in a book about his Labour Party in the 1940’s that Labour is something very different from all the continental European socialdemocratic and socialist parties. Present day Labour is following in those exceptionalist Attlee footsteps, only showing solidarity with the SPD, PSOE, PvdA and PSF when it suits their parochial, little-Englandish interest and frames.
D66 (the Dutch LibDems) have introduced a law making it possible to have a consultative referendum about a law after it has passed both houses of parliament; that initiative is now the law of the land.
We say: the parliamentary debates (and media coverage around it, including opinion pieces in newspapers, on TV, radio and social media) should serve as the first platform where all opinions about what’s proposed (for and against) are aired and argumented; but if politicians in such a referendum about newly adopted laws have to explain their voting behavior, that in itself could be a way to re-connect politicians with citizens caring about the subject at hand; it could re-inforce the democratic practice in our country, with politicians thinking “how will I explain this to voters” from the start and thus talking less jargon, less officialese, less in technical acronyms, and more plainly about the subject at hand.
Our way maintains the primacy of representative government, but adds al little bit of direct democracy spice to avoid democracy being run by technocrats.
Tony
That is why we might be far better off , with Nick Clegg now appointed as European portfolio holder, arguing as the negotiations proceed , for whatever is best for this country not tying hands now
David
Sorry , none of us on this are naysayers , but are internationalists rather than sentimentalists , on Europe , are realists , not idealists , on the EU and are pragmatists
instead of cockeyed optimists on electoral politics as they stand ! I voted Remain , we should keep an open mind , it as that not saying nay , indeed it is saying yes to possibilities as things develop , not overnight ! We all want what is best for our country , our continent , this party .
Barry
Very well put , but the boat might have sunk a lot quicker or maybe never sink , the very reason why some of us are keeping our heads and sticking with dry land now for a while!
Dav
It could be said , some even have better divorces , less emotion than the EU obsessives are expressing at the moment . Having never divorced nor ever felt emotional about the EU , I feel for people , but , like you , do not think or feel loyalty to a trans national body is the same , as love for a person ,nor should it be for Liberals , who see individual person as paramount , nor is it compatible , really , with Liberalism , which should see international or national bodies , important as they are , as serving those self same people , not people held in service of the bodies , slavishly .
Dav said: “If there is a second referendum, the options must … be between ‘leave with this deal’ and ‘leave on other terms’.”
Er, what other terms, exactly? While we hold this second referendum, the EU negotiators will no doubt be telling us “the terms we have agreed with your government are no longer negotiable”, and the independent pundits will probably agree. Cue for total public disenchantment with the referendum.
A second referendum has to offer three options:
Leave on the agreed terms;
Go back and renegotiate;
Stay in
The big problem with some in the Remain Camp is that they’re playing the blame game. One minute lashing out at old people, then at this or that group and then at Corbyn etc. IMO, this is because they’re wedded to a sort romanticised 20th Century Futurist vision of a world without borders. of young people on the “cutting edge”, of cultures as essentially life-style choices. In short they are Utopians and like all utopians they feel terribly discombobulated/hurt when things don’t go as planned.
Why not just go the whole way and propose the united federation of planets? This would also be a policy that had to be dropped if we ever managed to get back in coalition or ally with a new-Labour breakaway party.
” ‘Jeremy Corbyn was virtually invisible during the referendum campaign’
I do not support when criticism of other parties ignores factual based evidence and becomes playing into the spin.”
I think the facts include:
1. that Corbyn has spent most of the last 30 years being opposed to the UK’s membership of the EU
2. that he then did as little to promote the Remain case as one would expect of someone to whom 1. applies
3. that his “rolling over” is merely him using his position to promote his own personal view rather than that of the members of the party he currently leads
I agree with 1 and 3 but I don’t think you’ve done anything to prove 2 stands as a fact. Supporters of Corbyn have pointed to the hours put in next to others in his party, have pointed out the numbers in his own constituency who voted to remain and point to how many of his party compared to other parties, and each suggests Corbyn was vocal in support of the EU and those invested in his party responded. The comment was not about how Corbyn felt before the referendum or after but suggested he was invisible (as is the easy criticism because of 1 and 3) but is not accurate.
At the start of Referendum 1 I was a strong believer in the EU despite its flaws. Based on an abysmal Remain campaign with laughable claims nearly as silly as Leave, I had concerns but still believed enough to vote Remain. Since the vote I now want to reserve judgement until I hear the Brexit proposal. But any fear I had about leaving, that the economy would collapse, has gone. The stock market has gone up, the currency has gone down creating a significant export opportunity, we’ll do fine outside though free trade and movement would guarantee that.
If there is to be a Referendum 2 then you have to get me to stay Remain with positives not more fear tactics. If there’s work to do to keep me Remain, and I’m a Europhile Liberal Democrat who could once quote the Treaty of Rome, how much work do you think it will take to keep less enthusiastic Remainers, and convert enough Leavers?
I should be a dead cert cast iron Remain but I’m not. I thought I would be emotional about leaving but I’m not. I thought I would fight for a re-run but I’m not. Not yet anyway. The EU that now exists is not the EU we joined or that I enthusiastically supported when younger. It’s not the EU of the time when the Liberal Democrat Constitution was written or of the years of John Major’s party unity problems. It is diluted too much with poorer Eastern European countries whose economies are too weak for an effective merger. It is now primarily a mechanism for German access to all European markets for its manufacturing and investments. The Euro exists to make German exports cheaper and other European goods more expensive. Good for the Germans, their Government puts the German economic interests above all else; that’s what they were elected to do. When will the rest of the EU work that out? I think the Greeks are close and a few others. In divorce terms I still want access rights and am willing to pay a little alimony, but you’ve changed and I’m not in love anymore.
……Jeremy Corbyn was virtually invisible during the referendum campaign. He has hauled up the white flag on Europe, sacrificing worker rights, environment protection, economic prosperity and perhaps freedom of British people to live and work on the Continent…..
Corbyn was only invisible through the media (which is almost entirely anti-Corbyn) not broadcasting/reporting his a many appearances…On the BBC news, reporting the Mandelson/Straw attacks, there were umpteen shots of Corbyn’s appearances on the ‘Remain’ platform…Where were all these ‘shots’ during the referendum campaign? Why were they not shown alongside the Cameron/Osborne and Bojo/Farage excesses? For the LibDem leadership to parrot the media story that Corbyn was not involved seems a bit odd when there is plenty of evidence to the contrary…
You seem to want things both ways; condemning the Cameron/Osborne ‘over-the-top’ claims and blaming Corbyn’s 7/10 assessment as ‘wishy-washy’ (7/10, by any yardstick’ is a strong endorsement)
As for ‘the white flag’?????? In every speech he is consistent in demanding that all rights and protections should continue….
What will be the process of staying in/rejoining the EU?…Telling 52% of the electorate that they were too stupid to understand what they voted for? Ignoring the result and carrying on regardless?
If I remember correctly it was this party that first demanded a referendum…If you ask for an opinion you must accept, however reluctantly, the ‘wrong’ result..
john 9th Aug ’16 – 9:51pm We have been part of Europe since before the Ice Age. When the snow and ice melted low level land was flooded. We have been repeatedly invaded across the Channel and across the North Sea since the time of Julius Caesar. We have also been repeatedly threatened and put at risk when we were not overtly threatened. Peace with our neighbours is a prize which we should greatly value.
There are no mentions above of Alan Johnson MP, a former postman and trade union negotiator and Cabinet Minister, who was put in charge of Labour’s campaign and should have been allowed to do his job. He often appears on the BBC Daily Politics and related programmes. He did not criticise Corbyn in public during the campaign, but was reportedly trenchant in his comments at a meeting of Labour MPs after the result was known.
Some mention could be made of Neil Kinnock, a former leader of the Labour Party and a former EU Commissioner from the days when we had two. He is now in the Lords, but he went back to his former constituency in Wales, with TV cameras and did what he could to try to correct the factual inaccuracies that the Leave campaign and UKIP were propagating. When Glenys Kinnock was elected MEP in Wales she had a vote which went into the Guinness Book of Records. Their son is a Labour MP.
We won in Tunbridge Wells counting area having had good relations with Labour people who had been rivals in recent local elections. Probably all the parties on both sides were spinning for party advantage or acceptability. Labour MP Chuka_Umunna said “Answer the question on the ballot paper.” Jeremy Corbyn was not doing that, he was setting out a manifesto for what he wanted the EU to become, perhaps partly through influence via the Socialist Group in the European Parliament and perhaps partly after the next UK general election.
Phil Collins in The Times issued a full page warning about the Labour vote “Labour campaigners should work harder or the referendum would be lost”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuka_Umunna
“What will be the process of staying in/rejoining the EU?”
I suspect the plan is to watch all those warnings that forecast the end of the world as we know it come true and then come to the rescue with a don’t worry we can always cancel the Article 50, or if already out, offer profuse apologies and assorted acts of penance to 27 other countries to get back in, complete with Euro and Schengen. There will be no resistance from most of the Leavers who have now accepted their mistake although there will always be a few who deny the evidence in front of them. It’s a brilliant plan. Except the stock markets went the wrong way and the emergency punishment budget got cancelled. The pound did go down but that has increased export potential whilst making imports more expensive and encouraging domestic production. Never mind, with enough whinging, whining and talking the economy down, maybe dreams can still come true. Plan B would be to watch the Three Stooges come up with a thoroughly ludicrous Brexit solution that breaks up the UK and hope Mrs May has lost all her political marbles. Plan C is not to issue an Article 50 notification until we have a guaranteed gold plated deal for free trade with no free movement, and still be negotiating when I’m pushing up daisies. In other words we don’t ignore the result, we just keep on trying to negotiate an impossible outcome for ever and ever, amen. With the unlikely success of Plan A and Plan B, we’d better hope the Three Stooges are as thoroughly useless at sensible scandal-free negotiations as their history suggests and Mrs May is relying on to keep her own position secure.