Second Referendum? When was the first one?

If there was a referendum asking voters to choose between continued membership of the EU under the current agreement, or with a settled deal between Britain and the EU after we’ve left, then I must have been on holiday when it took place!

On the 23rd of June 2016 there was a referendum and people voted for something – that much we know.

After a campaign that was described as having “glaring democratic deficiencies” by the Electoral Reform Society, people voted to leave the European Union.  They did so for a variety of reasons.  Some thought it would reduce immigration, others believed they would get more money for the NHS, and some did so based on vague and indefinable notions of sovereignty.

Everyone voted in good faith. It’s wrong to accuse Leave voters of not knowing what they were voting for, or not understanding what they were doing – everyone makes decisions based on how they interpret their own reality.

However nobody can possibly predict the consequences that will now ensue because of this decision.

A referendum on the final Brexit deal is essential.

This wouldn’t be a ‘second ‘referendum because there never was a first referendum on a negotiated deal.

In order for people to vote sensibly in a binary referendum then, surely – with an urgent appeal to common sense – you have to give them two options that can be directly compared and scrutinised against each other.  The 2016 vote failed to do this.  It was a campaign of sentiment not fact: a saga presented as zealous nationalism VS apocalyptic defeatism (‘Project Fear’), and zealous nationalism brought them out to princely turnout sum of 72.2% and won the day.

Brexit is likely but it is not inevitable.  Public opinion could change everything.

So far there is a growing trend where people think it was wrong to leave the EU. This is happening because as the negations proceed, it becomes apparent that untangling ourselves from the a union we’ve been a part of for decades is a lot more complicated than what was sold to us in the campaign.   

But the debate so far continues to centre on having a ‘second’ referendum.

We need to change the discussion from a ‘second’ referendum, to a referendum on the final deal.  It’s not a trivial point about wording; the two have very different connotations.

The option of a “second” referendum may put people off because on the face of it, this comes across undemocratic and divisive.  Also the timing is ambiguous, possibly within the next few weeks or even days, and people will be fatigued.

A referendum on the final deal, by contrast, is a different scenario.  It doesn’t suggest any time soon, it would have to be at the end of the negotiations when the deal which has been negotiated by politicians behind closed doors is known.  People can, at long last, compare and contrast the status quo on the one hand, with life post-Brexit on the other.

Already, framing the discussion in terms of a vote on the negotiated deal seems to be working: 50% of people support a vote on the final deal and 34% oppose.

A potential deal between the UK and the EU was nearly reached, but thwarted by the DUP.  It highlights how feeble May’s position really is, but it also makes it clear that Brexit has now lost the threadbare democratic legitimacy that it had: a party with 0.9% of the UK vote share is, from behind the scenes, pulling the strings and dictating what sort of deal the entire country will get; never mind Scotland, or the city of London, or indeed the opinions of the entire 48% of people that voted to remain.  Theresa May’s tawdry deal with the reactionary DUP has totally undermined her negotiating position.  And as if irony couldn’t take any more hits – Northern Ireland voted to remain.

To restore democratic legitimacy, the Brexit process must be returned to the people so they can either reject or sign off on whatever version of Brexit Theresa May can put together.

* Chris Park is studying for an MLitt in Media and Communication in Glasgow and is a member of the Liberal Democrats

Read more by or more about , or .
This entry was posted in Op-eds.
Advert

39 Comments

  • I am as keen as anyone to stay in the EU but this is NOT the topic that is going to have any chance of revising our fortunes. We need to shout about domestic social and welfare issues. That is what matter where it matters.

  • Lorenzo Cherin 7th Dec '17 - 2:04pm

    Chris, this is as it has been promoted throughout, only the media call it the second referendum.

    The fact is people are not daft. They yearn , we do, for those things that improve our situations.

    Nobody sees the EU as doing that.

    The EU needs to make itself an attractive proposition.

    It rarely does this even as we know it is more a force of good than not.

    But talk of ever closer union from supposed liberals or Liberal Democrats of the EU puts paid to any prospect of this land not going for Brexit.

    The thing that Tim and Vince did not and do not do, is get together with the Liberals of the EU and say to them, we are at the heart of this internationalism, we are of the essence of it, we were amongst the founding signatories and prime movers behind the creation of the London, based Liberal international, we do not think you get the desire to be more autonomous, more local, more national, now, but not to retreat into a bunker.

    To Vehostdt , to Macron, pack it in , all this homogenised milk EU, nonsense, get with it, get organic !

  • Richard Underhill 7th Dec '17 - 2:10pm

    The first referendum was in 1975. Previously a referendum was thought to be unconstitutional, but the UK does not have a written constitution, but a flexible, unwritten arrangement.
    Shirley Williams’ memoirs show that initially the population did not believe that the vote was for them, but many meetings in village halls persuaded them of its reality. NO voters included Michael Foot and Enoch Powell). YES voters included Roy Jenkins, David Steel and Edward Heath ‘The Europals’. There were large majorities for YES in every region, so that David Dimbleby’s attempt to cover the results became a bit of a damp squib. An important factor was the faster economic growth of the existing member states. The Lord Chancellor had informed parliament of the constitutional issues. The Prime Minister at the time had been Harold MacMillan (conservative) whose wartime ‘friend’ Charles de Gaulle had vetoed a British application in a televised interview. De Gaulle might have been affected by Winston Churchill’s wartime threat to have him executed, but doomed his own postwar presidency by choosing a referendum in preference to a general election on the calculated basis that he was more likely to win it. The French people voted NO to his plans for reform of the French Senate and De Gaulle resigned the presidency and retired from politics.
    Denmark had voted YES in a referendum and joined the EEC.
    Norway voted NO, narrowly, causing their Prime Minister to resign. She remained in international politics at the UN.
    When Sweden applied they were welcomed by a record high YES vote in the European parliament. Norway applied again at the same time, got another NO vote in a referendum. Their PM did not resign.
    Switzerland negotiated a relationship and asked their electorate for approval in seven simultaneous referendums. They voted YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES and YES. They also voted in a referendum to join the United Nations.

  • @ Mr Underhill “De Gaulle might have been affected by Winston Churchill’s wartime threat to have him executed”. Yes, indeed. If that really happened it might well have been, shall we say, a trifle off putting to General de Gaulle.

    But, it would be interesting to know what possible shred of evidence or historically respectable source you can produce for such an incredible statement.

  • Interesting to be reminded of the 5, June, 1975 EU Referendum, though I’m not sure whether Mr Underhill thinks Mr David Steel was the Liberal Party Leader. It was in fact a certain Jeremy Thorpe.

    What is often forgotten is that Prime Minister Harold Wilson called that Referendum to bridge a split in his own party.

    It is interesting to speculate that if the May government fell, as it might, and another Jeremy (C) was to become PM in the ensuing election – he decide to follow Mr Wilson’s precedent for the very same reasons.

    Have you thought this through yet Lib Dem MP’s should it be that Teresa & Co fall ?

    We might even get a newly ennobled Lord Lorenzo as Minister of Culture who could give himself an Arts Council grant.

  • Lorenzo Cherin 7th Dec '17 - 2:49pm

    David
    As one who has long favoured an alliance, but was thinking more, of pm Dan Jarvis, like your suggestion but please , it shall be

    Lord Cherin of Wimbledon Common!!!

  • Richard O'Neill 7th Dec '17 - 5:46pm

    I understand the spirit behind the argument but it is a bit of a ‘coat hanger’ for a rerun of the original vote. A ref on the deal would involve a straight yes/no choice (a no vote leading to a hard Brexit or perhaps, less likely, some renogation of the terms). This obviously isn’t the intent of the proposal which is to stop Brexit.

    This just plays into a perception that there is some underhand trickery about the demand. Calling it a second referendum just appears more solid and honest. It does what it says on the tin (Having been born many years after 1975 I can’t really consider that the 1st).

    Personally I’m not convinced there is anything especially new to vote on at the moment. If the EU were to make a dramatically increased offer for us to stay than they gave Cameron that would justify one. Otherwise a 2nd vote will likely be about rejoining at some future date.

    The complaint about the DUP seems wide of the mark. The power of small parties to dictate terms is an inevitable part of hung parliaments. PR which is advocated so often here garuntees almost perpetual hung parliaments.

  • Yes, I’d be happy with Dan the Man as PM …. or the great Stella Creasy or any of the other really talented women Labour MP’s (except, I’m afraid, for Diane). Watch out for Keir Starmer, if Jeremy C. decides he’s had enough of Number 10 and wants to go back to his jam and allotment after a couple of years.

    Yes, I do have a bit of time for the feisty compassionate Heidi and the equally feisty Anna Soubry. Very moved by Heidi’s response in the Commons yesterday – she’s in the wrong party.

    Tory MP Heidi Allen in tears during universal credit debate – BBC News
    Video for heidi allen in tears▶ 2:08
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/…/tory-mp-heidi-allen-in-tears-during-universal-cr...
    2 days ago Conservative MP Heidi Allen was in tears after Labour’s Frank Field’s speech.

  • Richard Underhill 7th Dec '17 - 10:56pm

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/june/6/newsid_2499000/2499297.stm
    The “Europals” was a newspaper headline and photo about a press conference by the YES campaign.
    David Steel commented on the money that the YES campaign had. When he had difficulty getting to a meeting they arranged to fly him.
    Shirley Williams admitted that the YES campaign had more money.

  • But would it just be advisory? The only way to be sure is to first hold a referendum on whether or not “the second referendum” should be binding or advisory and then hold a referendum on the terms of “the second referendum”. Then finally we could move on to “the second referendum”.

  • Paul Emmerson 8th Dec '17 - 12:50am

     You assume that another referendum would be “accept deal or stay in EU”, and it most likely would be. But there would be many people wanting it to be either “accept deal or continue negotiations” or “accept deal or no deal Brexit”.

    And you would also have to deal with the arguments against neverendums.

    I really think the best option is to push for a Norway solution that keeps close ties to the EU, but leaves it technically (thus respecting result).

    Has anyone on this blog read Adults in the Room by Yannis Varoufakis? Do you really want to stay part of an organisation that has such a malicious centralizing impulse in its very DNA?

  • “People can, at long last, compare and contrast the status quo on the one hand, with life post-Brexit on the other”.

    Unfortunately this may not be possible since with a transition period, we won’t have reached our Brexit destination when we actually leave the EU. The Brexiteers will still be painting the sunlit uplands ahead of us.

  • Richard Underhill 8th Dec '17 - 4:04pm

    David Raw 7th Dec ’17 – 2:23pm
    @ Mr Underhill “De Gaulle might have been affected by Winston Churchill’s wartime threat to have him executed”. Yes, indeed. If that really happened it might well have been, shall we say, a trifle off putting to General de Gaulle.
    There are no references to de Gaulle in the index of Roy Jenkins biography of Churchill.
    I have not seen Boris Johnson’s version.
    Please consider the context. In Mary Soames biography of Clementine Churchill, (ISBN 0385 607415) page 324: “General De Gaulle lunched at Downing Street. The conversation turned to the future of the French fleet, and Clementine said how ardently she hoped that many of its ships and crews would carry on the fight with us. To this the General curtly replied that, in his view, what would really give the French fleet satisfaction would be to turn their guns ‘on you!’ (meaning the British). Clementine from the first had liked and respected this dour man, but she found this remark too much to bear, and rounding on him, rebuked him, in her perfect, rather formal, French, for uttering words and sentiments that ill became either an ally or a guest in this country.” ” … there are certain things that a woman can say to a man which a man cannot say, and I am saying them to you — General de Gaulle!”

  • Richard Underhill 8th Dec '17 - 4:10pm

    Winston. S. Churchill’s command of the French language is covered in his own book The Second World War, volume two, Relations with Vichy and Spain, pages 404 et seq. He broadcast to occupied France in French, with some help.

  • @ Richard Underhill Winston Churchill (nor his wife) did not threaten to execute Charles de Gaulle – not even after a bad lunch in 10, Downing Street.

  • Execution apart, he kissed him on both cheeks.

    Winston Churchill and Charles de Gaulle reunion 14 years after WWII …
    Video for churchill de gaulle▶ 1:05
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvrWIE1DCCY

    PS. I wouldn’t take Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson’s biography of Churchill as serious history……. more a case of hurried fiction on manoeuvres with a bit of self serving impersonation.

  • Peter Hirst 9th Dec '17 - 2:16pm

    I like the idea of a first referendum. It reinforces my view that last year’s was illegitimate for a variety of reasons. It could give us some mileage explaining it.

  • Richard Underhill 21st Dec '17 - 7:53pm

    David Raw 7th Dec ’17 – 2:23pm Try doing a Google. There are several hits. Churchill needed France and bigged up de Gaulle, including trying to install him in charge in Dakar.
    Roy Jenkins (page 327) that Winston “said semi-satirically, later in the second world war that the heaviest cross he had to bear was that of Lorraine (that is of General de Gaulle). On page 764 Roy Jenkins writes “no matter how much Churchill fulminated against him from the summer of 1941 to that of 1944, and indeed threatened completely to disown him, that never happened. … every year which went by de Gaulle’s popularity in occupied France rose inexorably .. and for all his tiresome pirouetting on a slender power base, de Gaulle was genuinely a great man, perhaps the greatest statesman in Western Europe, apart from himself”.

  • Richard Underhill 22nd Dec '17 - 7:57pm

    The bombing of Dublin on 30 May 1941 may have been a consequence of “Operation Y”, interference with Luftwaffe signalling.

  • Richard Underhill. You claimed some weeks ago that Churchill intended or attempted to assassinate de Gaulle.

    He didn’t and there is not a shred of historical evidence to suggest that he did. I don’t need to google anything to say that, so please give it a rest.

    There a difference between finding a person irritating or difficult and having them bumped off.

  • Richard Underhill 23rd Dec '17 - 1:26pm

    Richard O’Neill 7th Dec ’17: “The complaint about the DUP seems wide of the mark. The power of small parties to dictate terms is an inevitable part of hung parliaments. PR which is advocated so often here garuntees almost perpetual hung parliaments.”
    The so-called “democratic” unionist party is the largest party in Northern Ireland now, although their founder, the late Ian Paisley, was reluctant to accept the Belfast Agreement. There was an election for the devolved assembly earlier this year, but it has not yet met, which disenfranchises those who did not vote for Sinn Fein or the DUP and who deserve representation. The electoral system in Northern Ireland for the Assembly, for local government (and for the European Parliament) is the Single Transferable Vote, which is not a perfectly proportionate system, but it does deliver what the electorate voted for as their first preference and their second preference, and their third preference, etc. Protecting minorities is the reason for the use of the system in Northern Ireland, although it has not been extended to Westminster MPs. It does not automatically cause hung parliaments. For instance in the Republic of Ireland Fianna Fail have often had an overall majority in their parliament, the Dail. At other times there has been a coalition.
    South Africa is in the news. Since the end of apartheid the system has been pure proportional representation by party list, although with photos of party leaders on the ballot papers many voters thought they were choosing ANC leader Nelson Mandela as President. He was elected by the parliament. Because of the demography the ANC has won every nationwide election since then. Black on black violence was ended by providing regional government elected by the same system of proportional representation.

  • Richard Underhill 23rd Dec '17 - 1:54pm

    David Raw 22nd Dec ’17 – 10:51pm: Please do not distort what I said. You can see it above.
    I have just read 500 pages written by Winston S Churchill. He wrote that de Gaulle explained to him what the French people expected the leader of the free French to say.
    Please also consider matters of life and death during World War 2. Churchill ordered British soldiers at Calais to hold their positions against the German advance. They were told that they would not be relieved. They should expect to be killed or captured. They should not try to join an evacuation (which happened at Dunkirk) in order to protect those who were being evacuated, all British and French equally. Those on the ground thought that there was no air cover. The RAF were above the clouds, outnumbered 3 to 1 by the Luftwaffe. They were ordered to attack and did so, although if they were hit they would parachute into France. Churchill wrote that the Luftwaffe were hit in a ratio of three and a half to one.

  • @ Richard Underhill. I’m afraid I didn’t distort what you said – but I see no purpose in prolonging this exchange.

  • Richard Underhill 27th Dec '17 - 11:13pm

    Chris Park: Returning to the subject of referendum/s, please see Roy Jenkins’ biography of Churchill [ISBN 0 33378290 9] (2001) page 185 -186. As a former Home Secretary himself Jenkins is reviewing Winston Churchill’s record as Home Secretary in the Liberal Government under Asquith. “In rare contrast to Asquith (anti) and Grey (pro), Churchill took a middle course: he favoured an early extension of the vote to some women, but only if it could be achieved without undue political disturbance (meaning, as he urged in private, only if it could be done without harming Liberal electoral prospects, such as might be the result of a high property qualification). A reform to meet these objectives was almost impossible to devise; and as the partisan motive was equally impossible to articulate in public, he was reduced to equivocations such as those he was reported as using at Dundee during the December 1910 general election.”
    … “by the end of 1911 internal divisions on the issue became so serious that Churchill
    warned Asquith that his government might come to grief and perish. …
    Churchill’s proposed solution was a referendum on the issue, as a device to enable the competing camps to fight it out to a resolution without endangering the government’s survival. This found no favour with Asquith, and womens’ suffrage remained unresolved, amid periodic crises, until the outbreak of war pushed it into temporary limbo (along with Irish Home Rule) in 1914.”
    {There was a free vote in the Commons in 1917, at a time when David Lloyd George was Prime Minister, Mrs Pankhurst suspended her campaign during the war and because of it. Women voted in 1918. Asquith lost his seat. Women voted on the basis of equality in the 1929 general election}.
    Churchill was later quoted as saying that referendums were used by Hitler and Mussolini and were therefore undemocratic. They were also used by de Gaulle. Having changed parties at least twice WSC was not always consistent over his lifetime.

  • Richard Underhill 31st Dec '17 - 12:39pm

    David Raw 8th Dec ’17 – 4:32pm: Proving a negative is notoriously difficult. There were, of course, many attempts to assassinate de Gaulle after the war. Terrorists machine-gunned his Citroen, but did not kill him. There was even a dramatized film about it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Day_of_the_Jackal.
    Assassinate: “To murder (especially a prominent person) violently, often publicly”.
    Execute: “To put to death by law.” (ISBN 0 550 10203 5) 1970.
    We might nowadays say that de Gaulle was a loose cannon, willing to lead an overland military expedition to take Dakar, and thereby gamble with his own life, but unable to maintain military secrecy among the Free French, or to effectively punish leaks.
    WSC writes that the UK had emergency powers greater than Hitler or Mussolini, including powers over aliens. He was simply telling de Gaulle to accept the reality of political and military powers. WSC’s own power ebbed away as the USA put in increased resources. In WW1 FDR had arranged for the North Sea to be mined from Scotland to Norway to keep the German fleet at home. As A neutral in WW2 he offered to buy French warships from Vichy, to prevent them being taken by Germany. Petain refused because the Germans would not allow it. French PM Reynaud had failed to move them to, for instance, to the French West Indies. They were shelled by the Royal Navy, hence de Gaulle was annoyed, as above.

  • Richard Underhill 31st Dec '17 - 6:39pm

    I understand that there is a film out about the evacuation of Dunkirk, filmed in good light with blue skies. Huge numbers of French, British and other Allied soldiers though that there was no air cover. WSC writes that the RAF were above the clouds, outnumbered 3 to 1 by the Luftwaffe but scoring at three and a half to one. The best response to dive bombers is/was ground to air artillery.

  • “HISTORY shall be kind to me,” Winston Churchill is said to have remarked. “I know because I’ll be writing it.” When you’ve finished the Churchill volumes I suggest you have a look at Professor David Reynold’s, ‘In Command of History: Churchill Fighting and Writing the Second World War’. Paperback: 672 pages Penguin; Second Edition edition (30 Jun. 2005) ISBN-10: 0141019646 and ISBN-13: 978-0141019642

    You can then assess how much of the volumes Churchill actually wrote himself and how much of it was accurate or self-serving.

    Reynolds is Professor of International History and a Fellow at Clare College, Cambridge.

  • Richard Underhill 1st Jan '18 - 2:03pm

    David Raw 31st Dec ’17 – 7:52pm: I have recently read WSC’s Second World War, Their Finest Hour. He was generally a great hero when I was a child, despite his age, and was my local MP. My parents probably voted for him in the 1959 (Tory landslide) general election. My history master at Chigwell said that “He is not a historian’s historian” and recommended The struggle for Europe by Chester Wilmot, published by Collins in London. Sorry, no ISBN in those days. It is noticeable that WSC includes many documents he wrote himself, but not the replies, although subsequent letters and orders give hints about what the replies. I understand that the reason is the Official Secrets Act. WSC had access to documents he had written himself, other people were denied.
    He had a safe seat in Epping Forest/ Wanstead and Woodford (now Redbridge). He had throughout his life written books for large amounts of money. Please see commentary by former Chancellor of the Exchequer Roy Jenkins about WSC’s personal finances in ISBN 0 333 72890 9 (MacMillan, 2001).
    He does give detailed explanations about what happened with the Free French and Vichy about Dakar, please see pages 191 et seq.
    Quick quiz: WSC wrote that he had told the PM that the entire British army could go to France. So, why? and who was the PM?
    MacMillan? Eden?
    Lloyd-George? Asquith? Campbell-Bannerman ?

  • Asquith. who was very cross when WSC took himself off to Antwerp.

  • Ps He got £ 18 million paid into a special trust fund for the WW2 series so he could avoid income tax.

  • Richard Underhill 2nd Jan '18 - 4:26pm

    David Raw 1st Jan ’18 – 4:12pm: Asquith because the navy could defend the UK.
    David Raw 1st Jan ’18 – 4:14pm: Who were the beneficiaries? what sources?

  • Richard Underhill 3rd Jan '18 - 10:26pm

    David Raw 31st Dec ’17 – 7:52pm “HISTORY shall be kind to me,”
    Roy Jenkins writes in great detail about the Norway debate (see also Jeremy Paxman) page 610 “mendacity” “Future generations may deem it noteworthy that the supreme question of whether we should fight on alone never found a place upon the War Cabinet agenda. It was taken for granted and as a matter of course by these men of all parties in the State, and we were much too busy to waste time upon such unreal academic issues”.
    Roy Jenkins draws upon several diaries and memoirs.
    Lord Halifax was made Ambassador to Washington.
    “On the shelling of the French fleet at Oran, etcetera Jenkins, writes on 624, that 1,299 French sailors had been killed in the action, and another 350 wounded. This engagement had a rankling effect on Franco-British relations for many years.”
    Alternatively de Gaulle’s attitude to Harold Macmillan was affected by the Common Agricultural Policy, the Common Fisheries Policy and the existence of the British Empire at the time and the Commonwealth. Macmillan’s negotiator, Edward Heath went through all this in great detail and achieved agreement. He later did a deal with President Pompidou. Soames was ambassador to Paris. The embassy had good French wines. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Soames

  • Richard Underhill 12th Jan '18 - 4:02pm

    David Raw 8th Dec ’17 – 4:51pm: Roy Jenkins comments on WSC’s attitude to capital cities, wanting to reach them before the “Russians” (Soviets) which was only achieved in the case of Copenhagen. Churchill’s optimism is very difficult times included a forecast that he would walk with de Gaulle in Paris. When it could happen de Gaulle’s ego was opposed to him sharing the limelight. Paris was an obvious political objective, but the military objective could have been the retreating German army. There is no mention of General Patten (USA) in the invasion of Sicily, as a decoy in the UK before and after D-Day (Operation Overlord) nor of his ambition to use the huge US armed forces against the USSR after the unconditional surrender of Nazi Germany. Politicians in Washington had no wish to do that.
    WSC was reading less of his in-tray. He comments himself that King George VI had often read papers which the PM had not yet reached. (Their Finest Hour)

  • Mr Underhill Churchill did walk in Paris with de Gaulle 11 November, 1944. Play the film.

    Winston Churchill and De Gaulle place wreath and salute at the Arc de …
    Video for critical past arc de triomphe churchill▶ 3:21
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZO4KHwecto

    As for Copenhagen, Dad was one of the first 1,000 Allied troops there.Flew his Tiffy in to Kaastrup airfield from Flensburg (still occupied by the Luftwaffe) early morning of 6 May, 1945. I remember we were sent a box of Danish cheese and butter, a picture book, and a statue of the Little Mermaid as a thank you from King Christian. Still got the Little Mermaid and the King’s letter – always think of Dad when I see it.

  • Richard Underhill 13th Jan '18 - 1:22pm

    “Churchill did walk in Paris with de Gaulle 11 November, 1944.” I know.
    “Play the film.” I did, but it needs to be seen in context.
    Churchill was no longer responsible for de Gaulle at this stage. After D-Day, he did not have to ‘bear the cross’ (of Lorraine).
    Please bear in mind the size of the Free French forces, compared with the British, Canadian and US forces, etcetera.

  • Richard Underhill 13th Jan '18 - 1:28pm
  • Not on your link it doesn’t.

  • Richard Underhill 14th Jan '18 - 12:02pm

    Second Referendum? When was the first one?
    The question of WHEN? has been answered, but perceptions of WHY? are various.
    Three out of five screens at our local Odeon are showing The Darkest Hour, which deserves the good reviews it is getting. It should be used for history and politics students, particularly because most of what happened occurred in the war cabinet, the outer cabinet or in the House of Commons.
    Winston S. Churchill MP had “strategic vision”. There is also a demonstration of party political tribalism being put ahead of the national interest, scope for many essays.

  • OnceALibDem 14th Jan '18 - 3:27pm

    @Richard Underhill.

    No it doesn’t. Possibly if you search (as you appear to have done) for “I can have you executed churchill de gaulle” it might (and none of the top three links for that carries such a story).

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

If you are a member of the party, you can have the Lib Dem Logo appear next to your comments to show this. You must be registered for our forum and can then login on this public site with the same username and password.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?

Advert



Recent Comments

  • User AvatarMick Taylor 21st Sep - 9:40am
    As I said to Vince Cable during his Q&A session at conference, hypothecated taxes are a huge con trick, because all taxes are fungible. That,...
  • User AvatarLiberal Neil 21st Sep - 9:39am
    I'm less charitable than you about it being a bounce, but that's not the main thing. I strongly believe that some form of supporters scheme...
  • User AvatarTom Harney 21st Sep - 9:28am
    One of the problems in our education system - perhaps the main one - is the never ending changes. We need stability. We need a...
  • User AvatarPhilip Knowles 21st Sep - 9:26am
    As I've said previosly on other topics about devolution, the key is getting regions sufficiently large enough (or regionally distinct) to attract sufficient support and...
  • User Avatarnvelope2003 21st Sep - 9:20am
    Thank you for the interesting information about the pre 1948 National Health service as a result of my brief comment about the situation before that...
  • User AvatarRussel McPhate 21st Sep - 9:14am
    Generally, i am happy with all of the proposals except that supporters should get to vote for the leader. That is a choice that should...