Most suggestions for resolving the “What the (insert expletive of choice) do we do now?” conundrum tend to involve various degrees of access to the Single Market or a General Election. Few are brave enough to suggest that Parliament simply declines to invoke Article 50. Until now.
Professor A C Grayling, Master of the New College of Humanities in London, has written to all MPs telling them that they have a responsibility not to support any such motion. He lists several reasons, not least the paucity of the campaign, the likelihood of the break up of the UK if we leave the EU and the fact that the threshold for such a huge change was set way too low. He has a point. You can’t change the number of places on a toddler group committee without a 2/3 majority. When the party conference considers a vast swathe of constitutional amendments in September, they will need a 2/3 majority to pass. With hindsight, you have to wonder why on earth we let such a major change through on a simple majority.
Harvard’s Professor Kenneth Rogoff agrees that the threshold is too low:
In terms of durability and conviction of preferences, most societies place greater hurdles in the way of a couple seeking a divorce than Prime Minister David Cameron’s government did on the decision to leave the EU. Brexiteers did not invent this game; there is ample precedent, including Scotland in 2014 and Quebec in 1995. But, until now, the gun’s cylinder never stopped on the bullet. Now that it has, it is time to rethink the rules of the game.
Grayling isn’t a fan of referenda anyway:
Now I beg: really do consider the implications of the foregoing thought. Referendums are snapshots of sentiment at a given point in time. Government by referendum is government by crowd acclamation: not democracy, but ochlocracy. That is exactly why we have representative democracy. If referendums would be a poor way to decide on health and safety, air traffic control, or education, they are an exceedingly poor way to decide a matter as momentous as membership of the EU. This is and should be a matter for Parliament, taking all factors into account.
So far, so interesting, but would Parliament do something as major as rejecting what appears to be the settled will of the people? Is that so completely unthinkable?
Maybe not. After all, it’s not as if the democratic will of the people is ever enacted.
The people of this country didn’t elect a majority Conservative Government. Only 37% of them voted Conservative. The Tories should have had 37% of MPs if the people had got the Parliament they asked for. You could say the same thing about virtually every Government in living memory – except the Coalition. Although, of course, if the people had got the Parliament they asked for, it would have been very different – there would have been almost 3 times the number of Liberal Democrats and a lot fewer Conservatives.
When else does British democracy deliver? Oh yes, in elections to the European Parliament when voters get pretty much what they ask for.
British democracy is broken and the will of the people is never enacted as it should be anyway. That is an argument to fix the broken system so that we don’t end up with so many people feeling disengaged and powerless. It’s no wonder that a slogan “Take Back Control” shouted at every opportunity seemed attractive even though its result is even less control for the people.
I never thought that Liberal Democrat MPs should vote in favour of a motion to invoke Article 50 anyway. It is so alien to our principles as an outward looking, internationalist party. I always felt we should cast our vote in line with the wishes of the 48% who voted to Remain. I’d never seriously considered Parliament throwing out the whole thing, though.
How would I feel if the boot was on the other foot and Parliament voted to Leave when 52% of us had voted to Remain? Not chuffed that’s for sure. But there would be a way of getting rid of those MPs and getting the new Parliament to think again. If the people agreed, they would elect a majority of Remainers. And so it could be in this instance.
If Parliament was going to do something as controversial as rejecting a motion on Article 50, it would have to come as part of a package of constitutional reform and serious action to sort out the concerns about low pay and effects of immigration that some people genuinely feel. That’s not about restricting the movement of people, it’s about building more houses and providing more GPs, schools and other public services. That way, people would feel that they were being listened to. And before anyone grumbles about how much this would cost, it would be next to nothing compared to the amount of money that’s gone out of this country since the Brexit vote.
There would also have to be a General Election.
An alternative answer to the question comes from Nick Clegg in the Guardian. He says that there should be a General Election before Article 50 is invoked.
Importantly, the election must be held before any attempt is made to activate article 50, the legal mechanism triggering the negotiations for EU exit. Starting that clock ticking before people have had an opportunity to cast a judgment on what life would actually look like outside the EU would be deeply undemocratic. The Fixed-Term Parliaments Act 2011 envisaged exceptional circumstances in which an early election can be held, and those provisions should be invoked.
The baton then moves to the newly elected parliament. It will have two tasks: MPs must scrutinise the government’s specific plan to ensure it is legal and workable, and, crucially, article 50 should only be triggered following a vote of consent from MPs. Some have argued that the prime minister can invoke article 50 on her/his own, using royal prerogative powers. Many top legal experts, including Lord Pannick and Lord Lester, disagree.
One flaw in Nick’s argument is that I’m not sure that we yet have enough information about what life would properly look like outside the EU. We can’t until we have half an idea about the exit terms we’d be able to negotiate.
As much as others need to set out a plan for Brexit, we need to have a plan for persuading people to stay in and changing public opinion to the extent that any new Tory PM would have real trouble invoking Article 50. We don’t have much time to lose on that one.
What do you think?
* Caron Lindsay is Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and blogs at Caron's Musings. You can find her on Bluesky at caronmlindsay.bsky.social
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Doing better? The goal must be Sufficeincy
Michael Meadowcroft (1942-2026) - A Liberal to His Core
The Joy of Six 1529
Labour deputy claims that Farage is a threat to democracy
Jason Connor
Mick Taylor
Chloe
theakes
Kira Collins
82 Comments
I think that this all comes down to a need for second referendum, with properly phrased alternatives. I am unconvinced that we do know what the people actually want, given the fairly large pool of Leavers who seem to be having buyer’s remorse or saying that they didn’t really know what their vote meant. It seems typical, somehow, of Cameron and his clique to have presented the public with such a shoddy, poorly designed referendum without anything like the proper degree of forethought. In these circumstances, I believe that parliament has an obligation to intervene, to either set aside an inadequate referendum altogether or to mandate a properly constructed one, with specific commitments embedded into each alternative.
The threshold was indeed too low.
Had Remain won by 52%, Leave would rightly and probably successfully have argued that such a narrow margin could not resolve the issue “for a generation”, and that the question should be asked again, in (say) 5 or 10 years time. If we leave, we cannot similarly just ask the question again in 10 years time. That is why the toddler group committee constitution sets a higher threshold for major constitutional change, and that is why we should match their wisdom.
It is a live issue, in particular because of Scotland. 50% should never have been accepted as the threshold for the Indyref, either, and it should not be accepted for a future Indyref.
Parliament can and should legislate on this. I would propose the following:
In any future referendum on constitutional change, the threshold required to go ahead with the change should be 60%: and,
If the proposed change wins more than 50% but less than 60% of the vote, then the question must be put to the nation in a second referendum in ten years’ time.
I’m a passionate democrat, so it hurt me to say after the vote that I thought it should be ignored. The point is the immediate aftermath was such a disaster that it seemed bizarre to vote to cement the disaster in place.
I’ve calmed down a bit now, and I’m fine with Article 50 being triggered if we can already be confident we are getting a good deal, but not until then. The FTSE has recovered, but the pound has not, and would an EEA-minus kind of deal really be so bad? My instinct is the EU are being too tough on the conditions and we should try to get something better than what other, less powerful countries, have managed to negotiate.
The public do know what they want – they want a planned migration system (ie a normal one that there is in every non-EU country). They want us to open up to the world in trade (ie a normal trade policy that is there in every non-EU country). They want us to have more control over our borders and our laws (just like they normally have in every non-EU country).
It’s the Lib Dems that can’t get their heads around what the country wants. It’s because they are now part of the establishment (even worse they now have no power and still go along with the establishment game).
Politics is divided between europhiles who think and have the mindset attitude that Europe comes first and everything must revolve around how we fit into the Euro elites (come what may) and a Britain first attitude that demands new realities based around our strengths to help Europe along. It’s quite simple – the LIb Dems are on the wrong side of history. There’s a sea change happening in British politics and the Lib Dems are washed up on the shore.
We do have control over our borders. The countries that we have reciprocal arrangements with we decided. Since we joined the EU we have approved every new entry. One major reason that we have immigration is that we go out looking for people. The NHS is a case in point. And so is teaching.
We do have control of our own laws.
The North Korean model doesn’t work in North Korea and won’t work here,
Jane, you have a very strange idea of how trade deals and international diplomacy work. When countries enter into them, there are always concessions in terms of law, migration, tariffs/tariff removal etc. You can’t just march up to other countries and get everything on your terms.
Furthermore, to be a Europhile does not mean putting Europe first, despite your profoundly offensive claims to the contrary. It means having a realistic appreciation of Britain’s place in the world and recognizing that our economic and diplomatic interests are best served by working within Europe’s largest trade bloc, rather than flouncing out of it without anything like a coherent plan because some part of the British people are living in a fantasy world about being able to get whatever they want, whenever they want while giving Johnny Foreigner nothing.
The answer to Caron’s question is, of course, YES.
Parliament is sovereign, and Parliament must do what is in the best interests of the country. The Referendum was a consultation exercise, and its outcome is binding on no-one. Even if it were binding, it could be argued that any consent that the electorate gave was vitiated by fraud.
There is a “but”.
If the Prime Minister tells Parliament that Article 50 will not be invoked, will she mean “not be invoked at this moment” or “not be invoked in the foreseeable future” or “never be invoked”?
In order to have a clear answer, there will need to be a revised package on the table and a second referendum to supersede the first one (to counteract the political effect of the first one rather than to bind anyone). Such a package might include an opt-out from the common policies, though it is unlikely that much can be done on free movement of workers.
At the moment, politicians are talking in code. Not invoke Article 50 immediately means not invoke Article 50 full stop. But they fear the wrath of the tabloids if they say it out loud. Labour, of course, is terrified of losing votes to UKIP. But the Tories will be under pressure from the large number of very wealthy and well-connected supporters who know perfectly well that Brexit would be a disaster, and will resist it in private whatever they might say in public (look at how the vote went in Surrey, Thames Valley, Westminster and K&C for confirmation).
A solution to satisfy both sides of the post-referendum divide: https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/B01HQFYKD4/ref=mp_s_a_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1467588782&sr=1-6&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_QL65&keywords=eu+referendum&dpPl=1&dpID=510-J0j2LCL&ref=plSrch
The referendum is done. The argument was mainly about sovereignty and a democratic deficit not just in the EU, but also at home. Trying to undo the vote will cause more problems and will quite rightly be perceived as the elite working to dissolve the people. It would be much better to invoke article 50 and negotiate properly. Britain has always been a reluctant member of the EU and essentially peripheral to the aim of creating a ever closer union.
There’s a lot of talk about a post referendum mess, but really the confusion is caused by established political figures, party machines and the opinion makers co-joined with them refusing to accept that the game is up.
Yes. This is a much better line to take than to call for a second referendum, which would be 1) no less advisory than the first, so we cannot plausibly say, we should heed this one and ignore that; and 2) even if it came out for remain would be unlikely to do so by a greater margin than the original one came out for leave, so it would only tell us what we already know, that the country is divided on the question. A campaign for parliament to vote down the invocation of article 50 would put the idea firmly on the agenda, and would gain us credit even if in the end we don’t achieve it.
An excellent article and puts the finger on the problem with the Clegg proposal. The Brexiteers will keep peddling the line that they can negotiate unrestricted access to the single market AND controls on EU migration until reality hits them in the face like a brick wall. If we have an election before reality hits them, people might still vote for what is almost certainly a fantasy.
The best solution is for them to negotiate the best deal they can (preferably without invoking Article 50) and then put that to a General Election. If they can deliver what they claim, then they will win. If they can’t, they will lose.
Hi Glenn
The mess is real enough in terms of damage to our economy. It is also real enough in terms of Brexiteers continuing to promise inconsistent things. The difficulty which Brexiteers continue to ignore is the inconsistency in my comment above. So, what do you prefer = “out of the single market” or “free movement for EU citizens”?
@Eddie
This may have been mentioned above – but the FTSE100 is not a good indicator, as it’s made up largely of multinational, multicurrency organisations. The FTSE250 is better and that has not recovered as well.
However both are averaging out losses and gains – thus hiding the true impact. ie a 48% rise for a Mexico based gold mining company with no UK exposure vs 30% fall in UK banks & UK building companies.
The truth is that the value of organisations with significant exposure in the UK has been hit hard – and British companies are considered too risky.
As is British science.
As are British universities.
Etc. ad nauseum.
Thanks AM, yes that is very true and in exams I did years ago I was taught most of the FTSE 100 is invested overseas, I think about 70%, but I still worry about it because of pensions.
Good point on the FTSE 250 though, I haven’t been monitoring that.
I thought question time the other day pinpointed why out won. A plumber in the audience said his wages were too low because of competition from immigrant labour. During the campaign, and especially the day after, no one promised to curtail immigration whatsoever. The phrase I heard in the small print was ‘allow immigration according to the needs of the economy’. Which is precisely what we have now. There are ways we could reduce the need for immigrant labour. More training to boost skills to get the unemployed we do have suited to well paid employment. Education in the Uk is in a state of collapse. Most obviously, if the economy needs more workers than we have, then the solution is to reduce the size of the economy. Not a palateble one to successive governments committed to growth and also committed to keeping down wages. Not clear that a shrinking economy would increase wages for our plumber either.
But our plumber friend in the audience is also suffering from other government policies. The housing shortage which has massively pushed up his housing costs is the biggest cost we all face and has completely distorted the economy. The government believes in cutting taxes on the rich and therby redistributing less to the poor. This is a trend which has been going on for decades. The plumber’s problem is that Uk governments have not shown him how the Uk is richer inside the EU, because he has not been the one benefitting from that wealth. What he sees is himself poor in comparison with those who have done well.
I am concerned all this implies that life outside the Eu could very well rapidly spiral back into exactly the situation we had before we joined, with grossly uncompetitive industry.
Parliament ought to consider the stated aims of brexit as well as the result. Since staying in is more likely to achieve those aims than leaving…it is hard to see how anyone could take this as a vote to leave. The leave policies are what voters really voted for, not brexit per se.
Mark
You can have free movement without the right to reside, which is a change as recent as 2004 and was delayed, by I believe 9 years, in most EU countries. I suspect a lot of those nations will happily negotiate on that one. As for free trade. We are a net importer. They threaten us with tariffs. We threaten them. The damage is not one way so there will be an incentive to be cautious. Personally, I think protectionism has it upsides and the overpricing of some goods may mean there is an incentive to manufacture and the need for an alternative supply would also help emerging. economies. I’m far from certain, you even need trade deals as such.
Given that the EU has just made very clear to Switzerland that access to the free market requires acceptance of free movement, it is time for the Brexiteers to stop peddling their fantasies about Britain negotiating a deal on different terms. They should also realize that negotiating trade deals with the US is going to take a considerable period of time and that we cannot negotiate such deals until we have left the EU. Canada, for example, took many years to reach a trade deal with the US. Furthermore, when we leave the EU we lose labour protection laws, environmental protection laws and a variety of other benefits that we are unlikely to receive from a Tory government. No Leaver has bothered to offer any coherent plan for how we replace them, just as no Leaver has come up with anything other than fantasies of our economic future. What will they do when the financial industry removes 100,000 jobs to Frankfurt, Berlin and other EU-connected cities? What will they do when the loss of those jobs leads to a loss of related jobs – by some estimates up to 1 million jobs? Jumping recklessly into a fantasy future without a plan in the name of a nebulous “sovereignty” is grossly irresponsible and a betrayal of Britain’s future. If parliament does find the commonsense to do its duty and rejects this miserably inadequate referendum, we should thank them for having done their job properly for once.
Hi Glenn
You are not really answering the question. There is “free trade” and there is “full access to the single market”. Canada has a free trade agreement with the EU but it falls way short of full access to the single market and most people believe it would be a disaster for us (not to mention that it took 7 years to put in place). NickT has summarised why I think that the combination of full access to the single market and curbs on EU migration would be impossible to pull off in Brexit talks.
But in any event, it is a hypothetical. No doubt, the Tory government will try its absolute hardest to get both full access to the single market and curbs on EU migration (since a failure is going to leave them in a very awkward spot). And if they can pull that off, I would accept that I have to live with it. But what if they can’t, which would you sacrifice? And more importantly, doesn’t everyone in Britain deserve a say on it?
“After all, it’s not as if the democratic will of the people is ever enacted. The people of this country didn’t elect a majority Conservative Government. Only 37% of them voted Conservative. The Tories should have had 37% of MPs if the people had got the Parliament they asked for.”
You, Caron, do not get to decide that for the rest of us. So much flapping about the legitimacy of FPTP when that itself is a settled question. Were it otherwise, we might imagine the party of constitutional tinkering would be riding higher than 1.4% of MP’s.
As you say, Caron, we DO have democratic European elections, and we do and have elected (and dismissed) various MEPs, or at least, Parties. Your view about constitutional change, and the need for a much more substantial majority than 50% +1, is something that has been much discussed in his house, and with concerned people. How did we all allow that to happen, as you ask??
Another key issue is the lies and distortions used on the Leave side – it is clear that the leading proponents of Vote Leave are in disarray or out of the picture, largely because of those lies, and Farage’s Leave.EU regarded as too extreme and very much a minority to be allowed too much influence. All these factors should weigh on the pro-Remain majority of MPs when they discuss and vote on this.
@Nick and others
Please correct me if I’m wrong, but as I understand it all EU-based legislation, such as enhanced employment rights, is voted on and approved by parliament / the government of each member state.
The EU sets the minimum requirements, and each sovereign state ensures their laws comply (hence the nonsense of “taking back control” – we have it.).
It’s problematic in that it creates asymmetry between states but means laws can be tailored to suit & minimums improved upon.
Thus all current legislation will remain compliant & in place post-brexit until the Tories (or an authoritarian Labour) choose to dismantle the law when in government – at which point there will be no one from the EU to protect us – the people – from shoddy government.
Not all British citizens got the vote. Those abroad for more than 15 years were unable to vote. While small in number it is still a significant group. Some of those that were able to vote found they did not have time to return their postal votes.
The referendum was fought on the lines of a general election not on the basis of important constitutional and economic issues.
This matter will go to Parliament, at some stage, but the Commons will support Brexit – because by the time it goes to Parliament there will be a ‘plan’ of what form the Tories want for Brexit. Just listen to every Tory involved directly or as a supporter of a candidate. Especially The Foreign Secretary this morning.
It is called political management. And the Liberal Democrats have lost the art of political management, which is why we are where we are.
So, will the Lords vote against and block what would at the time be painted as the will of the people (in a referendum) and the will of the recently elected House of Commons? Should that be out stance as a Party, that our Peers should vote against?
We are still going through the cycles of grief. We are frantically looking round for reasons why what has happened may not really have happened.
Shouldn’t we be more rational and direct out energies to campaigning on what Brexit would be most Liberal and therefore most beneficial for the long term future of the country and its citizens?
Shouldn’t we be campaigning for the full menu of the single markets’s four freedoms consistent with Brexit? That is EEA membership. And against the EEA+ likely solution which will compromise those freedoms?
My comment on the article – (currently I’m just being a splitter ) –
Parliament should vote in the interests of the country, following consideration of the opinions put forward by the referendum – but also the facts. It is their job, as representatives, to understand & answer the complex questions & work in the interests of their constituents. Not just go with popular opinion.
The legislation was not binding. No one won. People just voted. Parliament was advised. The government must now put together a plan to leave that parliament can vote on, or we stay.
If the result was going to be binding then the threshold for such an extreme change should have been higher.
I too regret not realising how damagingly stupid & shortsighted the rules were – hindsight is 20/20 I guess.
Having said all that… how do you sell that to a politically disengaged but angry public? We know the media reaction alone will whip everyone into a frenzy. (“Not a democracy”, “elite MPs vote against you”, “hang the traitors” etc…)
There are 3 key questions 1 )Should there be another referendum? 2) Should MPs have an article 50 debate and vote? 3) Should the new Tory leader run a general election. 1) No 2) Yes 3) They should but they probably wont unless the Tories are convinced they can win an extra 100 seats.
Neither Prof Grayling nor Prof Rogoff raised their objections prior to the referendum. That was presumably because they, like so many supposedly informed people, thought there would be a majority for Remain. Post-Referendum, the call to invalidate the vote is coming from the losers. But then that is standard practice in the EU: when people vote the wrong way make them vote again until they come up with the right answer. In 1975 when the referendum produced a majority for remain we did not hear any of these objections to the result.
Nick Clegg wants the result validated by a General Election which is ironic given that the three parties colluded to keep the EU issue out of General Elections for forty years. In any case, why would you listen to a man who led your party to destruction?
You call for a plan to persuade people to change their minds. Well, assuming you had a plan to convince people in the first place, it didn’t work. So why will a new plan succeed? Shades of Baldrick? This time a really cunning plan?
The EU is not liberal nor is it democratic. If you want to be truly internationalist and open, you have to find a better way and then convince people of your case.
Nick Clegg comments in the Guardian. I would think to persuade more people articles should be aimed at the Right wing press outlets,hard though it may be.
I am somewhat at a loss to understand some of the posts who appear to want to lay down and accept that this deeply flawed referendum which became less a judgement on the EU but more on our societys anger at the divide created by the Tory party over the last 6 years and its accelerating effect on the working class. Ally those concerns to those racist groups development of the view that immigration would disappear if they voted leave and you had the perfect recipe for an out vote. I appreciate the rush from Labour and the Tories to accept the result undermines any belief that it could be overturned in a Commons or Lords vote, so for our party to identify as the party of the 48 is a political positive and we should continue to argue for a second referendum once the Tory and Labour leadership is in place.
I see no problem at the same time in campaigning on many issues which did affect the result and are genuine. Housing,NHS funding and public services in general but the priority should be to argue that any Brexit proposal which precludes this country from being in the EEC,should be opposed completely and by whatever weapons are available
Referenda are not binding, just advisory. If Parliament overides how would that be seen or perceived. Very tricky. a sizable body of people appear to have voted on just the subject of immigration and little or nothing else. My heart says Parliament should have to approve, my head worries about the consequences if they do not. The simple answer is a second referendum in the Autumn just to make sure, but that aint going to happen.
I suspect even Boris Johnson is wondering if he did the right thing. Do the negatives of Brexit outweigh the “benefits”?. The way he spoke this morning could be interpreted to suggest this might be so. I do not know.
Things may turn out strangely and unexpectedly in the coming weeks and months
@James Hicklin
“Neither Prof Grayling nor Prof Rogoff raised their objections prior to the referendum.”
Really? And you know that … how?
Post-Referendum, the call to invalidate the vote is coming from the losers.”
It’s not really invalidated; it’s simply that a 52% to 48% margin is too close to make an irrevocable move out of the EU.
In 1975 when the referendum produced a majority for remain we did not hear any of these objections to the result.”
Yes we did! Why else do you think we had this second referendum? It was because a minority (as was their right) didn’t accept the overwhelming (2 to 1) democratic vote.
The problem is that it only works one way. If we decide to stay in the EU we can always decide to exit some time in the future. If, however, we decide to exit then we cannot – in practical terms – decide to go back in some time subsequently.
That is why David Allen is totally correct in what he said last night in posting no. 2.
Somebody had better get on the phone to Nicola Sturgeon and tell her not to bother with a referendum. Hardly seems much point in having one if the government can just ignore the result.
Caron asks what our message should be to persuade people to stay in and change public opinion.
1. The new PM cannot be allowed to hide behind a mandate won by her predecessor on a totally different platform. She must seek legitimacy to a) pursue specified objectives in negotiations with the EU and b) carry out completely different economic policies than those presented to the electorate last year (as per point 3. below).
This argument goes beyond the narrow one of wanting to reverse the referendum vote. It could generate support beyond the 48% for an immediate General Election. It would encourage Remain Tory MPs to argue for a GE within their party. If push comes to shove, if their leadership remains reticent, it would help particularly brave MPs (it would take some 20 of them) to vote against their government in a motion of no-confidence. Experienced parliamentarians here may say there is no way this could happen. But the times really are exceptional.
2. We, as LibDems, should stick to our guns on immigration but change the nature of the discourse. We should point out that no leading Brexiter is committed to reduce immigration substantially. Instead, they have expressed the wish to replace EU migrants with ones from the Commonwealth. We should explain that it is far more likely, for geographic and cultural reasons, for EU migrants to return home someday than people from the Commonwealth.
3. We should reveal the precise nature of the Tory right’s vision for a New Britain. As Osborne said last night, it is of a nation with a “super-competitive economy”, with corporation tax at 15%. And what do “super-competitive economies” look like? No NHS, minimal social services, the freedom for employers to hire and fire. This is why they wanted Brexit in the first place!
4. We should restate our programme for Britain. It would address the underlying reasons for anger against immigrants; an anger fomented by this Tory government’s obsession with arriving at a balanced budget far too quickly. Our project is one of investment: in education, housing, the NHS and infrastructure.
5. We should have a programme for EU reform, only achievable from within. May I dare refer to my contribution to LDV here https://www.libdemvoice.org/a-positive-case-for-remaining-in-the-eu-48761.html ? I remember someone else writing along similar lines but don’t have the reference.
Caron, you wanted ideas, hopefully these are of some use.
Indeed. Didn’t the FM herself say that the Scottish referendum was a once in a generation event (let’s put to one side the hyperbolic ‘once in a lifetime’ from her more excitable predecessor)? To me, that meant a human generation, i.e. 25 years, but maybe she was referring to that of a short-lived radioactive element instead. Even before the EU vote it was clear that she anticipated another vote much sooner than 2039.
Caron,
As much as I share the emotion the people were told that this was a “decisive vote” and they went to the polls in their millions. To tell them now “Nah! Just kidding.” and follow a different path would be extremely hard to accept if you were a Leaver.
How would we feel if the percentages had been reversed but the Tory party signed Article 50 anyway and told the people that a Remain vote was the wrong answer and they would ignore it?
My stance would be to decline the Leave camps appeals for unity and state that we would expose every consequence of their folly. In an analogous fashion to the decades of attacks on Europe which finally overturned the previous Yes vote in the 70’s.
My argument would be that we shouldn’t “pull together” with a campaign based on lies and racism.
@jedibeeftrix
“You, Caron, do not get to decide that for the rest of us.”
Perhaps you could point out where in her article Caron made any such claim. I think she has as much right as anyone to argue her point of view, whether you agree with her or not, just as the people have the right, if they so wish, to change their minds, whether it be via a referendum or an election. This is what we call a democracy and it is predicated on the notion that I and you and Caron all have a right to express opinions by voting – and to change those opinions later and vote differently if we so choose. I do wonder why it is that so many Leavers seem afraid of a second referendum and are trying to pretend that it would be unfair or undemocratic. You might as well argue that holding an election and changing the government is unfair or undemocratic.
No. Being democrats means accepting the will of the people in spite of personal opinion. You can’t keep holding referenda until you get the result you want! Then again, there is a history of that with the EU.
I voted remain but live in Lincolnshire which is strong leave country. I have seen absolutely no sign of people who voted leave having second thoughts or feeling misled, they seem delighted and happy with the result. I honestly think that a second referendum would show a larger majority for leave. Some “remainers” voted the way they did because of the fear of the unknown, now the world has not collapsed they may have lost that fear. Others may be angry that the result of democratic vote has been ignored and they have been sent back to the polling stations because the political elite didn’t like the result. There were 30 or 40 thousand people demonstrating in London over the weekend, the marches will be a lot bigger – all over the UK – if the politicians decide to ignore the vote.
@Conor McGovern
“You can’t keep holding referenda until you get the result you want!”
Why not? I happen to completely disagree with the whole idea of EU referendums (and everything that has happened over the last couple of weeks convinces me how right I was!) and I abstained/spoilt my ballot both 41 years ago and last month. However if you are going to have one it is ludicrous to accept one that comes out just 52% to 48% either way.
If it it had been 52% to remain then we all know the Leavers would have been campaigning for a further referendum ASAP and that would have been their right.
However, as I said above, that only works one way: if we decide to stay in the EU we can always decide to exit some time in the future. If, however, we decide to exit then we cannot – in practical terms – decide to go back in some time subsequently.
That’s why, if there are going to be these stupid referendums at all, there needs to be something like a 60% majority if the vote is on something that is (effectively) irreversible.
So yes, there may have to be repeated referendums untl we get the result we want – which is a clearly decisive result, which 52% most certainly isn’t.
@ Simon Shaw
Re Grayling and Rogoff, I know because I checked the websites where these items were published and can’t find anything pre 23/6. Do you have such info?
Again, was there a campaign for a higher win threshold when the Referendum Bill was being debated? Again, I may be wrong but I don’t remember one and surely that was the time to raise the matter. My general point is that all these objections and qualifications are being raised post hoc by disappointed Remainers.
In 1975 the Remain campaign won comfortably and the Government of the day got on with it. You can’t seriously call the 2016 referendum a second referendum on the same question. In ’75 we voted on membership of the EEC. The present EU is a totally different institution. A large proportion of that 1975 electorate have died and nobody who is now under 60 was eligible to vote in 1975.
I agree that we couldn’t seek readmission to the EU as presently constituted. But if it were to evolve into something more open, flexible and dynamic, a much more liberal, democratic institution, even, we might want to join. What’s more, such a grouping would by definition welcome us. But I won’t hold my breath
The point surely is that MPs should do what they were elected to do : think about the issues & decide. Of course the narrow Leave victory should be a factor but so should The Economy,The Unity of The UK & the fate of millions of families which, like mine stretch across the continent.
malc 4th Jul ’16 – 11:17am……………..I voted remain but live in Lincolnshire which is strong leave country. I have seen absolutely no sign of people who voted leave having second thoughts or feeling misled, they seem delighted and happy with the result……..
Absolutely! I live in Notts and all those who voted OUT, I have spoken to, show absolutely no regret….
I find it strange that a party who shout the loudest about democracy should be the most vocal, in complaint, when such democracy goes against them… This was not the ‘hated’ FPTP election this was a ‘real’ OMOV where every vote counted…
Those who shout that, “Had the vote gone the other way, ‘Outers’ would be marching/complaining” should remember that they’d be the first to cry “Sour Grapes”…
@Conor McGovern “You can’t keep holding referenda until you get the result you want!”
I have to agree with Simon Shaw, insofar as the UK certainly could do that.
However, this government was elected with a mandate to hold a referendum and to honour the result. The opposition Labour and Lib Dem parties were elected also supporting the principle of an In/Out referendum, albeit in the event of more powers being passed to the EU.
I think it should require a new government with a new mandate from the electorate in order to hold another referendum or to ignore the outcome of this one. That does not look likely soon as the Tories are doing what they believe they were elected to do (and it is not in their interests to trigger an election). Dragging out the process seems to prolong the uncertainty and instability, and that reminds me of the justification used by the party to go into coalition with the Conservatives in 2010.
Reluctantly, I feel we have to make the best of a bad job, and only the Tories appear prepared to do that, though recently Vince Cable (and for much longer Bill le Breton) put a pragmatic argument for a way forward.
@James Hicklin
“What’s more, such a grouping would by definition welcome us.”
Why? What Europe sees of us is an obstructive, whiny, dishonest nation represented by Nigel Farage. From their point of view we have offered no constructive engagement with them for decades and our politicians have regularly peddled nonsense about “the tyranny of Brussels” to a gullible electorate prepared to believe falsehoods about foreigners because of the poisonous legacy of Little Englanderism. Why would they want any of that back, especially once key parts of our economy have been stripped away by Germany, France and other contenders, who are already making their pitches and preparing the ground while we squabble and fantasize about our brave new future? What are we going to offer them? A chance to learn from our folly? They can do that perfectly well without us. When a guest smashes the furniture and insults a family in their own home, that guest gets tossed out on his ear and isn’t invited back. That’s how the EU will see us and we shall get the treatment we deserve.
@paul barker “The point surely is that MPs should do what they were elected to do”
Whether we like it or not, and whatever we think of our electoral system that gave them a majority, the MPs in this government were elected to hold a referendum and to honour the result.
Following their referendum loss, remainers will find their grief follows the well known course of denial, anger, bargaining, depression and finally acceptance.
The country voted to leave the EU.
We are leaving the EU and joining the World.
“We are leaving the EU and joining the World.”
And that is as much of a plan as the Leavers have come up with. Vacuous slogans and no evidence of any understanding of just how unprepared the British are to be competitive in “The World”.
“the MPs in this government were elected … to honour the result”
Given that the referendum is advisory and not mandatory, it is in fact not the case that MPs were elected to do any such thing.
@NickT
What I said was that if, in the future, the EU were to evolve into an open democratic institution, it would welcome back a liberal, free trading nation like the UK.
The EU as presently constituted is nothing like that. It is introverted, undemocratic, centralist and authoritarian. Look at how it has ruthlessly overridden democratic governments in Greece, Ireland, Italy and Cyprus. For me all that is a good reason to leave. Of course some elements of the EU are angry and want revenge. But most of those have bigger problems of their own to sort out: economic woes, financial instability and a failed common currency, mass migration, upcoming elections and their own nationalist parties that make UKIP look like liberals.
So no, that EU wouldn’t let us back in, but why on earth would we go back to that anyway?
“What I said was that if, in the future, the EU were to evolve into an open democratic institution, it would welcome back a liberal, free trading nation like the UK.”
You really don’t understand just how far removed from reality this statement of yours is. The EU is a reasonably open and democratic institution, and it has spent more time and energy than it needed to trying to accommodate the eternally ungracious and unreasonable British. Once Britain leaves, the EU will shed no tears for us. They might occasionally wonder at our capacity for self-delusion, but that’s as far as it will get. We are not a liberal or free-trading nation and are pathetically badly positioned to make any sort of impression on foreign markets. Our workers are chronically under-skilled, frequently innumerate, have endemic poor productivity rates and simply cannot compete in terms of wages and costs with nations like China, Mexico, the Philippines, Bangladesh etc. There is absolutely no reason to believe that any of this will change after we throw away our major export market. I’ve lived, worked and done business on three continents – and no-one thinks of the British as a serious threat to market share. I just wonder whether you have bothered to think any of this through beyond the level of fantasies and abstract nouns as a substitute for analysis. Anyone who has looked at the economic realities and what Britain outside the EU has to look forward to finds the prospect appalling. Still, maybe you can change all that if you keep repeating your slogans diligently enough.
@NickT “Given that the referendum is advisory and not mandatory, it is in fact not the case that MPs were elected to do any such thing.”
From the Tories’ manifesto in the 2015 General Election:
I think the Tories made it pretty clear what they were promising to do if elected, and unfortunately they were, with a parliamentary majority.
Nick.
I’m not afraid of a second referendum, but I would prefer to leave the EU first and then have one about re-joining a few years down the line. Otherwise it will just turn into endless calls for referendums and counter referendums. The problem with a lot of remainers is they just can’t accept losing or the shock of finding out Britain is not what they thought it was.
@ Peter Watson,
I was under the impression that there was not a majority for leave in the House of Commons.
There are important constitutional issues at stake, so I await the outcome of legal opinion from Lawyers from Mischon de Reya.
Many parties put policies in their manifesto , but then do not put them into practice because of circumstances.
I don’t for a minute believe that the Leave campaigners would have accepted the result of an advisory referendum had the outcome not been to their liking, so I am unmoved when the same people attempt by to paint those who believe that every avenue should be explored before an irrevocable step is taken, as sore losers.
As far as I am concerned, it is not over until the Rubinesque lady sings.
@ Glen,
Given that people are suffering racist abuse at a level that I have not not heard openly expressed for a long time, Britain is certainly not what I thought it was. The reported incidents are the tip of the iceberg. It is casual, ‘Get back to your own country’ stuff. It is not just adults, bewildered children in playgrounds are suffering it.
What is worse, the government will not give assurances that they won’t be deported from Britain, so both adults and children are living in insecurity in a country where they feel that they are not wanted.
I feel ashamed to be British.
Conor McGovern “Being democrats means accepting the will of the people in spite of personal opinion.”
So what is the will of the people in this instance?
Remember the referendum was only advisory, something Parliament agreed to when it enacted the necessary legislation to enable the referendum, even if both campaigns acted as if it was something else. Remember Parliament represents all people in the UK, not just those who vote for them. Hence in its deliberations it should take into consideration the needs, wants and desires of the circa 65m, not just the 46m entitled to vote and the 17m of those who actually supported the concept of the UK leaving the EU. Furthermore, if the intent of the referendum was to initiate the UK leaving the EU the form of words used would have been different.
@ Jayne,
Absolutely. Abuse and hate has been let out of the bag. Anyone not convinced need only read comments to Daily Mail articles. Before, not after a meal.
Jayne Mansfield 4th Jul ’16 – 2:20pm……..I was under the impression that there was not a majority for leave in the House of Commons……….
There are important constitutional issues at stake, so I await the outcome of legal opinion from Lawyers from Mischon de Reya.
I don’t for a minute believe that the Leave campaigners would have accepted the result of an advisory referendum had the outcome not been to their liking, so I am unmoved when the same people attempt by to paint those who believe that every avenue should be explored before an irrevocable step is taken, as sore losers.
As far as I am concerned, it is not over until the Rubinesque lady sings….
I voted ‘Remain’ but will, reluctantly, accept the verdict….
There was not a majority of MPs who wanted AV (PR) but we were happy to push that vote; there were important constitutional issues at stake there too….
So what if the ‘Leavers’ would have not accepted the vote? We would have been the first party to ‘explain/complain’ that THEY were ‘sore losers’….
Between 2010-15 we were all but destroyed as a political force; the country no longer listens to us. Even the comments in the ‘sympathetic’ Guardian are more ‘ridicule’ than supportive for our “Let’s have another go” position…
If we hold a vote again and again until we get the result we want it makes a total joke out of the system. It also doesn’t make that final result (the one we want) any more valid than the previous ones. It’s not democratic at all, and it’s elitist to say the people don’t know what they’re voting for and shouldn’t be given a say. Would you be saying that if the vote had won for Remain? There were more than a few lies on both sides. We’re supposed to be democrats!
@Jayne Mansfield “I was under the impression that there was not a majority for leave in the House of Commons.”
I can’t believe I’m having to write nice things about the Tories, but it’s been a funny old week! 😉
The Tories won the election with a majority, having promised to attempt to negotiate some concessions from the EU, hold an In/Out referendum in which their government would campaign to remain in the EU, and then they would honour the result of that referendum.
If Lib Dems dislike referendums then they should not have proposed them in recent manifestos (nor delivered one on AV and one on Scottish independence). If Lib Dems like parliamentary democracy then they should accept that the Tories’ position is part of that and also that MPs keeping their promises to the electorate despite their personal interests and opinions is something to be respected.
I’ve seen little in the arguments against the result of the referendum that does not look like childish petulance because it was the “wrong” outcome, but I respect Tim Farron’s commitment to fight an election in order to seek a democratic mandate to reverse it (although I don’t expect an election any time soon).
Unfortunately we Lib Dems have no power over what happens now, only, perhaps, influence over the outcome. I am very concerned that a large number of us seem so keen to overthrow a democratic result because we have lost the referendum. I am very worried about the reaction if the Tories took up this option, because, in my view, we have just been through a revolution, a democratic one, but it still resulted in the overthrow of the status quo. On another post I have read comments that many people in social housing voted for totally negative reasons, that they wanted to bring down the rest of us, they wanted change, just change.
Of course they did. It isn’t just Tory policy over the last few years, it’s the policies of Governments of all three colours over the last thirty years, that have resulted in such alienation of the poorest. Usually they don’t bother to vote but many of them registered to vote in the referendum because finally they believed their vote would count. The result has been chaos.
This is what happens when society is polarised. Many Lib Dems have been saying this for years, so please don’t abandon the people in this country who need our help the most. When I first heard Tim saying we would continue to fight on my reaction was despair that we would be letting these people down again. Later I realised that, of course, we should continue to campaign for the society we as a party wish to have. Then Tim started to talk about the poorest in our society and I realised once again that after 30 years I’m still in the right party. If we fight for our EU membership we must also fight for a Europe we believe in.
So, how do we tackle the racism and xenophobia in our own country and in the rest of the EU? We certainly can’t do it by calling the poorest bigots and ignoring them. Of course we must tackle their poverty with more housing and better schools and hospitals, perhaps by supporting a Citizen’s Income, but this all takes time. This is why I started to question free movement even though I thought some Lib Dems might call me racist for doing so. I think we need to look at this dispassionately to see if there are short term methods to help communities where services are overloaded.
The economic policies first espoused by Thatcher have resulted in a divided society and I’m sure Lib Dems aren’t surprised by this. Labour didn’t do very much to help the poorest even when the economy was strong and in the referendum campaign I gather that the party largely ignored these people who had been their traditional supporters.
So we have arrived at the impossible: an alliance between the poorest and some of the richest in our society brought about by blaming the EU for all our ills. Of course we must fight back but we mustn’t ignore those at the bottom of our economic pile.
I believe that this is our opportunity, to represent those who want a vibrant, diverse society that’s part of the EU, but not at the expense of those alienated people who gave democracy a last chance. It’s time for us to come up with a new economics, a new politics and a reinvigorated party that stands for that sort of society where the poor are not forgotten and all are given the opportunity to be the best they can be.
Those who say it is a matter of democratic principle to accept this referendum might like to ponder this:
“Nigel Farage warns today he would fight for a second referendum on Britain in Europe if the remain campaign won by a narrow margin next month.
The Ukip leader said a small defeat for his leave camp would be “unfinished business” and predicted pressure would grow for a re-run of the 23 June ballot.
Farage told the Mirror: “In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way. If the remain campaign win two-thirds to one-third that ends it.””
Daily Mirror, 16 May 2016
Alan Depauw 4th Jul ’16 – 5:24pm………Those who say it is a matter of democratic principle to accept this referendum might like to ponder this…“Nigel Farage warns today he would fight for a second referendum on Britain in Europe if the remain campaign won by a narrow margin next month……The Ukip leader said a small defeat for his leave camp would be “unfinished business” and predicted pressure would grow for a re-run of the 23 June ballot………
So?
If the best argument for a re-run is a Nigel Farage ‘quote’ then we are really desperate….l
Alan, that would also have been wrong.
True, but it’s an interesting point. My argument is actually for an early General Election. A new government pursuing completely different policies needs a mandate to make them legitimate.
I was a Brexit supporter and am pleased with the result and don’t regret my decision.
if I were a remain supporter I’d be arguing for EEA membership so that I still got most of what I wanted (free trade and the free movement of people). If the lab/con/lib/SNP establishment choose to ignore the result of the referendum, despite a general election being won on the promise to have this referendum, then I think most of us, the 52%, would elect a UKIP government at the next election with a landslide and invoke article 50 as parliaments first act.
The lib dems used to call for an in out referendum on Europe. And the Tories won a general election on the promise to have one, which they honoured. The people have spoken.
If you really want to ignore the result of the referendum go ahead, but I don’t think you will like the consequences of doing so and would seriously question the political judgement of those considering doing so. As the coalition and the last 5 years show, the lib dems have not had the best political judgement, hence 8 MPs and 8% of the vote.
“Usually they don’t bother to vote but many of them registered to vote in the referendum because finally they believed their vote would count. The result has been chaos.”
Hat tip to Sue Sutherland for this comment, which is probably one of the most profound observations I’ve seen on LDV.
Three things :
1. If the system proves impervious, and doesn’t work for you, then creating chaos gives the potential to create something new that might work for you. The binary risk, of course, is that chaos might bring something worse, or maybe something better,.. but for those for whom nothing else works, chaos is very liberating.
2. Now the disaffected know that the creation of chaos can work, and destabilises an erstwhile deaf and obdurate establishment,.. they will (now emboldened), invoke even more of it, …and not necessarily through a ballot box.
3. Chaos which has shown to work, is infectious. Brexit was a shark bite, which has spilled EU blood into the water. Thousands of similarly disaffected across Europe, can now smell that blood in the water, and they will finish the job. Article 50 is a two year process,… but will the EU live that long.?
People commenting on this site are reading the situation wrongly. They are swallowing hook, line and sinker what the media and the politicians are telling them rather than looking at the hard facts, which speak rather differently.
Here are some questions that we need to be asking:
Question No 1: Who wants Brexit?
Answer: The hard right, the Murdoch and Rothermere press and a revolving door of malcontents.
Question No 2: Who wants Bremain?
Answer: The Americans, the Europeans, the multi-nationals, the City, most businessmen and most experts (plus much of the UK centre, centre-right and centre-left).
Question No 3: When there is a conflict between the above sets of forces, which one normally prevails?
I will leave readers to supply their own answers to that one.
When Theresa May says that “Brexit must mean Brexit” she is trying to reassure hard right Tories that she is with them. When she says that there is no hurry to invoke Article 50, she means that she has no intention of invoking Article 50, and that the forces who are behind her party and are about to put her in No 10 would never let her invoke Article 50.
For once, the interests of the plutocracy and liberal progressives coincide. While the latter take to the streets, the former does what it always does behind closed doors.
Forget this ludicrous twaddle about “the will of the people”. A deal will be done, sooner rather than later. Liberal progressives should be doing what they can to ensure that it is a good one.
@ Peter Watson,
I don’t know why you can’t believe that you are writing nice things about the tories. There are certain tories that I greatly admire. Dominic Grieve for one, he was a fine Attorney General.
He has now offered support to people like myself by declaring a second referendum a possibility, and justifiable if it becomes clear that public opinion has shifted strongly since the first referendum. Given that research suggests that 1.2 million leave voters now regret their vote, I hope that this may be a possibility.
‘Second EU Referendum would be possible former attorney general says’.
People are already seeing some of the consequences of Brexit and realising that some of ‘project fear’ was indeed based on a probable new reality. Do you believe that people should be denied an opportunity to change their mind having now given greater thought to the consequences of the vote?
@sesenco
I think it is you misreading the situation, the will of the people is not “twaddle”, and article 50 will be invoked.
If the government fail to invoke article 50 then they will find that a future UKIP government does it. But there is very little chance of UKIP winning a general election because the Tories are not complete and utter idiots, they are not arrogant/stupid enough to think that they could get away with simply ignoring the results of a democratic referendum which parliament called in the first place.
Rightsaidfredfan,
I suggest you learn a bit of modern history.
Are you supposing that all the 51.9% would vote UKIP? Presumably, if that happened, all the 48.1% would vote for parties other than UKIP? Are you assuming that 100% of the electorate would vote on this one issue only? And are you assuming that none of the 51.9% are going to change their minds as the economic chaos unfolds? Many already have done.
You also make the assumption that the Tory Party considers itself answerable to the electorate rather than to the elite that it exists to serve. Tell me when a Tory government last did anything that the City, big business and the Americans (not to mention the residents of Elmbridge) strongly opposed.
The “will of the people” is a vacuous slogan. It means little or nothing in practice.
Since 1965, the return of capital punishment has been “the will of the people” (judging by opinion polls and tabloid headlines). No government has ever reinstated it.
Article 50 is an invitation to our competitors to decide our future behind our backs. No government imaginable will go down that route.
Sesenco.
I think what Rightsaidfredfan is hinting at is UKIP replicating the SNP model. Under FPTP you don’t need anywhere close to 50% of the electorate to win. I think he’s wrong because the anti EU vote is not a unified cause in the way Scottish Independence is. A lot of Leave voters, easily the majority, would not touch UKIP with a very long barge pole. I certainly would never vote for UKIP.
I 100% agree with this article and in particular with A C Graylings comments about referenda. I would go further however and rather than (or in addition to) setting a threshold for a referendum before major irreversible change could be effected,, I would make it much more difficult for Parliament to abdicate its responsibility (or more accurately, allow government to effectively circumvent Parliament, which it will have done altogether if it is allowed to exercise Art 50by royal prerogative) by requiring a two thirds majority in Parliament before a referendum could be called. Referenda are often called for the wrong usually party political, reasons; 1975, internal sqabbles within Labour, AV referendum Coalition horse trading, and this year internal Tory party issues and trying to fend off UKIP in a Euro elections no one cared about. The one exception is probably thd Scottish referendum
There seems to be a set of commentators attacking a straw man – that we should just hold another referendum and hope we get the vote we want. I haven’t seen anyone advocating this on here (and nobody serious elsewhere either).
The issue is whether we accept that the advisory referendum should mean that the government should just invoke Article 50, get whatever deal they feel like without any further democratic input. Some people feel like that. An awful lot don’t.
There are a lot of different views amongst those who don’t but they coalesce around the idea that we should have a chance to have democratic input on whatever deal the government chooses to reach before it comes into effect. I can’t see how that is anti-democratic. In fact, a failure to do so would be anti-democratic as well as illiberal abdication of power to the executive.
Mark Goodrich is right. We unite around the idea that the people must vote again before Britain can embark on a massive constitutional change which has yet to be properly defined, on terms not yet known, by people who have no electoral mandate. We should not allow the competition between a plethora of alternative detailed ways of doing this to derail this basic idea. The only options we should rule out are the complete dismissal of the result and/or an immediate re-vote on the same ill-defined question.
Our Conservative opponents have embraced the opposite policy. With the honourable exceptions of Clarke and Heseltine, the Tory “Remainers” are now enthusiasts for Brexit, for the perpetuation of Tory hegemony, and for a refusal to contemplate any further vote that could shape or deflect that programme. Osborne’s radical cut in corporation tax illustrates their new Brexit-centred disaster capitalism agenda.
The first Tory assault on our popular democratic state was called austerity. It was a mendacious cloak for an attack on the state and the shift of power to the unelected rich. Austerity failed to remove the deficit because that was never its true purpose. It was merely a false propaganda line to shift blame to the previous Labour government for Tory cuts.
A second wave Tory assault is now commencing, and it is called Brexit. As Osborne has shown, there will be more massive cuts in tax receipts, which will soon translate into spending cuts and further marketisation projects. The beauty of Brexit is that when we all suffer, as we shall, the false scapegoat will be much easier to finger than last time. Brexit is all the fault of the voters! Awfully sorry, Theresa will say, we did recommend staying in, but you voted for your own impoverishment!
In the face of this disaster, Labour have nothing to offer. They are fiddling while Rome burns. We, with the SNP, the Greens, and the street protestors, are what is left. We have to step up to the plate.
@Mark Goodrich “There seems to be a set of commentators attacking a straw man – that we should just hold another referendum and hope we get the vote we want.”
I don’t believe that it is a straw man: repeating the referendum seems to be exactly what many people have called for, particularly when recently discussing and signing a high profile petition (which, ironically, I think was originally intended to ensure that a large enough Brexit could not be overturned).
However, that should not detract from the point you make about the validity of a different referendum on the final Brexit agreement. I agree with you that such a thing would not be anti-democratic but I am not convinced that it is practical or desirable. It could extend the uncertainty of the UK’s position indefinitely, throughout any negotiations and beyond, and risks leaving us in a sort of limbo where we have voted to leave but rejected the final terms of Brexit (a circle that could only be squared by the frightening prospect of Brexiting without the negotiated terms).
This is one of those times i am glad that I am not a politician, particularly a Lib Dem politician, since the only way I can see to avoid Brexit is to be illiberal and undemocratic despite the ethical contortions of many to justify it. It appears that as a country we have two feasible choices, each as unsatisfactory as the other: ignore the result of the referendum and claim that the ends justify the means, or accept Brexit and make the best of a bad job.
Brexit will hit the poor hardest.
The only concrete measure to reposition the UK has come from Osborne with his proposal for a 15% corporate tax rate and vision of a “super-competitive economy”. This has long been the dream of right-wing Tories and it is likely they will embrace his plan- especially as there is no other. If we look at the models of the trading partners we are now supposed to reach out to, their social costs are far lower. So, to compete with them, public expenditure cuts will be even harsher than planned so far.
When this comes to pass together with, as I think highly probable, mass redundancies, it is unlikely that there will be a harmonious coming together of like-minded centrists as some people hope. I fear instead a further rush to the extremes fuelled by vitriolic public anger.
This is why I believe everything possible must be done to stop this madness. LibDems should push for an early General Election before Article 50 is invoked. The fact that a new government will be following policies entirely different to those put to the electorate last year should be reason enough; no-one voted for Britain to become an off-shore tax haven.
@Alan Depauw “Brexit will hit the poor hardest.”
Sadly, everything (including Bremain) will hit the poor hardest.
What I believe was disappointingly absent from the Remain campaign before and since the referendum was a message which specifically addressed the concerns of disaffected voters who did not feel they were sharing the benefits to the “economy” of EU membership.
“Disaster Capitalism” relies on suspending democracy and is much closer to what the EU has imposed on Greece than cutting corporation Tax. The other point is it doesn’t work and usually ends with the destruction of the people who attempt.
Contrary to what some are insisting the referendum was about the EU and its 23 year attempt to circumnavigate the politics of Nation States by creating a parliament, a single currency, a legal framework, foreign policies, economic rules and citizenship. It even has a flag and an anthem. The result has been instability, widespread discontent and stagnation. The foolish policies pursued by George Osborne are entirely in keeping with the EU, which is why he fought for Remain. The problem for Leave is the economic impact may be too great and progressive politics has become too wedded to the EU move forward effectively, which means the Right is dominating the narrative. The way to ensure that people on average and low incomes do not suffer is to fight for progress rather than wailing in despair and sending out the message that all is lost and things can only get worse.
No prime minister of the day would dare to ignore the vote because it would undermine their credibility ,There would be protests in the other direction and it would be seen to be undemocratic. However there is leaving and leaving ,We could join EFTA or have associate membership rather than full EU membership this would leave the door open to rejoin a reformed EU at a latter date and ensure at that time there was a second referendum.
It seems to me that there is no reliable mandate for the UK to pull out of the EU. If we do Brexit, the chances are that it will be against the wishes of the majority in the UK and against the better judgement of Parliament.
So many people have expressed their regret at voting ‘Leave’ – they were ‘sending a protest message to David Cameron’, rather than concentrating on the issue of membership of the EU, that the referendum should not be described as a mandate to leave the EU.
In any case, democracy in the UK has never been about one vote on one day, with no opportunity to change your mind later. For example, we know that if we vote in a General Election today, we’ll have another opportunity fairly soon (in 5 years time at the most) to change our minds. Democracy is about an ongoing series of votes, not a one off, off the cliff type of vote. My point is that the referendum was an ill-conceived and simplistic vote, brought about by divisions within the Conservative Party. I believe that MPs have the duty and the right to oppose invoking Article 50 if they believe that staying in the EU is in the best interests of the UK.
A job for Boris? How about Tory Party chairman? Speak at constituency dinners, delegate the detailed legal stuff, write in the Daily Telegraph, plan for a general election and keep an eye on the Mayorality of Greater London for the next job.
Assuming there is no preceding General Election with a majority of parties such as ours advocating remain/rejoining the EU, there should be a second referendum. This should only take place once the exact terms of the negotiated Brexit deal are concluded. The referendum question might be along the lines of: “Do you support the Government’s negotiated package to leave the European Union?” This will give voters their first chance to see in the cold light of day whether the Brexit deal or our current EU membership is best for Britain.