No sooner had Sarah Olney swept to her dramatic victory in Richmond Park, than some panicking Brexiteers began peddling a ‘clever’ rhetorical question on social media. It went roughly like this: “With a candidate that didn’t win the popular vote on only a 53% turnout, shouldn’t Tim Farron be calling for a second by-election?!” The ‘joke’, of course, is an attempt to claim that Lib Dem attitudes towards the referendum are hypocritical, or self-undermining.
A moment’s thought, however, brings home that any alleged comparison between Richmond Park and the Brexit result is really rather silly. More interestingly, however, seeing why it is silly points us towards a striking fact about a now prominent wing of the Brexit position: how deeply undemocratic it has become.
We can see this by first stating a blindingly obvious truth: that there will be a second vote in the Richmond Park constituency. It will happen when the next general election is called. (And then after that, and after that, and after that again, whenever there is a parliamentary poll.) The Liberal Democrats are entirely prepared to have their victory contested, and potentially overturned. That’s just in the DNA of parliamentary democracy. No Lib Dem thinks of denying it.
But this highlights precisely why the outcome of the Brexit vote is nothing like Richmond Park, or any other Parliamentary election. For the June referendum result is now being widely treated as definitive and totally binding: a one-shot, irreversible, cast-in-iron decision that can never be reversed. Nobody, however, thinks of Parliamentary elections like that.
Yet this illustrates the bizarre attitude towards the referendum that more rabid Brexit supporters are now asking us to take. We are told that it was a democratic result, and that it must be respected as such. But we are also being told to simultaneously forget that in all other areas of democratic politics, decisions are never treated as final and binding. In democracies, we the people reserve the right to rethink; to let new evidence change our minds; to steer new courses; to admit mistakes and try and do better. This can take many forms: kicking out one politician for another; changing the party of government; suggesting new laws to tackle social issues; trying new strategies for dealing with the economy, etc. You name it, in a democracy it is open to the citizens to change it.
Except, apparently, when it comes to the most important decision in British politics since the end of World War II. With regards to that, we are told by many hardline Brexiteers that we cannot now reconsider. That we cannot change course. That no new information or re-evaluation is permitted. That the people have spoken – but the very same people may not be asked whether they have changed their minds, or if they might want an array of exit options beyond the economic suicide of a ‘Hard Brexit’.
Those of us who challenge this are branded by many vocal Brexiteers as being, at best, sore losers, and at worst, traitors. We are told to keep silent, to just accept whatever the powers that be impose on us. And we are told this, with a straight face, by people who claim to be upholding a democratic mandate.
From where I’m standing, the real democrats are the ones who think Britain’s relationship to the European Union ought to be subject to the same level of democratic control as all other aspects of our political settlement. One might even say that it is the Lib Dems who want the people to ‘take back control’. But I’m sure I’ve heard that before, somewhere.
* Paul Sagar is Junior Research Fellow in Politics at King's College, Cambridge. He was a Parliamentary Researcher to John Pugh MP, before pursuing a career in higher education.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Knaptoft: The very heart of England
We do have a two-tier policing system but it is not what our homegrown racists think it is.
From Norman settlement to a civic square
Church Green video
Tom Arms
Ruth Bright
Tom Bailey
Alex Macfie
151 Comments
Of course this decision is reversible. Once we’ve left the EU, you’re free to campaign for us to rejoin.
Excellent posting. What is dreadful is the very low understanding of what democracy is all about by the Very Angry Brigade. (And how can people who won the vote be so Very Angry about everything? Some real sense of insecurity there.)
We havent left yet Tim. By the way, I went to the Supreme Court today and I saw about 10 proBrexit demonstrators. Where were the other 99,990 that Farage promised? Could it be that he is full of empty promises?
Talk about missing the point. Of course we will be able to reconsider EU membership again – at some point in the future, AFTER the result of June’s referendum has been actioned and we’re out.
Anything else will undeniably be a kick in the face for democracy – and I say that as a Remain voter.
Tim is right and this article misses the point, perhaps not willingly.
Lib Dems win Richmond. MP TAKES SEAT. Has to defend seat in future elections.
Leave wins referendum. BREXIT OCCURS. Lib Dems free to campaign to rejoin after this.
What seems to be the remain case at the minute is not as described above, but is the equivalent of wanting another vote BEFORE Sarah takes her seat.
Surely all this debate and a argument should have been gone through before we had the referendum. Before the Scottish referendum for devolution there was many months beforehand to debate the issues.
Trust the Conservatives; in particular that coward Cameron who deserted his position as PM, so as to escape the aftermath of the debacle he has created and would have been held accountable for, to make illogical, short-term decisions to appease the right wing of his party and to try and block off the threat of populist UKIP. By itself it chocked off the possibility of discussion, that is not how democracy works, I believe.
Tony Greaves
“What is dreadful is the very low understanding of what democracy is all about by the Very Angry Brigade. (And how can people who won the vote be so Very Angry about everything? Some real sense of insecurity there.)”
We had a referendum where the majority of voters said they wished to leave the EU. You as a member of the unelected House of Lords stated that the referendum vote must be overturned. Is it any wonder that many ordinary people – who voted in good faith – have a real sense of insecurity? Are you really the right person to be accusing others of having a low understanding of what democracy is all about?
Malc, the Lib Dems tried to reform the HoL. In fact Clegg placed a very high priority on this and it was blocked. So – you’ll just have to rub along with the system we have, which in case you are not sure includes advisory referenda, unelected Lords, and an independent judiciary rather than one that is flipped banana republic style every time it suits the Government
What’s the point of winning the vote if the result is ignored?
Like the fellow said, it’s not the voting that’s democracy — it’s the counting.
You won an advisory vote. You tell me what the point of it was
Tony Greaves.
I’d just like to say I’m not angry at all. I’m simply waiting for article 50 to be triggered so that the country can move forward with leaving the EU and begin the process of bringing fellow citizens together. I think one the main causes of tension is the false hope delay is raising.
Wouldn’t it have been better to have not backed a referendum in the first place.
There are people out here who are having their worst fears confirmed; that they really are democratically helpless.
Alistair.
The point of the vote was to decide if we leave or remain in the EU. Of course, you could argue that “advisory” means that the result can be ignored, but I think this is just raising false expectations.
@wg
“Wouldn’t it have been better to have not backed a referendum in the first place.”
I totally agree, although I wouldn’t say the Lib Dems “backed” it.
I always thought it was a totally idiotic idea, which is why I didn’t vote in the referendum (strictly I spoiled my ballot paper, writing on it that I believe in parliamentary democracy).
With the benefit of hindsight I am more than ever convinced that my position was the correct one.
My heart bleeds for Leavers whose expectations were raised. I suggest you vote for UKIP. They have 1 MP. Im sure they will have a majority very soon as it is the will of the people. Or maybe the will of the people was simply to ditch Cameron. Oh and do trouble yourselves to present a consistent view of the Brexit outcome. The Swiss and Norweigian model were mooted but we seem to be going for the Albanian or Algerian model. Im not really convinced anyone voted being desirous of either of those outcomes.
Dear Paul,
I could not agree more. In every discussion these days leave-campaigners say the same thing: thinking and learning after June 23 is prohibited, and so is asking the Supreme Court for clarification. Consequently, the entire political and administrative machine of Great Britain must be for the foreseeable future dedicated to execution only, and that at any cost; critical reflection is “frustrating the will…”.
Brexiteers know they could never reproduce the anti-factual context and emotional appeal that gave them the silly result of June 23.
Ironically, your new made-for-Brexit-purpose-government is on a steep learning-curve about the EU and its merits. If they could be honest to themselves and to each other, the Cabinet would admit today that Brexit is not only a costly proposition without tangible benefits, but also prohibitively complex to implement.
It is entirely a face-saving exercise (not only between politicians, but, more dramatically, between politicians and citizens) that absorbs all creative energy of the country’s political and business-elites and forces them down this irresponsible and destructive path.
As the Brexit-case is dead for every informed and intellectually honest observer, the UK’s problem is now a psychological one. The techniques for solving these are well-established: analysis, listening, dialogue, and time. The LibDems are leading the way; don’t let people who are against thinking and learning intimidate you.
Fortunately the significant political parties in the UK believe in democracy.
@ Arnold – “As the Brexit-case is dead for every informed and intellectually honest observer”
It is? News to me, please do explain how this is so…
The opposing view (which is hard not to have sympathy with in the very least) is that there are many who have been left behind by globalisation politics and the very politicians who left them behind are now talk down/around a referendum decision which sent a clear enough message. A democracy where the empowered are seen to overturn the votes of the people they represent is not the best definition of good and effective democracy.
Future referendums should see questions asked of both sides about how they plan on bringing the country back together in a close vote, the process for building the platform called for by the voters and a better idea of what that platform means. There should also be some signal at which point can the outcome be reconsidered. “X means X” is not good enough.
However, can we demand a change in the result of this outcome or legitimately argue that it should have the potential to be fundamentally changed? These debates are part of the post-decision process, and all Leave voters voted for really was that the end of the process would be better than staying in the EU.
I am amazed anyone who belongs to a political party can deny that democracy means the right to change your mind and reverse a decision. At any point. Before implementation or after. Trying to argue that one decision must be carried through before anyone is allowed to reverse it is so much the opposite of democracy I can’t understand how any leave supporter could support it. Leave demanded the right to put EU membership to consideration by voters. Either you believe in this, or you dont. If your whole policy is to respect the view of voters, then you must continue to respect their decision, especially if they change their minds.
The frenzy of leave supporters claiming now that it is undemocratic to respect the will of the people if they change their minds, demonstrates that leave were never democratic at all, and merely sought to use any trick they could find to mislead voters and get their way.
Paul Sagar, long time no speak (I think). Yes I don’t believe in “brexit regardless”, but I do think we should be trying to deliver an acceptable brexit.
I voted remain, but now I’m a soft-brexit drum banger, and if the Lib Dems don’t do well in the local elections next year then maybe the strategy will have to change. Even if the policy doesn’t change, the rhetoric might have to.
Globalization wont stop because of of Brexit. King Canute had more chance of stopping the tide. The Brexiteers made a string of false promises that are undeliverable. If they manage to limit immigration it will only because they turn us into an economic backwater through their extreme mismanagement and ignorance.
Well, I can appreciate the argument that when a government or an MP is elected they are elected, until there is another election. It is the only valid one I have heard from any of our accusers on this…
However the problem is that Brexit is an irrevocable decision in practice, which will set the course of this country for many years, and will affect the younger voters who voted overwhelmingly for Remain far more than the older voters who voted overwhelmingly for Leave. The PROCESS of leaving will be hugely expensive (something barely mentioned in the referendum campaign), and rejoining will incur the same expense. I actually think that demographics mean that in 10 or 20 years time, provided the EU is still there, there will be an overwhelming desire to rejoin
If you buy an insurance policy the law insists that you should have a cooling off period during which you can cancel it without penalty. I see Brexit as rather like that. Once we have all had a good look at what actually lies on the other side of the hill we should confirm the decision through another referendum.
I think it is very foolish of us to talk of “advisory” referenda. While it may have been that legally, that is not what people thought when they voted. It would also be very foolish to use the House of Lords to try and frustrate the decision.
However I am very happy to justify another referendum to voters, especially if polls suggest people have changed their minds. In that case the Leave Cheerleaders would be trying to fossilise the vote taken on a single day in June in 2016 as it it were the settled will of the British people. Another vote might be a bit tedious for the electorate but it would certainly not be “undemocratic”. If they want to vote Leave we will Leave, and without delay since it would be at the end of the process, not the beginning.
However, we should realise that the “undemocratic” charge is sticking with quite a high proportion of the electorate, including habitual Lib Dem voters I have spoken too, and people on this thread. It is the course we have embarked on though, and it is important that we actually unite behind it and tell the voters why we are doing what we are.
Finally on Globalisation: In the EU we are actually hiding behind various trade barriers. Outside if we pursue the freetrade policies that everyone seems to want, we will be far more vulnerable to the “trade winds” than we are at present
It was most unfortunate that the Referendum so poorly planned.
Half of us don’t want to be in the EU. Half of us do.
What is the alternative to being in the EU? Nobody has a clue. A range of possible answers cannot even be drafted. Most partial proposals floated so far are far from comprehensive and virtually all pie in the sky. Nobody has come up with a realistic coherent comprehensive option yet, partly because it is fiendishly complicated, and partly because they don’t dare – it would be obvious that the proposal would not command the support of even a third of the electorate, let alone 50%.
The people have spoken but they haven’t been asked the real question – If you don’t want the EU, what do you want?
If Brexiteers are true democrats they should give the electorate the chance to vote on their considered proposal – if they have one.
Interesting article but the arguments in it equally apply to the 2014 referendum. Indeed they apply even more so because Brexit fundamentally changes the situation that many based their choice on in 2014 and there is a Scottish parliamentary majority with a fresh mandate to hold an independence referendum in these specific circumstances. Neither a fundamental change in circumstances nor a parliamentary mandate yet exist in relation to a second EU referendum. It is, as the article says, undemocratic of the Liberal Democrats to continue to oppose allowing the people of Scotland the chance to change their minds on the most important decision in British politics since the end of World War II.
More heat than light on both sides here.
I think the problem is that the government, and opposition never thought they would lose, therefore there was no plan. Neither was there any plan as to would happen after a vote for Scotland to leave, deliberately so,the government thought they would win and did.. thought the same with E.U. referendum, played the same game and lost.
Difference between a referendum and an election is not that the decision can’t be overturned it is within what time scale. The Brexit vote happened this year and already powerful factions are trying to overturn that decision, using every trick in the book and some that are not, ( i do not mean parliamentary process, which I support with Brexit as much as I would do with any future Scottish referendum) ,interesting that no opposing party dared to instigate a legal challenge. The Scottish referendum was ‘ trust me’ once in a generation , if not lifetime, but no, the side that looses thinks they can immediately, try and find a loophole and would be equally appalled if they had won and the other side tried to overturn their ‘majority’. At least if you win an election you get a period to implement what you fought for before the opposition can overturn what you represent.
The problem is, neither referendum had a clear idea of the outcome, both were fought by a government that deliberately gave no thought to any plan as to what would happen if they lost. Both were willing to take a plus one vote to win,leaving them wide open to a divided country and legal challenge.
And everyone let them do it, for their own vested interests, – we will win! …They will lose!…
Doh!….what?….how??….why??… how do we stop them?….never mind the price!
Does anyone think that if Scotland or leave had won, that their liberal ideals would be supporting a further referendum within the timescale/s now being considered for each issue? I don’t.
Best out of 11 over 30 years anyone?
If you ask me, and since you don’t I’ll answer anyway, if the pro EU case is that strong upon leaving the electorate will eventually vote to re-join after which there will be a single currency , full political union, a fatal blow to nativism and the nation state and all current liberal bugbears. But personally I think Britain will muddle through.
Alistair
I’ve never voted UKIP and have no intention of doing so.
Alistair, the vast majority of people who voted Leave are like Glenn (6th December 2.23am) , in that they have never voted Ukip and have no intention of doing so. But I fear that if their decision is ignored, many will turn to Ukip out of desperation. Unfortunately, this could indeed result in many more Ukip MPs.
On the other hand, if the referendum result is respected and implemented, Ukip’s support would plummet, and it would probably cease to be a party at all within a year or so of our leaving the EU. Many people who voted Leave might, once we had left the EU, begin to consider voting Lib Dem again, as they may well have done in the past.
Which scenario would you prefer?
>Unfortunately, this could indeed result in many more Ukip MPs.
Well, that would be democracy. And five years later, they’d likely all get kicked out. I haven’t seen our Ukip AMs making a great name for themselves or doing anything to impress those who voted for them that they have any idea how to improve their (the voters’) lives.
Catherine, what is wrong with UKIP MPs? If parliament represented the country they should have had MPs years ago. Perhaps we could have had a proper debate on the merits of the EU. UKIP has as much right to MPs as do libs, if they can get voters to support them. The real problem here is that the electoral system supresses dissent until it gets big enough for a breakthrough. Ukippers should have had their own party in parliament while tories should have been free to develop their own brand of pro eu nationalism, and libs presumably their pro EU more socialist approach. More honesty in politics.
I dont see UKIP disappearing. The reason I say this is because support for UKIP is not about the EU. Crazy but true. It is dissatisfaction with the status quo. UKIP as such may disappear, but the dissatisfaction which caused it will continue until it finds a party which represents it, which means doing something about it instead of mouthing promises. The libs in recent years benefitted from this dissatisfaction, but then threw it all away by going in with the conservatives. This group of votes does not want more of the same. Mark Carney, governor of the bank of England is more in touch with voters disaffection and the need to do something about it than most politicians. And he seems more willing to say so publicly now the government is desperate to keep him in post for as long as possible.
Going along with Brexit is no solution because Brexit will not accomplish what voters are asking for.
Meant to add: shine a light on what Ukip really are, what they really stand for, that’s what it needs. Without dirty tricks or name-calling. And we need to highlight, as our great new MP did, that we stand for fairness and tolerance. Britain is naturally a place of fair play, after all.
It used to be a joke against us that we were too nice to be a force to be reckoned with. Let’s claim that as the virtue it is.
Catherine Jane Crosland
On the other hand, if the referendum result is respected and implemented, Ukip’s support would plummet, and it would probably cease to be a party at all within a year or so of our leaving the EU. Many people who voted Leave might, once we had left the EU, begin to consider voting Lib Dem again, as they may well have done in the past.
And what happens if it turns out – which I think is inevitable – that Brexit gives nothing of what those who voted for it supposed it would?
Brexit was a diversionary tactic from extreme Thatcherites, and what they wanted to divert attention from was the fact that their policies had failed and their policies were what was causing people’s misery, so they got people to think it was the EU to blame instead. That’s why all those right-wing newspaper pushed it, and are now acting like conmen do once they have conned “Oh, you signed for it, and that’s it”.
My fear is that if we push “Soft Brexit” – which essentially means same as being in the EU except we lose the influence that members have – they’ll push a new line: blaming us for sabotaging Brexit and turning it into something that isn’t really Brexit.
Typical LibDem thread/posts…..
1. The ‘Out’ vote was a democratic vote…The decision to hold the referendum was supported by (if memory serves ‘first proposed’ by LibDems) all parties except the SNP (despite Simon Shaw’ opinion) The vote was 544-53…
2. As for another vote,before the UK leaves, because a) voters didn’t understand what the vote meant, b)were lied to, c)circumstances have changed, etc??? …Why did we support a fixed term parliament to avoid the same accusations after 2010?
3. The issue of UKip MPs…If PR was, (as we wanted) in force, the UKip members would far outnumber ours…….
I voted ‘Remain’ but will accept the result….Farage’s complaint was how, in the EU, results/votes are only acceptable when they are deemed to be the ‘Right’ result/vote…It seems he was correct…
David Pearce,
I agree they will not disappear. They are a lightening rod for something deeper.
I would argue that is is ultra-liberalism which has led to policies and behaviour that some of the electorate feel is anything but fair. The question is how does one disengage these people from those with darker motives?
@ Matthew Huntbach,
We share the same fear.
We are dealing with the masters of the diversionary tactic.
Matthew.
Cameron. Osborne, Blair, the banks and an endless list of economic right wingers all supported Remain. All the changes you deplore have actually accelerated since the formation of the EU in 1993 and really even under the old Common Market. It is not an accident that we joined the common market under Heath (Conservative PM), that membership expanded under Thatcher (a Conservative PM), that Maastricht was signed under Major (a Conservative PM), that it was furthered by Blair (new labour neo liberal ) and that the biggest attacks on social liberal welfare structures happened under Cameron/Clegg (both very pro EU). Not only that, but what you call Thatcherism (supply-side economics) were explicitly imposed on Greece and Spain by the EU! So being in the EU is not going to give you what you seem to want.
From my POV leaving the EU solves the problem of a political union I don’t approve of, European Citizenship I don’t want, a big project I don’t believe in and the positive assertion of the primacy of the Nation State. I don’t believe that nationalism is innately bad.
Huntbach – ‘Brexit was a diversionary tactic from extreme Thatcherites, and what they wanted to divert attention from was the fact that their policies had failed and their policies were what was causing people’s misery, so they got people to think it was the EU to blame instead.’
I’m not averse to this. However I’m not going to be letting REMAIN off the hook quite so easily. I’d give more weight to your argument had REMAIN not basically said that the EU is all A-OK and we all really want business as usual. To be clear by REMAIN here I mean REMAINers from ALL parties.
It’s certainly fair to say I think that there weren’t too many people campaigning for a ‘hard remain’ of more EU political construct – Euro, Schengen, TTIP, asymmetric migration et al. I would hope Huntbach that at the very least you would accept that there aren’t that many people who belted out Ode to Joy and thought of Juncker as they voted.
What really bothered me about the REMAIN campaign was that it seemed to acknowledge that there were problems in the EU picture, but it wouldn’t identify what could be done WITHIN the EU to sort those things out. It was more business as usual. I am certainly open to the argument that other EU countries don’t have the same problems that the UK has seen and that there are things that can be done by the UK that reconcile with EU membership. But I don’t think that REMAIN made any of those arguments, still less set out any meaningful idea of EU reform.
None of this, of course, is to say that the LEAVE campaigns were any the more impressive. But to me this was a vote, imperfect as it was, against business as usual and I don’t think some REMAINers have really confronted that yet.
Anyway, I’ll let you spit some talkboard venom at me now.
@Little Jackie Paper
‘What really bothered me about the REMAIN campaign was that it seemed to acknowledge that there were problems in the EU picture, but it wouldn’t identify what could be done WITHIN the EU to sort those things out. It was more business as usual’.
I agree with this and if by some miracle public opinion shifts especially if the economy starts to tank over the coming months, and we stay in – what then?
Vastly reduced negotiating position, even less recognition from Europe that it needs to change and surely therefore a much greater chance of being dragged into a Federal Europe/Euro, which I would not support at all.
Hey Glenn we can either believe in free trade between nations or in a closed economy where everything would get produced within our own borders, reducing the variety of stuff on offer to us. If we believe in free trade then globalisation is the natural product of the free market and no particular institution that you mention is to blame for it. The choice is to have a government that does not demonise but helps those of us adversely affect by job losses, or choose a government that says you lazy people are not contributing and we will punish and neglect you. However all people are required to be consumers of goods otherwise the economy would not work very well at all.
I think the article is a very poor logical argument. It effectively summarizes as “the result was wrong so lets have another referendum” (which as a leave voter, I don’t not mind at all because leave would win again with an even stronger vote).
It then tries to justify this with the idea that things change and comparisons to a general election being that the result can be revisited every 5 years.
This though is where the logic of the argument breaks down. as Tim (comment 1) and Mark (comment 5) point out. The referendum decision has not even been enacted yet.
As others point out it is the equivalent of Sarah Olney winning the Richmond by election, then before she was even sworn in as an MP being told that the election should be held again.
I accept that the referendum was not there same as a general election. being a single issue decision. However what is wrong is to keep saying that people did not understand the enormity of decision being made. They did. People really did.
To be honest I am would now be open to holding another referendum or a general election on brexit to show that the country would vote once again to leave (fully leave hard brexit if that was the only option presented by the EU).
These counter arguments I make are not to say those who voted to remain should not argument for going back into the EU, benefits of EU etc. The problem is that the core of the sort of argument put in this article is still a fundamental dismissal that remain lost referendum and the country voted to leave.
Great comments but unfortunately the basic question of how the EU referendum can be ignored is just a question that cannot be answered. The goose is shot. I’m going to go out on a limb here. I think the biggest story that has yet to come out is Nissan. This government got a wake up call like no other and that’s when the reality of what they were playing with really sunk in. We’ve had the Article 50 (31/03/17) can kicked down the road as far as can be got away with and the courts being used as a scapegoat to clarify the irrevocability of Article 50 and maybe another excuse to kick it a little bit further. David Davies has started to change his tune on payments to the EU and Boris the clown has started to embrace free movement of people. The government know that this is a disaster and ultimately they will have to fess up. Expect a general election in summer of 2017.
@expats
“Typical LibDem thread/posts…..
1. The ‘Out’ vote was a democratic vote…The decision to hold the referendum was supported by (if memory serves ‘first proposed’ by LibDems) all parties except the SNP (despite Simon Shaw’ opinion) The vote was 544-53…”
I was under the impression that the Lib Dems blocked the idea of a referendum during the 2010-2015 Coalition Government, but maybe I was misinformed.
Whoever supported it, it was clearly a really stupid idea (and that’s not just with the benefit of hindsight).
“3. The issue of UKip MPs…If PR was, (as we wanted) in force, the UKip members would far outnumber ours…….”
You don’t know that. If PR was in force the whole course of British politics would have been different.
“I voted ‘Remain’ but will accept the result….”
That’s your problem. I never accepted the premise of the referendum so I don’t have to accept it.
Hey Glenn we can either believe in free trade between nations or in a closed economy where everything would get produced within our own borders, reducing the variety of stuff on offer to us.
I believe in free trade, but not in post-national federal superstates. That’s why I voted Leave.
Europe needs a single market — not a single government.
@MikeS,
“a much greater chance of being dragged into a Federal Europe/Euro, which I would not support at all. ”
But this is the only chance of an EU which will function properly, given that the PTB in the EU have made the decision to have a single currency -the Euro. The big mistake they made was to think that all they needed to implement it was a central bank: The ECB.
They actually need a common taxation system which can recyle the surpluses which are generated in one region and need to be respent in another. Money will always gravitate to the wealthier areas leaving the peripharal areas short and needing to borrow to survive. That’s the root cause of the euros problem. In other words the EU needs to become a single country with a single government.
But as you say, you aren’t in favour of that idea. And I would say that neither are most of those who voted remain. The situation is no different in other EU countries. Even those who claim to be the most pro-EU in Germany begrudge their tax money leaving the country.
The tragedy of the current EU is that the only viable potential EU is one that hardly anyone supports!
MikeS – Yes. Some people at the moment seem to have got a starry-eyed view of the EU.
Almost everything that has gone down badly about the EU political construct (not just in the UK it should be noted) is still there. The big exception is TTIP and that changed because of Trump, not anything to do with the EU!
There are things that can be done within the EU – done by other countries but I don’t think anyone’s talking about that or setting out policies and the effect is that REMAIN is coming over as business as usual. In the current climate that’s a clear loser.
Why those things are not being considered is a more interesting question.
As it stands I don’t think that some REMAINers have really grasped why it is that they are coming over as saying they want business as usual.
Simon Shaw 6th Dec ’16 – 10:53am……….That’s your problem. I never accepted the premise of the referendum so I don’t have to accept it…………
No surprise there….
Remain: 16,141,241
Leave: 17,410,742
“I’m not playing so, ‘Yah, boo, sucks!”: 1
Reflecting upon the situation I think only a general election in may is going to resolve this.
Article 50 can be triggered in March. Parliament then dissolved. Each political party can then put forward their view of how brexit should proceed.
1. lib dems: revoke/recall article 50 ( I am sure the EU would find a away if they wished the UK to remain) or EEA/soft-brexit option as Farron is advocating
2. UKIP: Full withdrawal rom the EU. Hard brexit
3. Conservatives: Judging from May and Davis. Full with drawall with sector access to tariff free single market trade (grey brexit now?)
4. Labour: who knows? Corbyn ? no idea???
5, SNP. EEA/ remain member
6. Greens EEA/emain member.
6 weeks for the election. The county gets to decide the ‘form’ of exit or remain they wish. The new government would then also inherit and civil service department already setup (and should be apolitical) to then carry out the plans for the new government.
there would then be a mandate, democratic accountability and a parliament both representative and reflective of the country at large.
In truth all other issues of a GE manifesto would sit below/dependent on brexit decision anyhow.
Roll on an election in May!
Simon Shaw – ‘I was under the impression that the Lib Dems blocked the idea of a referendum during the 2010-2015 Coalition Government, but maybe I was misinformed.’
Lib Dem Manifesto 2010, p67
‘The European Union has evolved significantly since the last public vote on membership over thirty years ago. Liberal Democrats therefore remain committed to an in/out referendum the next time a British government signs up for fundamental change in the relationship between the UK and the EU.’
Make of that what you will.
The 2009 Lib Dem Euro manifesto, p3 says:
‘That is why Liberal Democrats have argued for a referendum on whether Britain stays in or leaves the EU.’
Peter
Agreed – and this may surprise some people on here. I was unsure of the way I was going to vote right up until the moment I put pen to paper for all the reasons you state, and
therein lies the problem for many LD supporters I think.
Internationalism is a noble and I guess desirable cause, but what if you don’t believe in the way your continent has been set up or it’s direction of travel, what then?
I did vote remain but with many reservations.
Maybe that’s why I easily see and empathise with both sides of the argument on here and have little time for ‘fights’.
I would not want a “hard remain” any more than a “hard brexit”
@expats
“Simon Shaw 6th Dec ’16 – 10:53am……….That’s your problem. I never accepted the premise of the referendum so I don’t have to accept it…………
No surprise there….
Remain: 16,141,241
Leave: 17,410,742
“I’m not playing so, ‘Yah, boo, sucks!”: 1”
I’m not sure I understand your point.
Are you saying you think the referendum was a good idea, and if so, why?
It’s just typical bullying by the leave campaign – it nothing to do with democracy or real fears that leaving the EU is being blocked. Why isn’t the Government just triggering article 50 in the Commons, as Cameron said he would? No, its too easy to black something yourself and blame others.
It’s shut up and accept what your given, Brexit as Humpty Dumpty said to Alice in Wonderland, means whatever I say it means at any particular moment. It is to divert attention from 6 months on, and after a 45 year campaign, they haven’t agreement amongst themselves on what they wanted, (if anything) and to divert attention about what they are trying to achieve.
Plenty of people voted leave thinking the NHS would get an extra £350 million a week and almost all the EU citizens in the UK would be expelled. How do we deliver what they voted for ? Does signing up to free trade agreements fulfil the wishes of those who have lost their jobs due to free trade ?
@Little Jackie Paper
“The 2009 Lib Dem Euro manifesto, p3 says:
‘That is why Liberal Democrats have argued for a referendum on whether Britain stays in or leaves the EU.’ “
So logically it must have been the Conservatives who blocked it during the 2010-2015 Coalition Government. Who would have thought it?
expats: I also accept the referendum result, but only for what it was: an advisory referendum. I certainly do not accept that the referendum result means that those on the losing side should not be allowed to continue to campaign for what they believe in. Self-censorship by remain supporters in the aftermath of the referendum only aids those Leave who want to forbid any further discussion of the UK’s future in the EU, a perversion of democracy in which only “approved” views are allowed to be expressed.
Christopher,
Nothing is that reducible. It is not free trade or no trade. You can trade whilst operating , and most countries do, some protectionist policies. Tariffs do not bar trade even now and never really have done. Nor does not having free movement of labour really make much difference. It’s not like pre-2004 Britain was sinking into the mire and that things have been an awesome economic miracle since then!
Simon Shaw – ‘So logically it must have been the Conservatives who blocked it during the 2010-2015 Coalition Government. Who would have thought it?’
Hard to say. The Conservatives did of course have a pro-EU leadership in Cameron/Osborne and it would not surprise me had those two not wanted a referendum. The Coalition agreement states, ‘We will amend the 1972 European Communities Act so that any proposed future treaty that transferred areas of power, or competences, would be subject to a referendum on that treaty.’ That wording is taken almost in full from p113 of the 2010 Conservative Manifesto so I guess that it’s safe to say that the LDP and CON positions aligned in 2010.
The later CON manifesto made the commitment to a referendum for reason that we’ll probably have to buy the autobiographies to find out.
It’s clear from the thread that a lot of people have got to the anger stage of the grieving process.
The bigger worry, is that Tim Farron as head of Liberal Democrats, has abandoned democracy.? The usefulness of a democratic process as per 23rd June, is that it is probably the best [non-violent], way of resolving an issue in society. If however one side refuses to accept the result [as Tim clearly has], , we can only go back further into distant history to resolve, said issue.
It’s sad that we can’t learn from history, but it’s frankly no surprise? So shall we all agree to meet on some fields in Warwick, and do it the medieval way, until one side or the other gets tired of having the crap kicked out of them, and their side of the argument.
We tried democracy, and you don’t like it,.. so what else is there.?
Simon Shaw 6th Dec ’16 – 11:13am…………Are you saying you think the referendum was a good idea, and if so, why?………….
No! However, it happened and, when it did, I voted to keep the UK in… I disagree with FPtP elections but I’ve always voted; even in an area which was solid Tory since its creation….
@ simon – “Are you saying you think the referendum was a good idea, and if so, why?”
Yes, because:
1. Year after year there has been a 50-75 percent in favour of having a referendum on the question.
2. Year after year their has been a 37.5-50 percent minority in favour of leaving.
3. It fulfils a.v.dicey’s criteria for a valid referendum – deep constitutional change that cuts across party line.
4. Politicians of mainstream parties have been promising one for years.
Glen, I hope you are right. But it is difficult to avoid market forces. The textile industry in Huddersfield and the Colne Valley was more or less wiped out by foreign competition in the 1980’s. A big exporting tradition was hit by the high pound value resulting from north sea oil production. Other big exporting engineering concerns such as tractors have been bought out by foreign companies and closed down.
Alex Macfie 6th Dec ’16 – 11:20am……………….expats: I also accept the referendum result, but only for what it was: an advisory referendum. I certainly do not accept that the referendum result means that those on the losing side should not be allowed to continue to campaign for what they believe in. Self-censorship by remain supporters in the aftermath of the referendum only aids those Leave who want to forbid any further discussion of the UK’s future in the EU, a perversion of democracy in which only “approved” views are allowed to be expressed……
I agree with almost everything you’ve written…The exception being ‘advisory’. The electorate were told by both sides that ‘they would decide’…The fact that ‘post referendum’ we are advised (no pun intended) that we should have read ‘the small print’ is a sure way to further increase the ‘Yes/No’ divide…
I will continue to argue that the UK has made a bad mistake but, until negotiations (post Article 50) are completed, I will not support another referendum…
J Dunn,
No no no! Campaigning for another referendum when the destination is more clear is NOT “refusing to accept the result”
Simply voting the whole process down in parliament would be that. Sarah Olney has a mandate to do that since she stood specifically on that but no-one else has..
This vote has consequences far beyond any General Election. It is far harder to reverse than a General Election once we have left. The referendum campaign did not in any way illuminate what would happen when we left and was a contest between unrealistic threats and unrealistic expectations narrowly won by the latter.
If there is no significant shift in public opinion then Leave will win again and the decision will be confirmed. A larger mandate for Leave than 51.9% would be good. If on the other hand opinion has shifted in favour of Remain, how could any democrat agree that the decision should stand without confirmation??
Campaigning for another referendum when the destination is more clear is NOT “refusing to accept the result”
As long as the second referendum is a choice between different destinations, and doesn’t have an ‘disregard the result of the previous referendum’ option.
@Simon Shaw “I was under the impression that the Lib Dems blocked the idea of a referendum during the 2010-2015 Coalition Government”
I can appreciate your own personal opposition to an EU referendum in principle, but I really struggle to understand the position of Lib Dems as a whole on the EU Referendum.
In parliamentary debates about the Lisbon Treaty in 2008 Ed Davey was kicked out of one Commons debate after protesting angrily about a decision not to allow MPs to vote on a Lib Dem call for a referendum to be held on the UK’s membership of the EU. Later that year, Tim Farron (along with Alistair Carmichael and Ian Heath) resigned from the Lib Dem front bench because he voted for a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty in defiance of the party line which was for an In/Out referendum on the EU.
In 2010 Lib Dems (including me back then) campaigned and voted for a manifesto which stated, “The European Union has evolved significantly since the last public vote on membership over thirty years ago. Liberal Democrats therefore remain committed to an in/out referendum the next time a British government signs up for fundamental change in the relationship between the UK and the EU.”. Then in 2015 Lib Dems campaigned and voted for a manifesto which claimed to have delivered “a law to guarantee a referendum before Britain passes any more powers to the EU” and which promised to “ensure Britain plays a constructive part in the European Union and any referendum triggered by the EU Act is on the big question: In or Out”.
Having had the sort of In or Out referendum that Lib Dems wanted (albeit eight years after the Lisbon Treaty and without further transfer of sovereignty) , the reaction of many in the party looks bewilderingly inconsistent.
Oops, for some reason David Heath became an Ian!
@ Alex Macfie,
Personally I know of no-one who was informed that the referendum was advisory before the vote was held.
If the decision would be momentous, as indeed it is, why did the rules not include a margin of what would be an acceptable majority rather than terms where a simple majority no matter how small was deemed the ‘winner’?
The arguments made post referendum , it was advisory, the majority was not that great are making ‘leavers’ more angry, and suspicious that these things were not determined beforehand because those who laid down the rules never thought they would lose.
How would those on the remain side feel if remain had a majority and those on the leave side were making the same arguments about the terms of the referendum, and refusing to accept the legitimacy of the result? Of course people are angry, they turned out in large numbers and now feel that they have been sold a pup.
@Jayne Mansfield: If Remain had won, whether by a large or small majority, I would completely respect the right of Leave supporters to continue to campaign and make their case. Unfortunately this is what many Leave supporters are failing to do having won. Democracy is a process, not an end result. 23 June did not signal the end of the democratic process on Brexit.
Why are you all suddenly screaming about democracy, we didn’t cry about either the binary setup of the Scottish referendum, we simply proceeded to implement the will of the masses, and ignore the minority.
I find myself very torn by this debate. Some people voted for the first time because they could see that their vote would make a difference for the first time in any election and they voted Leave. In the past I’ve persuaded people to take up their democratic right and vote Lib Dem because I believed we would make a difference and I think we did, for the most part. I don’t think we can turn our backs on those people.
However, I believe in the EU, think the Referendum was badly constructed and the Remain campaign rather ineffective and I know the Leave campaign told lies which is why I support a Refendum on the terms of Brexit.
I am angry too. I am angry that the Right Wing press carried out an anti EU campaign for many years and is continuing to stir up xenophobia and racism. I am angry that these organs of the wealthy have carried the day and succeeded in their attempts to take us out of a beneficial group because their owners dislike the fact that they can’t influence a European government like they can a national one. I am angry because they have succeeded in persuading people living in relative poverty that their distress is all the fault of the EU and foreigners, when I believe that it is the fault of all the governments since Thatcher who have bought into the politics of greed and the economics of the rich which have brought us to this democratic civil war.
So I want a second referendum, but I also want us to take up the fight against these policies, to tell people what has happened and to offer them a genuine alternative which aims to improve their situation and give them hope.
We have recently been part of a government which followed these divisive policies, but I understand we did our best to stop the most extreme. Who is better placed, then, than our party, to reveal the Tories in all their mean divisiveness and greed for power? After all they shafted us as well as the poor, the sick, the homeless and the long term unemployed.
@Sue Sutherland
Big thumbs up. Get the gloves off and get some real policies prepared to take this country forward. Redistribution of institutions and wealth across the country. Enough affordable homes. A credible industrial, educations and skills policy. Give people hope.
Andrew McCaig
“No no no! Campaigning for another referendum when the destination is more clear is NOT “refusing to accept the result”
Tim Farron has stated that he wants, not just a second referendum, because he doesn’t like the first result,.. but he’s insisting on a *Remain* choice on his second referendum ballot paper. That is an absolute non-starter. He’s entitled to ask ‘What kind of Leave?’ are we going for, but he is being disrespectful of the first referendum, because *Remain*, was discounted on that first ballot paper.
People voted for Leave,… The idea that we will go for a second stab at it,.. just because Tim has thrown his toys out of the pram, is absurd enough, but if he seriously thinks that we would allow a *Remain* choice on this ‘fictitious’ second referendum of his, he is quite frankly,… certifiable…?
And it frankly means nothing, that one or two individuals do not believe in referenda. Why?,.. because a sovereign UK Parliament voted FOR having the in/out EU referenda, and Leave voters now expect that result to be adhered to.
The biggest challenge for Liberal Democrats right now is whether to quietly drop ‘Democrats’, from your party name, before someone takes you to trading standards, for misrepresentation of goods and services, because your party attitude certainly isn’t democratic any more.?
Alex Macfie
In your latest post, you fail to cite a proper hypothetical. Here it is. On 23 June Remain wins by 4 percent but a Leave dominated Parliament decides to trigger Article 50 anyway because enough MPs think that the people were nuts when they accepted that we would all be £4,300 worse off in 2030. The referendum was advisory in any event….
That is what you are proposing in reverse.
Can`t you see what devastation this thinking is going to wreak? Off course Brexit is going to happen but it doesn’t reflect well on you.
J Dunn,
I think I explained clearly and in some detail why Remain needed to be on the ballot paper in the event of another referendum, but presumably you belong to the “not allowed to change your mind now we have got the vote we want” brigade..
Sue Sutherland, as often I find myself agreeing with you wholeheartedly!
J. Dunn
To inject a bit of humour! Many many parties around the world are highly dictatorial, right wing or both, and yet style themselves x… or y… Democrat. Are you intending a mass instruction to these august bodies for a name change?
Sue Sutherland, by the way – let me join the list of fans of your most recent post (and most of your posts, actually).
I think I explained clearly and in some detail why Remain needed to be on the ballot paper in the event of another referendum, but presumably you belong to the “not allowed to change your mind now we have got the vote we want” brigade..
But surely the same logic applies to that referendum.
So… best of three?
Let’s knock this “the referendum was merely advisory” claim on the head. The government delivered a leaflet to every household in the country telling voters that the referendum was their “opportunity to decide if the UK remains in the European Union”. There may be a legal sense in which the vote was only advisory, but morally – no way.
@J Dunn
“Tim Farron has stated that he wants, not just a second referendum, because he doesn’t like the first result,.. but he’s insisting on a *Remain* choice on his second referendum ballot paper.”
One of the many reasons why Farron’s idea is a non-starter is because it will be impossible to deliver anything the people vote for in a second referendum, unless the EU unanimously agree to it beforehand. We’d be spending the best part of £100m on a vote which the EU would be under no obligation whatsoever to respect. I’m astonished that anybody should think this idea is a goer.
Great debate, not for the first time and I suspect not for the last, here on this theme! As with others, Sue Sutherland, I agree with you as usually happens – why don’t you write an article yourself, it should be well worth reading? On the substance, I only want to say, hearing now of the varied party positions on the referendum question (thank you, Peter Watson), and recalling that I like Mike S. regretted there was so little positive said about the EU future we or other Remainers wanted, I still don’t think we should despair about our future relationship. There have been good ideas mooted in some threads for suggested EU reform, for instance by Michael BG, and anyway we may be staying in or rejoining, Mike, an EU in an existential crisis which may change radically regardless of us. We might be very welcome to an EU glad to have survived, less centralised, with the idea of federalism abandoned as unworkable, a collaboration of European nations that should be a better proposition for Britain and cause less division.
“So logically it must have been the Conservatives who blocked it during the 2010-2015 Coalition Government. Who would have thought it?”
Well anyone with any political sense would have thought so, so obviously not Clegg and his vanguard. The last thing Cameron wanted was a referendum that would split the Conservative Party, some might have thought the idea of a split conservative party would have appealed to a lib dem leader and that a referendum would have put the issue to bed. Instead we had the cringe worthy sight of Clegg trying to explaining why he favoured a referendum but only on his terms. The repeated changes of lib Dem policy on when they favoured a referendum, fed the politicians are can’t be trusted narrative which fed into losing the referendum.
In hindsight I do wish that there had been more UKIP MPs and UKIP Lords. It was effective for Farage to claim that the odds were stacked against him because it was true. I do think that UKIPs activities in the EU parliament were poorly scrutinised. However we are where we are. On a practical level I find it quite frustrating that the process for someone like my wife and the mother of my children to establish a right to continue to live in the UK is completely up in the air and may depend on the negotiating skills of Boris zipwire Johnson
Alistair 6th Dec ’16 – 9:45pm
“In hindsight I do wish that there had been more UKIP MPs and UKIP Lords.”
That’s like saying you want more midges on a West Highlands beach. Suggest you watch last week’ s’Have I got more News for You’ to get the flavour.
There is only 1 UKIP MP. I couldnt understand why Cameron offered the referendum. Maybe if he had won outright in 2010 he could have kept control his party via patronage rather than by promising a referendum and setting himself up to fail
Alistair
UKIP may only have one MP, but in the European elections they won more votes and MEP’s than any other party. I think Cameron’s fear was that eventually public opinion would force him to hold a referendum, so better to have one when he thought he could win. In fairness to Cameron most parts of the UK were getting more anti-EU, so we were always likely to leave at sometime.
@Malc,
I agree. I think the UK was always heading towards leaving the EU it was just a matter of when. Now in 10 years? maybe 15? The UK would never consent to federated political union, while the whole purpose of the EU was to end up as a federated political union. That was always the problem with the UK-EU relationship on I blame squarely on Edward Heath taking the UK into the the EEC on a false prospectus of a trading block with no significant loss of sovereignty. He knew he was not telling the truth but believed he knew better than everyone else. A theme that has never gone away possibly? (I know whats best for you…. do you?)
Andrew McCaig,
“Simply voting the whole process down in parliament would be that. Sarah Olney has a mandate to do that since she stood specifically on that but no-one else has..”
That isnt true. Yes, she has a specific mandate, but it is wider than applying just to her. It says the voters do not agree that the matter was settled by the referendum. If they did, they could have supported the conservatives.
This nonsense about the referendum settling the matter is a fiction made up by politicians who find it more convenient for them. The result was too close to be decisive, and everyone knows that, but an unclear result was about the most disastrous of all, at least for the politicians. All they have done is try to suppress further debate by pretending it is settled.
Not relevant to the question of legitimacy, but the bill for Brexit must now be reaching hundreds of billions of pounds.
Please do not console yourself with the dream of rejoining one day when a new consensus emerges. That will not happen:
The EU will evolve. The rebate will be off, and the Schengen-abstention on the negotiating table then. The Pound will continue to loose value and global significance; this will bring the EURO-question back into any future EU-membership debate. Furhermore, the EU will have formulated a refugee-policy by then which the UK would have to sign up to (freedom of movement is childsplay in comparison). UK manufacturing lost in the interim will never come back. Regulatory divergence will take years to bring back in line. In short, the hurdles will be too high and public debate in a poorer and more unequal UK will be even more vitriolic than today.
EU membership can and must be salvaged now or never. A profoundly flawed and fact-free snapshot of systematically fuled public emotions in June 2016 must not lead to a most stupid act by one of the most intelligent countries on this troubled planet.
It says the voters do not agree that the matter was settled by the referendum
It says the voters of Richmond Park think that. It says nothing at all about any other voters who happen to live anywhere else — and there are a lot more voters don’t live in Richmond Park than do.
This nonsense about the referendum settling the matter is a fiction made up by politicians who find it more convenient for them
You’re saying that if it had gone the other way you wouldn’t have regarded that as settling the matter?
ethicsgradient,
actually I think opinion is moving steadily and remorselessly in favour of the EU as the older generation are replaced by the young who do not see much point in the nation state.
In 20 years time people will look back and say “how on Earth did we ever vote to Leave?” Rather like people look back now and say “How could we have ever tried to “cure” people of homosexuality??”
Unless the EU collapses of course, which is also possible….
Arnold, you are absolutely right. EU membership must be salvaged now.
David Pearce,
I should be clear – our MP’s are all perfectly entitled to vote against article 50 if it does not come with a promise of another referendum… Although I think that will be misrepresented by the Press and abstaining might be wiser, given that it will go through with Labour support anyway. Depends if there is a significant Tory rebellion…
Arnold Kiel – ‘public debate in a poorer and more unequal UK will be even more vitriolic than today.’
You really don’t get it do you? I mean do you even care what the real problems in this picture are?
Here – take a look at this graphic.
http://inequalitybriefing.org/graphics/briefing_43_UK_regions_poorest_North_Europe.pdf
Whilst it’s not clear how they define Northern Europe here I think the point stands. Basically these are people who saw the economy crash 10 years ago, well prior to the EU referendum and who never saw it recover, still less saw any of the benefits from the EU.
These are people to whom the EU is very much part of the Business As Usual Establishment and these are the people who view the EU as a political construct that reinforces what comes out of Westminster.
These are people who, not unreasonably, see the EU as little more than a free-for-all wholly lacking in any meaningful reciprocity. These are people who hear about the sunny, happy multi-culti EU uplands and hear, ‘your workshops are all being outsourced to Bulgaria, but there are loads of French bankers in London paying taxes so you can have benefits. And although there are no workshops, globalisation means you’ve got poundshops so those benefits now go further.’
Do you not understand that this was a vote against the Open Agenda Business As Usual outlook that has dominated for decades? It was a vote against more of the same.
Until you come up with something more than internet braggadocio, something WITHIN the EU that is not Business as Usual you will get nowhere in this debate. And very rightly so.
@Andrew McCaig
Hi, I disagree with you for 2 reasons.
1. Polling has shown consist dropping of favorable ratings for the EU year on year since the pro-european support peaked in the late 1990’s (prior to the Euro… The poor performance of the Euro since its inception, possibly the cause?)
2. If you were 18-21 (and probably massively pro-EEC) in 1975 you would be 59-63 and voted (as a group) as a significant majority to leave the EU.
I would contend that the idea that the UK population would becoming more accepting of the EU as the years passed by (and therefore older anti-EU voters would die off) is simply not shown to happen. If anything it seems 41 years in the EU/more time in the EU seems to lead voters to become more anti_EU as the grow older. Disillusionment with the ‘project’ maybe? I think it is a fallacy to think the people will loose their connection to the nation state (it only becomes stronger the older people get, nostalgia maybe?)
We see the future very differently. In 20 years time, I think people will look back and think what a good choice the UK made to have taken a chance to become a leading dynamic free-trading nation, open and trading with the world. While the EU faltered and fell into damaging acrimonious splits between the north, south ans eastern parts of the continent. All because political ideologies got put before pragmatic choices ( my proof… the Euro project… a single currency before a single country.. madness…. on the idea “well they will have to make it work” otherwise… …… (otherwise 50% unemployment in 18-24 in south Europe, Italy no growth for 15 years, Greece economy destroyed).
@Little Jackie Paper
Everyone who still believes in a “Hard Remain” and that many leave voters had no idea what they were voting for, should take a good “hard’ look at this graphic.
A sad reflection on one of the ‘richest’ countries in Europe.
@ Alex Macfie,
I regret that the remain side did not get a majority, but the issue that now dominates is not focussed on the arguments about our relationship with the EU.
Instead, thanks to the ineptitude of the Government in the way that they prepared the electorate, the focus is on democracy, with an increasing anger and resistant to the arguments made by the remain side. In my experience.
The Government knew that the referendum was advisory but chose not to share that with the electorate. In simple terms it was like organising a race where the runner thinks the first past the finishing line is the winner, only for the person first past the post to be told, well no,, those are not the rules.
Why were the rules not widely understood before people went out to vote? Sheer ineptitude.
The Government knew that the referendum was advisory but chose not to share that with the electorate
More than that: the government specifically promised, first in the manifesto on which it was elected and then on the official information leaflet, sent out to every home, that it would implement the decisions of the referendum, whichever way it went.
The referendum may have been advisory to Parliament, but it was not advisory to the Conservative Party: they promised to implement the result. Opposition MPs are of course free to vote any way they like (though if they are Labour MPs representing northern constituencies they may want to think carefully about that) but Conservative MPs have promised twice-over to vote to Leave.
And of course it’s unheard-of for an MP to make a solemn promise and then vote the other way, isn’t it? The Liberal Democrats know that better than anyone.
Surely, LJP and Mike S, the graphic you show (and I have worked politically in two of the “bottom 10” regions, Cornwall and West Wales) is more a demonstration of how unequal a country the UK is, rather than anything specific about the EU? There’s London, at the top of the table, as usual, and the usual suspects, plus a few, like Cornwall, that the likes of Thatcher tried to rubbish that were “poor”. Do you not think that there would be a great case for what is called “Hard Remain” here, ie we have chosen an opt-out route so many times, that we are not fully able to take part in the EU’s benefits? Why, LJP, do you say that the EU specifically is part of the “Business as Usual” agenda preventing change?
Already, the UK Tory Government are making no promises about Regional funding to replace current EU Convergence – formerly Objective 1 Funding! Explain why, please, some of these regions – Cornwall notably, but also areas of the North of England voted Out in the face of this likelihood?? At least Gwynedd and parts of West Wales voted Remain! I find your arguments totally unconvincing from an economic point of view. On the UK domestic front we lost out through Thatcher dropping Regional policy (“it doesn’t work”) Trouble is, some regions need an economic boost to avoid dropping further behind – whether Theresa May has something like that in mind now, I don’t know! At least the EU acknowledged that point. I am surprised you don’t make that point, LJP.
I would be much more in agreement with you if you pointed out how difficult it is to fight against the distortions of the Mail, the Express and the Murdoch press, along with certain UKIP arguments taking hold, and the apparent difficulty of arguing for a political Europe (I say “apparent”, as when the production of Euro election material was partially decentralised in 2004, I ensured that in our area we used political campaigning and not just the usual bland pap issued at Euros. OK, we did not increase Lib Dem votes especially, but we proved it did not actually reduce our vote, always the in-house contention and argument against it.)
Arnold’s points are still valid. The government is caught between a rock and a hard place. Much of their own doing (previous governments as well). It will be interesting to see how they try and extricate themselves.
Democracy is a process, it is not an event.
The referendum question was formulated without any plan for a potential exit from the EU.
So if the referendum result was binding (it wasn’t, it was advisory) then the vote was a vote against democracy – and this would explain why so many people who don’t usually vote came out to protest, and why they now complain about any public participation in the democratic processes through the court system, the electoral system or the parliamentary system.
Brexiters don’t want democracy or to ‘take back control’, they want a dictatorship and someone else to blame.
@Tim13
Tim, I can only speak for myself here.
I believe the Psyche of many people who voted leave in areas such as these is routed in a combined lack of trust jointly in the EU and our own politicians – neither of whom have managed to improve their situation.
So, the historical thought process: Join EU, industry tanks (steel, coal etc), told globalisation is good for you, don’t worry about those jobs moving abroad because they’ll be other ones and you’ll be more highly skilled.
Years (decades) later people in these regions are still waiting for this vision to materialise. They see no change in their communities.
They are still the poorest regions in Europe.
Before the EU they were doing OK. They maybe understand these industries aren’t coming back, but the EU haven’t delivered a replacement, if anything wages, where there are jobs, are depressed often as a result of migrants from the EU.
Conclusion: They therefore see no benefit of EU membership.
People need to see and experience the promised benefits otherwise why would they vote for more of the same? I think this is the answer to your second question.
People appear now to vote for what they feel, see and experience, not for what they are told, especially when experience tells them words can’t be trusted.
I think we are in danger of not only been unable to win arguments with righteous indignation anymore but also with rational arguments too. People don’t listen to experts anymore remember!
This is why I think communication is going to be a real challenge now and more creative, subliminal and emotional methods are going to become much more important to connect with these disengaged communities especially. Not sure if that answers fully. Maybe LJP will add/disagree?
Mike S. (hi!) I can’t believe that that extraordinarily narrow view of what the EU had to offer Britons was the major prompt in voting leave. History, national security, shared culture may not have counted for many, but there were so many tangible benefits – workers’ rights, environmental improvements, support for the poorest regions like Wales, shared policing, etc. – that the EU surely wasn’t just expected to provide jobs. When because of globalisation and the inadequacies of our own govenment jobs did indeed become scarcer, worse paid and less secure, people may well have looked round for a scapegoat such as immigrants from the EU, but the EU was never an employment agency for the masses, as the youth of Greece, Italy and Spain certainly found out. I think the idea of a vast, well-paid bureacracy running affairs with small democratic control and making rules for us was more compelling, and we will certainly have our work cut out to promote a favourable idea in future of even a reformed EU.
Arnold; Many people might think that telling the British people what they must or must not do is not the way forward if you want to win an argument.
This country has been sleep walking towards a federal E.U. for years. Would you agree that the nation state is the cause, of all war, and therefore must be eliminated? Do you agree with the Europe ultimately being divided into regions regardless of former
Don’t wake the Lion….. so it has been said on occasion?
boarders?
Katharine (Hi)
I was specifically responding to Tim’s question re Little Jackie Paper’s post including the graphic – “UK regions poorest in Europe” – see link above
I of course recognise, there were many reasons people may have voted leave:
1. 2010 The EU goes into an economic nose dive which it makes worse with austerity policies. Suddenly the EU looks awful and it looks German dominated
2. In addition to the economic nosedive, there’s been an immigration crisis in Europe
3. The British thought they were entering a trading body, they have always hated being railroaded into an economic union few wanted.
4. The fear of loss of sovereignty and national character to a bunch of pushy eurocrats in Brussels
5. The press has being feeding the population for the last 10 years that this is all about Britain and about standing up to Brussels.
6. Britain doesn’t have the infrastructure to cope with large-scale immigration
7. An Englishman’s home (and his Nation) is his castle
There now, is that broader? 🙂
And no, I don’t agree with all of them personally – but many do!
Interesting viewpoint, James Spackman.
Thankyou for your replies to my points, Mike S, and for your points Katharine Pindar.
I know you make an important point, Mike about the lack of trust in words – I suppose it’s a bit analogous to looking out for “the small print” in agreements / contracts / offers etc. In relation to “globalisation”, it has always been with us – certainly over a millennium or more in European and Mediterranean history, and much more far-flung in colonial times. Since the Victorian era in this country we have evolved a set of controls / laws / administration to ensure that here at least the worst excesses of private sector exploitation is controlled while benefiting from products and services generated. Gradually, a “mixed economy” grew up, where the people, through a system of representative democracy had a fair degree of say (I won’t say control) over what happened in communities at various levels – from town to national, and occasionally, international. Many factors have been at work breaking down this influence. One reason, for my opposition to Thatcherism and what you might call post-Thatcherism is its malign effect on this. So-called austerity has intensified this effect breaking many services, particularly those traditionally run by local government. The emasculation of trade unions and other bargaining systems at work has meant many people having less control over their workplaces, hours of work and pay.
I think a key factor has been the involvement of powerful mmedia, both traditional and social in persuading many to develop scapegoats, of which the EU and immigrants are but two, when, of course, both have been fairly positive in terms of outcomes for Britons, and I agree with all that Katharine says on this.
The tragedy is that for the future, in our globalised world, we need to act more closely with our neighbours and others in the world. If as James says a fair number of people really want a dictatorship, it poses a huge communication challenge for us as liberals and democrats to oppose the subtle implementation of that we have seen.
James Spackman,
Yes everything would be great if it wasn’t for those pesky voters. The reality is that MPs of all Parties trundled in to support the referendum bill and the only thing they put on the ballot paper was Remain or Leave. They were perfectly comfortable with this when they thought it was an easy win. At any point they could have objected. They did not. They did this despite that reality in recent EU elections the electorate had opted to support UKIP and Conservatives as MEPS!
No one was voting for a dictatorship.
Tim/ Katharine
Hi both – I agree with many of your points here, especially the effect of austerity and what we stand to lose in terms of EU protections, both in the workplace and environmentally.
This whole communication issue I find fascinating.
Arnold’s attempts at presenting a rational argument for the EU are particularly interesting (much of which I and I’m sure others here agree with). However, he appears to be having little success in winning it at the moment. Personally I think this is because the British and German Psyche could not be more different especially in respect of the EU.
British people generally absolutely hate been told what to do and especially feeling they are being railroaded. Maybe this is in part due to our historical place in the world and maybe because we are a stubborn, independent minded island nation?
Having spent 3 months in New Zealand this year, I see many parallels. We want to be in charge of our own destiny and decisions, even if it means cutting of our nose to spike our face on occasions. It’s not rational but it’s who we are as a people, I would suggest.
Just think of shy tories, shy leavers, refusal to tell pollers the truth etc
There is a stubborn passive aggressiveness to the British character.
We will smile, be polite (generally) and listen, but if you don’t ‘hear us’……… Self-reliance and self-regulation are more important to most Brits than rule by the authorities.
German’s on the other hand, generally like regulation; they stand patiently at a road crossing and wait for green to cross – whether cars are coming or not.
There is something of the maverick in many British people. We like freedom and flexibility
We hate restrictions/regulations and rules in the main (hence why freedom is potentially such a powerful word).
Above all we hate being told what to do – we’ll go down with our own ship thank you very much. Structures and regulations are alien to most British: another strong reason for EU antipathy. Unsurprisingly the UK displays huge opposition to Brussels regulation
To quote a famous book: Britain is from Mars, Europe is from Venus in very many ways.
I mentioned above – An Englishman’s home (and Nation) is his castle.
The real challenge is that this appears to be as true today as it was in the past.
You can’t change the Pyshe of a whole population by rational argument alone is what I’m saying.
Structures and regulations are alien to most British
Not quite. Imposed structures and regulations are alien to the British; they are quite happy with spontaneously-generated structures (think of how a Englishman alone will arrange himself into an orderly queue of one).
Same as the constitution: the British are revolted by the idea of sitting down and writing out a constitution, preferring to let things trundle along in the way they have always been done, by custom and practice and tradition, making whatever adjustments are necessary as circumstances occur. Again, totally opposed to the European mindset of setting down a constitution and where ‘unregulated’ doesn’t mean ‘free’ but ‘dangerous’.
Other than that, exactly correct.
BUT people generally detest it when others break either rules or accepted norms. Having a rule in place means that people can and will accept that there is fairness in the system. However, there is no point in having meaningless rules, otherwise it brings the whole system into disrepute. I spent a long time in local government working with people on customer service, insisting that various enforcement officers go through the mill on it. If you work in enforcement, whether in the police or any other agency it is desperately important that you always treat people fairly and politely, AND if necessary, explain why the rule you are enforcing is there. Broadly speaking we are a law and rule abiding lot in Britain – it is, of course an issue if people think they have rules to address a problem that doesn’t apply to them!
Unlike Dav and others here, I can’t get exercised over who devises or enforces the rules, as long as they take into account properly the issues, and the problems present, and they are enforced sensitively and in an unbiased manner.
And also – traditionally we have believed in a written constitution in the Lib Dems, to clarify and underwrite the law. The issues of EU withdrawal and the complexity of the process to leave would then have been rather clearer, and might well have given more pause for thought. I also think it would have demanded a constitutional change, probably requiring a two-thirds majority, which would have been a lot safer from sudden major shifts of opinion than a simple majority.
I didn’t like the smugness of Julia Hartley-Brewer in her interview with Sarah Olney but she does have a point to an extent. Nick Clegg was asked a question with a similar theme by Andrew Neil which was along the lines of the party needing a re-branding and dropping the ‘democrat’ part of the party’s title.
I don’t think the EU referendum result should necessarily be binding forever but I think it’s absolutely not right to agitate for a re-run when the decision has only just been made. This is what the European Commission has already been so good at with Ireland, France and the Netherlands in various referendums on treaties. To do so will be a further boon to the right and the far-right.
It also causes an issue in Scotland. If the party supports another referendum on a result it did not like in the EU referendum then why should we block Scottish nationalists from doing the same? The result of June 23rd must be respected. As a Brexit voter myself I do not like the tone of the debate and all this nonsense of ‘remonaners’ is very childish. People who voted to stay in the EU should be respected for their views. Ultimately though that argument lost and that is why the UK government must proceed with Brexit as was said in the pamphlet which went to every household, ‘the government will implement what you decide.’ No treating voters as idiots and telling them they didn’t know what they were voting for because the vast majority did.
Dear LJP, Tynan, Mike S. and other contributors,
the chart is enlighting and matches my impression of the UK when travelling 20 or more miles outside London. I also concur with your interpretation, but not the conclusion.
Peoples’ association of their hardship with EU membership is a Tory/press fabrication (UKIP is a subsequent derivative thanks to Conservatives’ paving the way, not a genuine factor). I am all for giving people what they need, which, in this case, is not what they want.
But first of all, politicians must tell voters the unpleasant truth. The truth is that globalization is not a political choice, but the inevitable result of technological progress: the standard container and the internet have made products travel cheaply, and information and money at the speed of light.
It has affected Europe, the Americas, Asia, irrespective of the political systems or parties in power. When thinking hard about countries that did not participate in globalization, only North Korea and, to a lesser degree, Cuba come to mind. Even if Arthur Scargill had won, there would be no mining left today.
Globalization is nothing else than specialization (a wealth creator nobody would argue with), but accross larger distances. Creating a smaller sub-circle of similarly expensive nearby countries (the EU) to have scale and specialization with relatively little cost-competition is a very smart shock-absorber in this world, but not a lasting protection against cheaper competitors around the globe.
Trouble is that the UK is competitive in too few areas, many of which tend to create limited employment for the ultra-highly paid. But that is your irreversible destiny.
Then there are things you cannot import, esp. land, which are therefore terribly expensive: housing and public transport.
To save some money, you currently import cheaper labor from Poland, Romania and Bulgaria which, I believe, is perfectly ok. They do not displace Englishmen and -women, who are not exactly lining up to work in the fields or care. On the construction sites I have witnessed, the man with the tool in his hand was never the Englishman.
My conclusion: maximize business where you are competitive to fund the benefits you can afford. Remaining a member of the single market is imperative.
Arnold,
What you call Globalization is the result of a late Western capitalist fallacy of borderless trade. You say only Cuba and North Korea do not participate, but a good proportion of the countries we import from do not operate by the same rules. In fact it’s just cheap labour benefitting shareholders and the profit margin being passed off as universal value and a moral truth. Technology has very little to do with it beyond giving this very old practice of not wanting to pay workers a science fiction style gloss.
Your internet provider’s call centre is not in India because the technology dictates it is the best place to find the skills or because the environment naturally lends itself to broadband . It’s because they don’t want to pay western wages. In other words it is rapacious capitalism being passed off as an unstoppable force. Maybe the real mistake of the Remain argument was to emphasise free trade and “inevitable” globalisation instead of highlighting the protectionism of the EU. Maybe if the EU was more protectionist of both its trade and its borders then it might become more popular with Brits. .
“To save some money, you currently import cheaper labor from Poland, Romania and Bulgaria which, I believe, is perfectly ok. They do not displace Englishmen and -women, who are not exactly lining up to work in the fields or care. On the construction sites I have witnessed, the man with the tool in his hand was never the Englishman.”
See now I just find that comment so typical of late and offensive, insinuating that British men and women are either to lazy or up themselves to do these jobs. Nonsense.
What do you think was happening in the 70’s 80’s, we were a nation of factory workers, people working long hours for DECENT pay, there was none of this cheap migrant labour and we didn’t need it.
What happened was, when freedom of movement came along, the businesses and factories got greedy and realised they could get cheaper labour from the continent and blame it on the British workers making out they were to lazy to do the jobs.
Before EU Migrant labour, how do you think companies like KETTLE Crisps, Bernard Matthew’s survived, they did so by offering generous pay packets and overtime rates and Brits were more than happy to lap up these jobs.
Coming from Norfolk, I knew plenty of people, more than willing to work the fields.
There were no shortage of care workers either.
Most youngmen who left school with no formal qualifications, many aspired to work in the building trade through apprenticeships and many did so.
Please stop this nonsense, that British people do not want to do this work and without the European Labour, everything would collapse. It is utter nonsense and offensive.
The last few, lucid, posts make me recognise again that in our modern age, there is no such thing as total freedom, either for the individual or for the modern nation state. Mike, you may well be right about the British national psyche, but as Dav and Tim 13 lead one to realise, we are each and every one of us hemmed in with rules and regulations from dawn to dusk, and from birth to death, and we can accept them without question if they are OUR rules and they are enforced with fairness. As for the modern nation state, also hemmed in as Arnold recognises, surely the only way of progress is that of co-operation between the nation states, as in the EU, where indeed as Glenn suggests we may need that continued protectionism.
First of all, thank you Katharine for your balanced views, always so diplomatically presented. I will never learn that.
Glenn, matt, may I remind you that employment of British nationals is at record highs? So who is being displaced? If looking at objective criteria, 500 million Europeans never lived so well. Also, since these fabulous 70’s and 80’s, 500 million Chinese escaped extreme poverty and are now aspiring to middle-class standards of living. They were happy to work for 2 or 3 times rural wages and understood that asking for western wages would have gotten them nowhere. Do you think that’s wrong?
Besides, their hard work has, because of healthy competition, produced much more consumer surplus than corporate profits. Do you want to abolish Primark, Next, Lidl, Aldi, Poundland and return to Marks & Spencer only?
In your nostalgic scenario you must ensure both: survival of non-competitive jobs in non-competitive companies, and consumers willing to overpay for their overpriced products and services. You need to close borders and believe that there is no demographic timebomb. No such case is observable in the real world. Cuba or North Korea can be observed.
An extract from a blogpiece on Brexit I wrote:
In a democracy, democratic decisions can and indeed must be subject to debate and disagreement, and must be able to be challenged through democratic means. Anyone saying otherwise is essentially promoting a dictatorship of the (in this case slim and some polls indicate diminishing) majority.
Full blog piece here: http://rebeccataylormep.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/what-are-brexiters-scared-of.html
So stop this crap about “denying democracy”. IF the LibDems we were proposing to ignore the result of the referendum or overturn it through non-democratic means, then there is a case to answer. We’re not.
The only way to stop Brexit before it happens or to reverse it afterwards is WITH THE SUPPORT OF THE MAJORITY OF VOTERS in this country. That’s democracy. It might not work, we might not convince people that a change of direction is needed, but trying to convince them is most definitely not anti-democratic in fact it’s democracy in action.
And it’s not even electorally stupid; we just doubled our vote share in a pro-Brexit area on the back of a 4 week campaign which didn’t have anything like enough money or boots on the ground.
@Rebecca Taylor “The only way to stop Brexit before it happens or to reverse it afterwards is WITH THE SUPPORT OF THE MAJORITY OF VOTERS in this country.”
Unfortunately, that is not necessarily so, for all the reasons given when Lib Dems complain about our parliamentary system not being representative of the electorate. Lib Dems seem surprisingly happy to use an unrepresentative House of Commons and an unelected House of Lords to prevent or hinder Brexit, which is ironic given all of the years and energy spent campaigning against both notions and the dismal failure to achieve any reform while in government.
” 500 million Europeans never lived so well.”
Are you serious
I don’t think the people of Greece will agree with you
23.4% unemployed / 46.5% youth unemployment
Or the people of
Spain with 20% unemployment / 42% youth unemployment rate
Italy 11.6 % unemployment rate / 37.1 % Youth Unemployment rate
Portugal 13% unemployed / 31% youth unemployment
It is offensive that you think the people of these countries have never lived so well.
The young people of these struggling European nations are left with 2 options
a) stay in their country and suffer extreme hardship with little prospect of a job
b) leaving their homes, loves ones, family, country, behind in order to look for work elsewhere because their is little hope in their home country for them.
Some of these people are not leaving their country by CHOICE because they want to work in another country, they are doing it out of sheer desperation. Families are being broken apart.
If you want to kid yourself and say that these people have never lived so well, then my god where is your compassion.
How would you feel if the shoe was on the other foot, you had to leave your country , your friends, family, support structure, in order to look for work in another country, not out of choice, but out of necessity.
Not all Europeans that have come to work in the Uk have done so out of love for the European project and because they want to work abroad. Some have done so as there was no alternative.
That to me is not something to be proud of or a project that is working
I also note that you did not respond to my previous comments about your wild accusations that British people do not want to do the jobs you claim.
Arnold.
China is a communist single party state. It’s only interest is industrial dominance.
Are absolutely certain you’re not just nostalgic for pre 20th century labour laws and don’t really care if it supports a totalitarian regime like China as long as you don’t have to pay anyone properly. Coz to me it seems there is nothing new or immutable about what your saying. It’s just comes across as a bunch tired excuses for being a cheap skate.
@Rebecca Taylor
” IF the LibDems we were proposing to ignore the result of the referendum or overturn it through non-democratic means, then there is a case to answer. We’re not.”
You are wanting to overturn the result by changing the question on the referendum paper. That to me is undemocratic and trying to find a way out of the current vote.
What are the questions and options you and other LD’s would like to see put on the referendum ballot should a 2nd referendum be granted?
Peter>Lib Dems seem surprisingly happy to use an unrepresentative House of Commons and an unelected House of Lords
What exactly do you suggest we use to influence change?
>and the dismal failure to achieve any reform
We were a minority party in not only a government, but a Parliament where the ‘big boys’ didn’t want reform, because the system worked too well for them. Our one shot at reform of FPTP, the AV referendum, was jumped on by Tories and Labour as a chance to give us a kicking for going into coalition. And turned into a referendum on Nick and the tuition fees debacle.
CassieB “What exactly do you suggest we use to influence change?”
Having sadly lost the debate during the referendum, the unrepresentative Commons and unelected Lords, both of which we want to reform, are unfortunately the most effective weapons in the Lib Dems’ arsenal. But it is grossly hypocritical for the party simultaneously to claim the moral high ground with an article called “Why do the Brexiteers hate democracy”. (‘Brexit and the denial of democracy’ might be the less offensive text above the article but look at the name of this web page in your browser for what might have been its original title.)
Lib Dems got the In/Out referendum on EU membership for which they have campaigned and voted for a number of years. Because it did not deliver the result the party wanted then it is exploiting some pretty undemocratic methods to get its own way.
@CassieB “Our one shot at reform of FPTP, the AV referendum, was jumped on by Tories and Labour as a chance to give us a kicking for going into coalition.”
Sadly Nick Clegg needed no help from the ‘big boys’ when it came to demolishing the chances of implementing what he had previously dismissed as a “miserable little compromise”. I also fear that his approach to coalition (giving the impression that it requires the minor partner to sacrifice its identity and independence) means that there will be little appetite for electoral reform and proportional representation for the foreseeable future.
@Peter Watson
“… means that there will be little appetite for electoral reform and proportional representation for the foreseeable future.”
I don’t think that follows.
Yes, I would see little appetite for it among the Tories, but I would see every possibility of Labour realising the stupidity of their opposing AV in the referendum particularly bearing in mind that their 2010 manifesto had advocated it.
Simon, “Labour realising the stupidity of their opposing AV.” When did you last come across Labour relaising its stupidity? Come on be honest! 🙂
Labour did not oppose AV. It had a free vote on it. Ed Miliband supported it. All of which is beside the point because voters overwhelmingly rejected it. The vote was not even remotely close. It was defeated by roughly a 68% to 32% rejection. The reality is political parties do not own their voters absolute loyalty (a lesson the Lib Dem leadership should have learned before the May 2015 disaster) and Labours’ full support would have made little difference because AV just did not appeal to enough voters.
And no I’m not a Labour voter and yes I actually voted for AV.
OK, how was it that Police and Crime Commissioner elections could be held using supplementary vote without the need for any sort of referendum ? The fact is Clegg was one of the most incompetent political leaders in British history.
Glenn, just to clarify: by ‘Labour,’ I mean Labour voters as well as politicians.
A major reason that didn’t appeal was also the dismal campaign that went with it. Explaining how it works (and making it look over-complicated in the process). Rather than focussing on the unfairness of FPTP, to show why we need change in the first place.
Peter> But it is grossly hypocritical for the party simultaneously to claim the moral high ground with an article
In referring me to the browser, can I refer you to the ‘about us’ at the top of this website. This isn’t ‘the party’ claiming anything. It’s an article by one member, expressing his personal opinion, on an independent website, put together by party members for other people to read and debate.
@Simon Shaw “I don’t think that follows.”
I would certainly hope not. In 2015 UKIP were outraged by their lack of MPs per vote when compared with Lib Dems, and I noticed that people who had never thought about proportional representation before were now talking about it.
My concern though is that there will be no appetite for the sort of coalitions that PR would deliver more often: this was certainly a feature of the AV referendum campaign. After 2010, coalition government appeared as something in which the smaller partner is entirely subsumed by the larger one without maintaining an independent identity. Perhaps it was because Nick Clegg’s advisors chose to present it like this, or because the party adopted a form of collective responsibility that is better suited to single-party government, or because there was little difference between Tory and Lib Dem leaders who genuinely supported the policies they were defending, but either way it might have damaged more than just the reputation of the Lib Dem party.
@CassieB “In referring me to the browser, can I refer you to the ‘about us’ at the top of this website.”
Fair enough. It is grossly hypocritical for members of the party simultaneously to claim the moral high ground with an article called “Why do the Brexiteers hate democracy”. Meanwhile it still seems hypocritical for the party itself to attempt to overturn the unfortunate outcome of the sort of democratic In/Out referendum which it campaigned and voted for by exploiting the undemocratic devices of an unrepresentative Commons and an unelected Lords which the party has long campaigned and voted against.
>it still seems hypocritical for the party itself to attempt to overturn the unfortunate outcome
Well, it would be, if that’s what was happening. A small majority voted Leave. But they didn’t get to choose the detail. I don’t see how holding the government to account on HOW we leave is wrong. Nor giving voters the chance to say ‘that’s rubbish, get it right or stick as we are for now’ when we find out what their grand plan is.
Arguing about the tyranny of majorities is rehashing ground that’s been covered a lot, on numerous threads.
But, while it’s tempting to say to Leavers ‘you voted for it, don’t blame me if it ends in tears,’ someone has to stand up for the minority as well.
(Btw, have you tried telling the SNP they should stop campaigning for independence, after losing in 2014?)
Brexit is a leap in the dark. 52% trust there will be better things there. 48% don’t want to jump. Some of the 52% would probably like to shine a torch before the jump happens. Some of them would probably also appreciate the chance to change their minds about jumping if that torch shows the other side is jagged rocks, not fields of daisies.
@CassieB
” A small majority voted Leave. But they didn’t get to choose the detail. I don’t see how holding the government to account on HOW we leave is wrong. Nor giving voters the chance to say ‘that’s rubbish, get it right or stick as we are for now’ when we find out what their grand plan is.”
I have tried asking this question on various threads and got no answer, maybe you would be so kind to oblige.
Tim Farron, Nick Clegg and other leading figures in the party where calling for an in out referendum for years.
When they debated and legislated for what the question should be, they agreed it should be simply.
“Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union?”
with the options
Remain a member of the European Union
Leave the European Union
Why do you think that was? why do you think they did not demand at the time for various other options on the ballot paper?
What question and options do you think should be on the 2nd referendum ballot where remainers to get their way and get one?
Matt, I will attempt an answer to your interesting questions, but I can’t speak for everyone, this is just how I personally see things. Yes, our party did call for an in-out referendum for years, though apparently at different times with different ideas (I have learnt here) of what should be thus decided. Generally, the idea was, I suppose, that as being in the EU is good for Britain, our people should be invited to affirm our commitment to it. However, with the rise of anti-EU feeling in the country in the last few years we probably did not feel that last year’s timing was wise, and certainly saw it as a ploy by the Prime Minister to ‘shoot the UKIP fox’, which unfortunately didn’t work. I guess that if continuing in government we would have striven to improve relations with the EU and propose reforms which might have lessened anti-EU sentiment.
The second part of your questioning is easier to answer. Referendums are only suitable for simple yes-no answers, being a clunky adjunct to democracy. So I suppose that, if after the negotiations we have the follow-up referendum that we believe would be right, we would be asking people to vote on, Do you accept that the proposed conditions for our future relationship with the EU are right for Britain? Yes or no. If they say no, the Government will have to think again.
@Katharine Pindar
Many thanks for your engagement and reply, I do appreciate it.
In response to your first part and please forgive me if I am wrong, but it sounded very much like you were saying that the party were in favour of referendum as long as they believed the public were on side and they would win the vote.
That’s hardly in the spirit of putting a decision out to plebiscite.
Parliament decided that on the most important decision facing the future of our country and that of our continued membership of the European Union, instead of the decision being made by representative democracy, power would be handed back to the people for direct democracy. The decision was made and people wanted to leave the EU.
on the 2nd part
” Referendums are only suitable for simple yes-no answers”
I agree entirely, however, that is not the impression that you get from some peoples arguments. All this talk of we have voted for exit but not for a destination, and do we want hard brexit, soft brexit, member of the single market, EFTA, etc. It is all nonsense and filibustering.
There can be no 2nd referendum before aticle 50 is invoked. Because as you say, referendums can only ever be a yes or no, in or out question. There can not be a ballot with multiple choice answers.
Article 50 will be invoked and we have absolutely no say in what will be negotiated. The EU and UK will negotiate our terms. After the 2 years is up, unless the EU agrees to extend the negotiating period, the choice is accept the negotiated terms, whatever they maybe or we resort to WTO.
From my understanding there are no provisions that would even allow the UK to hold another referendum on the negotiated terms.
Thanks again for responding Katharine.
Matt, I’m enjoying this discussion! On your first point, I can’t imagine any political party would recommend a plebiscite unless they thought they could win it: surely that’s just practical politics. But it’s still true I think in this case that (to quote my esteemed leader)
‘Voting for departure is not the same as voting for a destination’, and it wasn’t clear then and still isn’t, what leaving would mean for the country. We believe that leaving is harmful to the country, that people will come to realise that, and that once the slim majority of pro-leavers becomes a minority a referendum on the terms negotiated will seem an acceptable part of our continuing democracy. But as to what the 27 states will agree to in the negotiations, nobody can tell, and reports vary, so we must wait and see. Whether Article 50 once invoked could later be revoked, again nobody can tell. But meantime, Matt, you and I are not going to agree, except that we agree to disagree amicably. Thanks, and goodnight!
@Katharine Pindar
“I can’t imagine any political party would recommend a plebiscite unless they thought they could win it: surely that’s just practical politics”
I can see where you are coming from honestly, but for me it is about “sticking to values” and democracy.
If you strongly believe that the public should be given their say and ultimately the decision on something. If that is what you have campaigned for, argued for years, have then achieved. Then your values should, in my opinion extend to respecting the outcome of that decision and implementing it.
That’s how I feel.
Obviously, I am a strong leaver. I am passionate about leaving the EU as I do not feel the EU is either right for this country or it’s people. It is a failed project that is blighting and displacing the lives of Millions of people around Europe. With Youth unemployment skyrocketing around Europe, an EU that refuses to acknowledge the problems that it faces and just wants to carry on with more of the same. I simply can not support this.
On a personal level, it would have been in my interests to support remain.
I am a 40 year old gay married disabled man, with a mental illness that is effected by circumstances as well as current environment. In the near future, I will be in the position to able to afford to move. Moving to somewhere else on the continent has always been an aim, to improve my quality of life and my health. But when it came to me making my decision on the EU. I voted on what I believed was right for the country, my fellow citizens, old, new and future generations. I voted by sticking to my values and voted for what i believe was best for the collective rather than for just myself and personal circumstances.
I am not suggesting for one moment that other people who voted remain did not do so with the same principles in mind. What I am suggesting is that it is unprincipled and undemocratic of politicians and political parties to do what they are doing and attempting to block the will of the people after they handed them back the power to make the decision for themselves.
Matt, as you asked me:
>Why do you think that was? why do you think they did not demand at the time for various other options on the ballot paper?
As Katharine says, to keep it simple. Though I never supported the idea of a referendum in the first place. Decades of vested interests demonising the EU and little to counter that made the playing field a steep slope from the start. And the campaign both sides was terrible. Lot of people I know were undecideds and the campaigns didn’t help them at all.
>What question and options do you think should be on the 2nd referendum ballot
Given the actual deal being proposed, do you think we should:
a) trigger A50 and go ahead with it?
b) stay as we are?
>All this talk of we have voted for exit but not for a destination… is all nonsense
No, it’s ‘the vote determined the principle, now we need to flesh that out.’ Unless you think we should ‘just leave,’ with no negotiations, no deal with the rest of the EU at all? (That may be what we end up with, of course: out on our ear with nothing).
Personally, I find ‘It’s the Will of the People’ on a par with ‘It’s for Charity’ – a moral high ground approach to shut down disagreement. It’s like, ‘if your opinion is different to mine, you’re a dreadful person who doesn’t care about democracy/starving donkeys…’
You’re right, I did vote Remain on principles. Do you think I should abandon those, just because 4% more people think differently?
If you believe in something, you stand up for it, even if it is unpopular.
@CassieB
“>What question and options do you think should be on the 2nd referendum ballot
Given the actual deal being proposed, do you think we should:
a) trigger A50 and go ahead with it?
b) stay as we are?”
So if i have this right, you are proposing that we have a 2nd referendum before we even trigger article 50, is that right?
That makes no logical sense whatsoever. No deal can be proposed until after article 50 has been invoked.
The Government is not going to set out it’s entire set of wish lists, put it before the public and ask them to approve it before they go into negotiations with EU. It is absurd.
Talk about sabotaging the governments negotiating hand.
You do realise that even if your idea was even remotely possible, the “stay as we are” is exactly that, stay as we are now, even without the so called reforms that Cameron got, because they became null and void the day we voted to leave the EU.
“>All this talk of we have voted for exit but not for a destination… is all nonsense
No, it’s ‘the vote determined the principle, now we need to flesh that out.’ Unless you think we should ‘just leave,’ with no negotiations, no deal with the rest of the EU at all? (That may be what we end up with, of course: out on our ear with nothing).”
We do not have to flesh anything out, that’s for our negotiators to flesh out with other EU member states. We had our voice and we chose to leave the EU.
Now it is up to the Government to determine the best deal that they can get.
My interpretation of the result was leave the EU, meaning, leaving the single market
That does not mean to say that a deal can not be struck where we can gain some access to the single market, Britain is in a position to make a bespoke deal with the EU.
Even by Junkers admission this week , Mr Juncker warned that in ten years Europe’s share in the world economy would fall to 15 per cent from the current 25 per cent.
Why would Great Britain bind itself to the ties of Europe, a failing organisation that is unable to listen, unwilling to learn, carry on as normal attitude which is blighting the futures of millions of young Europeans across the Continent with shocking youth unemployment figures, displacing people from their family members, countries and communities out of desperation rather than choice.
Why would we continue being tied to this sinking ship, unable to make our own trade deals with the rest of the world because we are part of the EU protectionist block, whose president admits that its share of the global economy will shrink to 15%
That to me is crazy.
We need to unshackle ourselves from the EU and be free to trade with the rest of the world and these rising nations economies.
@ Matt – “Why would Great Britain bind itself to the ties of Europe, a failing organisation that is unable to listen, unwilling to learn, carry on as normal attitude which is blighting the futures of millions of young Europeans across the Continent with shocking youth unemployment figures, displacing people from their family members, countries and communities out of desperation rather than choice.”
Very close to the wording I use when describing my motivation to vote leave.
It’s all a bit Alice in Wonderland, isn’t it? Unless A50 is reversible, there’s no point us having a say after it’s triggered.
Someone likened it to buying a house. Think of it as you put in the offer, the surveyor checks the property, the survey shows subsidence. Not much good having the survey after you’ve bought the place, is it?
As for Cameron’s agreed changes, does anyone even know what they were? Totally drowned out in the referendum. I think we should stay and improve things from the inside. Not have to abide by EU rules to trade with them without any say at all.
>My interpretation of the result was …
And did all 17m-odd Leave voters interpret it the same way?
>We need to unshackle ourselves from the EU and be free to trade with the rest of the world and these rising nations economies.
Which would those be? Aren’t they all slowing now?
India has already made it clear they’d expect us to take in more migrants, which May knows would be a lead balloon at home. No one is desperate to trade with us, unless it’s on their terms. Sell cheap stuff to us, maybe. How would swapping existing deals on our doorstep with as-yet-non-existent deals thousands of miles away be an improvement?
@CassieB
“It’s all a bit Alice in Wonderland, isn’t it? Unless A50 is reversible, there’s no point us having a say after it’s triggered.”
But my understanding was, your position is, that we should have a 2nd referendum before article 50 is even triggered?
“As for Cameron’s agreed changes, does anyone even know what they were? ”
Precisely, the proposed changes were so meaningless, showing conclusively that the EU was not interested in any meaningful reform. You can not change an organisation from within when the organisation does not see anything and has no interest in reforms.
“>My interpretation of the result was …
And did all 17m-odd Leave voters interpret it the same way?”
Yes I believe the majority did interpret it the same way. It was said time and time again by all sides and in literature that leaving the EU would mean leaving the single market. The people were asked and they voted to leave the EU.
“Which would those be? Aren’t they all slowing now?”
All of them. Why shackle ourselves to just the EU, whose share of the worlds economic output is in forever decline. Being shackled to the EU will mean us accepting ever more protectionist policies for the EU, higher tariffs on goods from outside the EU.
This will in turn raise the cost of living for people in the UK for those who are struggling and those who are just about managing to get by.
“India has already made it clear they’d expect us to take in more migrants, which May knows would be a lead balloon at home. No one is desperate to trade with us, unless it’s on their terms. Sell cheap stuff to us, maybe.”
Since the referendum results there have been plenty of countries who have said that they are keen to strike up trade agreements with the UK.
India would not block a trade deal unless we accepted more immigration, it would not be in their interests to do so. It is called negotiating, you always aim high and reach a compromise, at least that’s how it should work.
As for your comments about cheaper goods.
I see nothing wrong with having cheaper products especially foods in our supermarkets. It maybe alright for middle class Britain who are financially affluent enough not to have to worry about the rising cost of living, but for many families, putting food on the table is a real struggle.
Having cheaper goods, that puts money back into the pockets of the average family, which can then be utilised and spent on other parts of the economy, can only be a good thing for the consumer and the economy as a whole.
It is the less affluent sections of society that keeps the economy and the local economies going as the money that they do receive receive gets spent
>Having cheaper goods, that puts money back into the pockets of the average family,
Unfortunately, it also takes jobs from the average UK family (exports them), and keeps UK wages down, so all they can afford is cheap stuff.
I’m no economist, but I’m not sure our balance of payments (minus £28,684,000,000) is something we want to increase by more imports.
The UK, meanwhile, increased its trade with non-EU countries in 2015, so clearly, we don’t need to leave to be able to do that.
Cheaper food will drive more of our farmers out of business, and that will hit every other job in our rural economies that depends on them. Though I’ve been told on here by others the answer to that is to turn rural GB into one large holiday park.
>Precisely, the proposed changes were so meaningless, showing conclusively that the EU was not interested in any meaningful reform.
Not what I said. What I said was that I doubt 1% of voters even read what the proposals were. As everyone keeps saying, the referendum was In/Out, not ‘these changes, yes or no?”
As an experiment, go out and do a vox pop in your high street and find out how many people, however they voted, truly know what ‘single market’ means. Or have any knowledge of the workings of the EU, beyond ‘Brussels telling us what to do’, and ‘immigrants’.
“The UK, meanwhile, increased its trade with non-EU countries in 2015, so clearly, we don’t need to leave to be able to do that.”
Yes but the EU forces us to accept higher tariffs on goods bought outside the EU, which is only set to get worse as the EU share of the worlds economy is due to shrink over the next 10 years to just 15%.
To make up for the loss, the EU will force us to buy more and more from within the EU at higher prices, they will also impose higher tariffs from countries without a trade agreement. That is the bunker down mentality of the EU, and i can not see that ever changing
“Cheaper food will drive more of our farmers out of business, and that will hit every other job in our rural economies that depends on them.”
I disagree, outside the Common agriculture policy, we will be able to grow more without EU protectionist restrictions, we will be able to sell more within our own supermarkets and sell more to countries outside the EU.
“Not what I said. What I said was that I doubt 1% of voters even read what the proposals were. ”
Sorry I see nowhere in your post did you mention anything about that or 1% and besides, isn’t that a bit condescending, it’s this same old tired argument that people did not know what they were voting for, leavers tended to be uneducated never went on to higher education, rar rar rar. It’s insulting
Cassie B., well done for pursuing the argument so effectively! Matt, I respect your passionate opposition to the EU, but like other Leavers you have what appear to me to be entirely unrealistic expectations. You say, for instance, that Britain will be in a position to make a bespoke deal with the EU. Really? that seems to me to be highly unlikely. And you tell us that there are ‘plenty of countries who have said that they are keen to strike up trade agreements with the UK’. Fine words butter no parsnips. As the Indians made clear, there will be conditions, which will be difficult for us to meet. And apparently it took seven years for a trade agreement with Canada to be reached?
I think I will now pursue these arguments on a different thread, but thanks to Paul Sagar for stimulating such an invigorating discussion – and, Paul, looking back to what you wrote, that was a good and effective argument IMO, so again, many thanks.
@Katharine Pindar
“but like other Leavers you have what appear to me to be entirely unrealistic expectations.”
I don’t think they are unrealistic at all, I think they are vital to our future prosperity and even the prosperity of the EU. The EU can not continue on with this carry on regardless attitude.
” And you tell us that there are ‘plenty of countries who have said that they are keen to strike up trade agreements with the UK’. Fine words butter no parsnips. ”
Yes there are plenty, however, until we have actually exited the Single Market we are not able to start formal negotiation or strike up our own trade agreements as we are still bound by EU rules regarding trade, however, 10 countries are already lined up to make deals with the UK, including India, China, Japan, Australia and Canada. USA has also said we would be at the front of the cue
“And apparently it took seven years for a trade agreement with Canada to be reached?”
Yes which is a poor reflection on the EU. It shows how incompetent the EU is when making trade agreements because it has to take into account the protectionist mentality of 28 EU member states. It excluded entirely or severely limited some Agricultural and limited services, which 80% of the UK economy is reliant on.
Hardly a good example for us staying bind to the EU
Just to clarify, Matt (final post on this thread)..
>Sorry I see nowhere in your post did you mention anything about that or 1%
I said originally: ‘As for Cameron’s agreed changes, does anyone even know what they were?’
You misinterpreted that. I tried to make clearer what I actually meant, saying the same thing in other words (the 1% line).
>besides, isn’t that a bit condescending, it’s this same old tired argument that people did not know what they were voting for, leavers tended to be uneducated never went on to higher education, rar rar rar. It’s insulting..
No, it is not condescending, because again, you have misread what I said.
I said ‘1% of voters’.
i.e. ALL voters. Remain voters, Leave voters, spoiled-their-ballot paper voters, didn’t-bother-to-vote voters, couldn’t-decide-voters.
1% of voters.
Including me. I don’t know what Cameron’s deal was, because all that was forgotten in the referendum.
So, if I am insulting everyone who didn’t know what that deal was, I am insulting myself as well.
@CassieB
I appreciate your comments.
Clearly we are never going to agree on this.
I do believe that people did know what they where voting for, the campaign went on for long enough for both sides to put across their arguments, which included going through with a fine tooth comb what Camerons reforms amounted too.
Both sides made their arguments,
the people were asked to decide
and decide they did.
I suggest that considering the enormity of this political event, that had the largest turn out in our political history, the public were very engaged in this event and the vast majority of people came to their own considered view, as they where asked to do so by parliament and they voted accordingly.
I fully accept that is just my opinion and clearly we are not going to agree on this.
But I do thank you for the engagement and I apologise if at times i have misinterpreted what you have said.
Kind Regards
Matt