Tim Farron writes in today's Guardian:
We have still had no answers the big questions about Britain’s future.
Will our businesses still have access to the single market, with all the benefits it brings for British jobs and our economy? What will happen to freedom of movement, not just for Europeans who want to live and work here but for Brits who want to live and work in Europe? What will happen to the British citizens who already live, work and study on the continent or EU citizens who have made their lives in the UK? What will it mean for the science and research funding that keeps British science at the cutting edge?
These are just some of the hundreds of unresolved questions. Our relationship with Europe affects our jobs and our economy, our security, our ability to tackle terrorism and climate change, and so much more.
The British people have a right to know the answers and the right to have their say on whether the deal on offer is right for them, their family, their community and our country.
This policy of a second referendum makes no sense at all.
ReplyDeleteIf Article 50 is invoked, then legally Britain's membership of the EU will be bound to end two years later at most, unless there is unanimous agreement in the European Council to postpone Britain's exit.
In those circumstances the British government cannot offer the electorate the option of remaining in the EU. It will be out of our hands. The only choice will be whether to take the deal that's on offer, or leave without any deal at all.
Pretending otherwise is dishonest and stupid.
Well, pretending to the public that we could simultaneously choose an asymetric 'perfect' trade deal of our liking, block migrants, continue to drive down wages, spend more money on the NHS and see no change to esiting EU-funded projects was pretty stupid, in my book.
ReplyDeleteThere should have at least been the outline of a deal on the table. Without it, expecting the country to endorse a leap in the dark without further democratic review is well, expecting a lot of the popular trust in the executive.
A post-Article 50 referendum is not ideal. But we are where we are, and a post-article-50 unconsulted back-room-stitch-up fait accompli, with said Article being triggered by Prime Ministerial whim rather than by parliamentary mandate, is so far from ideal, it's insane.
In that context, Lib Dem policy looks like a reasonable alternative to the dictatorial secrecy emanating from No10.
> The only choice will be whether to take the deal that's on offer,
ReplyDelete> or leave without any deal at all.
Indeed, that would be the question on the ballot. Voters should be allowed to choose between a new treaty with the EU (which might include commitments which they would find objectionable) and the so-called WTO option.
"In that context, Lib Dem policy looks like a reasonable alternative to the dictatorial secrecy emanating from No10."
ReplyDeleteIt's not reasonable at all, because once Article 50 is invoked the British government will not have the power to halt the process.
That's not to say anything about the Leave case in the referendum we've just had was reasonable or honest. But, as you say, "We are where we are."
By advocating a policy that is actually impossible to implement, Farron is simply making himself look foolish - and opting out of the crucial debate about what kind of relationship Britain should have with the EU in the future.
"Indeed, that would be the question on the ballot. Voters should be allowed to choose between a new treaty with the EU (which might include commitments which they would find objectionable) and the so-called WTO option."
ReplyDeleteThat would be possible, but it's obviously not what Farron is advocating. He says:
"So when people are given that choice [i.e. in the second referendum], I intend to make the case loudly and clearly that we believe Britain should stay in the European Union."
http://www.libdemvoice.org/tim-farron-mp-writesa-liberal-democrat-plan-for-britain-in-europe-51770.html