It does have one virtue, though: simplicity. As Jo Swinson has herself said multiple times in multiple interviews, it's about clarity and understanding where the LibDems stand. And yet. One LibDem MP always guaranteed to fluff her media appearance was your friend and mine, Angela Smith. Taking time out from servicing private water interests, she spoke on Victoria Derbyshire this morning. According to her, the LibDem position is still holding a second referendum on a deal versus remain basis. Eh? Pushed on her "absolutely bizarre" remarks that most parliamentarians would be inclined to hold a public vote on whatever dog's dinner Boris Johnson brings back from Brussels (which, given the state of the indicative votes earlier this year, is by no means certain), Smith denies the LibDems want to cancel Brexit outright. Double eh?
We saw redolent confusionism from our mucker Chuka earlier. What has the "shadow foreign secretary" done? Well, I'm not too bothered about all those times he warned against a second referendum, and then endorsed one while he was still a (nominal) Labour MP. As any good careers guru advises, one of the best skills to have in the modern workplace is adaptability and the wherewithal for seizing new opportunities when they present themselves. When you're a careerist sans a career, you might as well be shameless about it. And yet, here he is, posing with a poster calling for a second referendum and not the (now) democratically-endorsed position of his new party.
Okay, I'll give it to you. This one's a bit thin.
Are you in the mood for a surprise? Smith is in fact right. And she managed it without a racism too! It is LibDems policy to campaign for a second referendum and revoke Article 50. In a classic fudge, the successful motion reaffirms a commitment to a so-called people's vote with the LibDems favouring remaining in any eventual referendum. Fair enough. But in the event of a general election, this commitment is dumped as they campaign explicitly on the basis of exit from Brexit, and will take their assumption of office as a majority government for proof that the public wish to revoke Article 50. In other words, as Smith notes in her interview, the general election becomes a de facto second referendum and its result trumps the 2016 exercise.
What we have here then is an approach that isn't simply hard remain, but is nuanced. It's conditional. If X happens or doesn't happen, the LibDems will then do or not do Y in response. Again, I disagree, but this is a perfectly reasonable way of framing your Brexit, or rather, anti-Brexit strategy. It recognises the fluidity of the situation, and how it might adapt.
Why then when Labour demonstrated similar nuance and conditionality this was shot down by the LibDems and melt columnists? "Oh noes!", the wailing went, "cannot comprehend how pushing for an election, and if not that a second referendum to stop no deal is possible. It's too complex!" The interior of the National Liberal Club was basically a scene from Scanners, such were the preponderance of exploding craniums. It wasn't just the LibDems participating in performative stupidity, there was too a good chunk of the Labour right for whom Brexit is a factionally convenient wedge issue. And the unlamented Change UK too.
The truth of the matter is our politics media is so pitifully poor it is allergic to depth and substantive questioning, privileges the superficial and the gossipy, and is governed by the conceit it must cut the readers'/viewers' food up for them if their content is to be digested. When it comes to something as difficult and technical as Brexit, the politics of reconciling the two irreconcilable positions is impossible to fit within the framing the media consciously utilises. In practice, it means they are amenable to and can be virtually hijacked by a politics with simple messaging, which is part of the story behind the successes enjoyed in the EU elections by the Brexit Party and the LibDems. By deciding to emphasise revoking Article 50 and "forgetting" their policy commits them to a second referendum still just goes to show the cynicism with which Swinson is playing the politics game. Who'd have thunk it from this particular party?
The problem for the LibDems remains, well, remain. Ditching a referendum result because they didn't like it plays into every far right liberal elite fantasy/conspiracy the likes of Arron Banks, Spiked, and sundry political degenerates have peddled since the day after. That's the danger, and woe betide any party flirting with it. But the opportunity? It's difficult to determine who exactly this is going to win over, and what would be worth risking potentially violent, quasi-terroristic repercussions? Apart from, say, voters in Swinson's own East Dunbartonshire who might be tempted by the SNP and Scottish independence as a way of staying in the EU? Hmmm. Funny that.
Image Credit
10 comments:
(As a Leaver) I don't object to the UnLiberal Antidemocrats position on revoking A50. It is making clear and explicit what has been the consistent policy of the majority of MPs since 2016. At least as electors we get a proper vote on it, and if they get in then that's the policy as voted for in a GE.
I find these days I get a brief moment when I wake up of peace and calm, then as my mind clears for the day the first thing that pops into my head is that in 2016 we voted to Leave the EU in a Parliament that said it would implement the result, and over three years later we have a Parliament that has voted to send a letter to a consortium of foreign powers that will say "Name any price and we will pay it. Give us any instruction and we will obey it, please please please don't make us leave the EU."
So the LD position on revoke is a small buoy of honesty floating in a sea of lies.
"Simply setting aside 17 million votes is not just anti-democratic, it's potentially dangerous."
Why? Its what is done every time there is an election and one side wins and the other loses!
The only irrational bit of the Liberal position currently is the fact that they still say they want another referendum before any General Election, a position they share with the Blair-rights, and other PV'ers.
But, just think what that means. Using the Liberals as an example. There is another referendum. It comes out for a no Deal Brexit, or some other form of Brexit. There is then a GE. The Liberals, who continue to say they oppose such a Brexit win. So, what are they then to do? They could not if they have any principle implement a reactionary Brexit vote which they fundamentally disagree with, and which they have just won an election making clear they disagree with. They would then have to call another GE on the basis of saying they could not implement the referendum decision that resulted from referendum they had called for!
Or they could adopt a position of extreme opposition, Refusing to take up the governmental office on principle so as not to have to implement a decision they disagree with, rather like a shop steward who wins a thumping majority but refuses to take on the position if it means having to argue for sacking say black or women workers to make room for white male workers. In that case there would be political stalemate as the Liberals could simply vote down any government legislation.
Or they could call another GE and fight it again on the basis of opposing a reactionary Brexit deal. If they win again, then its back round the circuit.
The same should apply even more in the case of Labour, which should have an even more clear imperative not to carry through a reactionary Brexit decision. This is one reason that Marxists have always seen plebiscites the favoured tool of Bonapartists as undemocratic. Democracy also implies that there is a will and means to implement the decision, and any principled party cannot commit itself to implementing a reactionary decision, no matter how many voters have voted for it.
It is democratic primitivism to argue otherwise. Labour above all other parties should not commit itself to implementing reactionary policies. If electors really want Brexit, let them vote for a Brexit Party like that of Farage or Johnson, then those parties can take the blame for the consequences. Its no part of socialist politics to argue that we should enable them.
"Simply setting aside 17 million votes is not just anti-democratic, it's potentially dangerous."
The 17 million votes are now more than 3 years old. There are nearly 2 million voters today whose votes have so far not been counted at all! There are 2 million of the 2016 voters whose votes were counted who are now dead. There are some of those who voted in 2016 who today have changed their mind. In what way is it rational let alone democratic to privilege the votes of an electorate from 2016, which today no longer exists, over the views of the electorate today?
If the Liberals were to win a parliamentary majority - very unlikely but not impossible if Labour's vote totally collapses - then on what rational let alone democratic basis can you argue that a three year old decision, made by an electorate that no longer exists takes precedence over an election taking place now, on he basis of the latest information and with the current electorate?
"aking time out from servicing private water interests, she spoke on Victoria Derbyshire this morning. According to her, the LibDem position is still holding a second referendum on a deal versus remain basis. Eh? Pushed on her "absolutely bizarre" remarks that most parliamentarians would be inclined to hold a public vote on whatever dog's dinner Boris Johnson brings back from Brussels (which, given the state of the indicative votes earlier this year, is by no means certain), Smith denies the LibDems want to cancel Brexit outright. Double eh?"
Its not a rational or sensible position to adopt for the reasons I've set out above, but its not "absolutely bizarre" in the way that Corbyn's position is. The Liberal position is that they would prefer a second referendum here and now. If by some means such a referendum were held - for example by the passing of an amendment to that effect on some deal brought to parliament by Johnson - then they would argue for Remain.
In those conditions that's not bizarre. They would not, obviously have had any part in Johnson's negotiations or the deal he puts to parliament, and so opposing it with a Remain option is rational. What is not rational is thereby committing yourself implicitly to implementing the decision even if it comes out for Brexit!
But compare that with Corbyn's position which is to win an election, in which you imply that you are for Remain, but that you are hedging your bets to implement Leave. That you then commit to engaging in negotiations to establish a Brexit Deal that you have already said would be a worse alternative to Remaining, that the Deal you want to achieve is in any case unachievable, and then even if you could actually negotiate this unachievable have cake and eat it deal, you would in any case still advise voters to reject it and vote for Remain.
Now that truly is bizarre!!!
"By deciding to emphasise revoking Article 50 and "forgetting" their policy commits them to a second referendum still just goes to show the cynicism with which Swinson is playing the politics game. Who'd have thunk it from this particular party?"
This is a bit duplicitous, because its quite clear that we are on the verge of a General Election, and so the issues around another referendum become moot. The General Election will be the second referendum.
"The problem for the LibDems remains, well, remain. Ditching a referendum result because they didn't like it plays into every far right liberal elite fantasy/conspiracy the likes of Arron Banks, Spiked, and sundry political degenerates have peddled since the day after. That's the danger, and woe betide any party flirting with it."
If it comes to opposing racist, bigoted and reactionary positions at the cost of upsetting fascists, racists and bigots rather than appeasing them, I know which position I will take every time. If we are going to appease them because they might get upset and take to the streets, then we might as well give up any hope of principled politics right now. But, the truth is that all the evidence shows they won't.
The elderly Tories that formed 70% of the Brexit vote are not going to take to the streets when their hopes are dashed. Farage, the EDL and co, have singularly failed in that regard at every step. On the contrary, the people who are on the march, and who will continue to take to the streets until Brexit is stopped are the progressive youth, who 80% back Remain, and who will be increasingly angry at those that are trying to impose a reactionary Brexit upon them.
Even if Johnson manages to psuh Brexit through, its not going away, and in the coming years any party wanting to get elected is going to have to commit to taking Britain back into the EU, or reversing Brexit before it actually happens.
Phil suggests that the latest LibDem message “does have one virtue, though: simplicity. As Jo Swinson has herself said multiple times in multiple interviews, it's about clarity and understanding where the LibDems stand.”
But sadly life isn’t like that, it’s not all black or white, a binary choice etc. It about a changing landscape and human needs and it’s about being willing as a leader to represent all the people and if necessary to change your mind for their benefit and then lead the way, whatever that may be, which of course is what Swinson and her Party have actually discovered eventually, although they are still intent on forcing Remain if at all possible. Pretty much like the Tories with their Leave at any cost and who are still stuck in their trenches, seeing enemies in every corner, so much so that they won’t even come out and fight cleanly, hence the Supreme Court fiasco.
Of course Jo Swinson craftily disguises her party’s stance for quite another reason, which is her very personal ambition to become PM in a future General Election and in Conference she has been carried along by her followers doing whatever strange things it is that LibDems do at their conferences in order to bind themselves together. Her appalling voting record in Parliament shows that must never be allowed to happen. Cleave together East Dunbartonshire and save us all.
At Conference Corbyn must continue his highly principled stance of working as always for the many. Never forgetting the 17+ million who voted to leave, by offering everybody an opportunity in a referendum to vote for either an acceptable Brexit deal or to Remain now that most of us understand the consequences of both choices. We have waited 3+ years alread, what’s another year for an acceptable solution? He is the best leader we could possibly have at this time, a thoughtful and very special politician, one with patience and heaps of experience and we should all weigh his words very carefully.
"At Conference Corbyn must continue his highly principled stance of working as always for the many. Never forgetting the 17+ million who voted to leave, by offering everybody an opportunity in a referendum to vote for either an acceptable Brexit deal or to Remain now that most of us understand the consequences of both choices."
There is nothing principled about suggesting that a reactionary Brexit option is in some way comparable with opposing Brexit. Its simply opportunist, Third Way triangulating. Not only is there no acceptable Brexit, because every Brexit is reactionary, but Labour's "have cake and eat it Brexit is not possible to negotiate. Imagine the reaction were by some miracle Labour to get elected on this bizarre platform, and having got elected it comes to negotiate its impossible deal, and fails!
Can you imagine what happens then? Either Labour collapses in humiliation having wasted a year or so, and has to accept a vassal state arrangement where it has to comply with all EU rules and regulations, but has no seat at the table, and no right to negotiate separate deals etc., or as has already been shown in that regard over the last three years of negotiation and parliamentary scrutiny, it has to say the only option to Remain is No Deal Brexit!
Would Labour then really want to put those two options in a referendum having embarrassed itself during whatever period these negotiations were taking place? But, even were a deal possible, which it isn't it would be reactionary, precisely because it represents taking capitalism back to a more primitive stage; it involves establishing national borders where they have already been dismantled; it involves erecting barriers between European workers, making it harder to forge a unified European working-class fighting for common rights and interests etc. Moreover, it would weaken the economy and workers position within it, making any attempt to promote an economic and social policy for the many that much harder, if not possible to achieve. Any real policy in that direction is in any case only possible on an EU wide basis.
The fact is that the next election will be fought out on the issue of Brexit. Johnson has a clear policy geared to centralising all the Leave votes around him. The Liberals have a clear policy that as things stand will centralise all the Remain votes around them. Corbyn is left dithering in the middle, with his core voter base that backs Remain by a margin of 80:20, rapidly losing patience, and disappearing to the Liberals.
Latest surveys show 30% of Tory Remainers back the Revoke Article 50 position, and 60% of Labour voters also support that position, consistent with the 60% of Labour members and voters who voted Liberal in the EP and local elections. Unless Labour conference adopts a clear Revoke Article 50 position, or the rank and file of the labour movement create their own Socialist Campaign for Europe and for a Labour Victory, standing candidates and running campaigns locally on a Revoke and Reform agenda, combined with a radical progressive platform, Labour will get smashed.
Under those conditions, hopefully it would get smashed enough that the Liberals would win he election and keep out the Tories. More likely, it will simply result in a split anti-Tory vote, and allow a hard right Boris Johnson to take office with a clear majority for he next five years.
having a second referendum does not solve anything. I could go on and on about what a bad idea this is, but the notion that putting a choice of a referendum that is a surrender deal or revoking will create social harmony is nuts.
As a voter, I've found the last three years absolutely shocking. the level of deception and lies peddled by parties has been beyond what any cynic might have thought. A referendum doesn't end this, it just prolongs it.
Most of you probably haven't experienced this being low-level operatives moaning about management, but if a problem comes upon the first thing the top person says is "who owns this?" and the next thing they say is "you are personally responsible for sorting this." The problem we have now is that the person who is trying to own this - Johnson - cannot get it sorted because Parliament won't let him, and Parliament itself refuses to own it. This is why it is a complete disaster.
So if the Lib Dems get elected and revoke, then they own it. They own the outcome for the 17.4 million who voted to leave. the buck stops with them. I can live with that. A referendum just say s'its the fault of the people, we aren't responsible'. That's hopeless.
Dipper, I'm sorry Brexit is the first thing that comes to mind every morning. Perhaps thereby lies the problem?
"As a voter, I've found the last three years absolutely shocking. the level of deception and lies peddled by parties has been beyond what any cynic might have thought. A referendum doesn't end this, it just prolongs it."
There you go again - Labour blocked it because it was a Tory Brexit. Hard Brexiters blocked it because they could not accept a Brexit that did not reflect their fantasies. They "own" it, whether you like it or not.
"Most of you probably haven't experienced this being low-level operatives moaning about management,"
Speak for yourself, mate!
Post a Comment