On Nigel Farage and a deal referendum

Two posts on consecutive days? That's not something that's happened for a long time! Although this is, essentially, a re-hash of some thoughts I posted on Twitter earlier.

There was much excitement amongst "Remain"* campaigners today when Nigel Farage announced he was beginning to come round to the idea of a second^ referendum. His thinking being that a second** "leave" win would kill off any further thoughts of re-entering the Union "for a generation". On this last point he is right - just as it took dissenters^^ from the 1975 result over a generation to reverse that decision.

(Of course, for all his talk of the finality of the 2016 vote - the day democracy stopped, folks - we know that his campaign would have continued had the result gone the other way by, well, by any margin.)

Anyway, lots of people jumped on this news - arch remainers*** Ian Dunt, AC Grayling and Nick Clegg, amongst others, made hay whilst the Lib Dem Press Team and prominent spokespeople went to town on the news.

But why? Or, at least, why the lack of trepidation?

#RulesOfPolitics Number 53. When your opponent appears to adopt your policy, stop and ask "why?". Their agenda may not be your agenda.

— Andrew Brown🔶 (@oneexwidow) January 11, 2018

I mean, it's not as if Farage hasn't a record of being disingenuous, is it?

Whatever your view on a #Brexit Deal Referendum, there's a disturbing lack of circumspection about #Farage's contribution to the debate today. 3 quick points:

1. With Farage it's all about Farage
2. He, presumably, thinks any ref winnable
3. More of this: https://t.co/UpsQjTvlHo

— Andrew Brown🔶 (@oneexwidow) January 11, 2018

Now, I know that the polls are showing a lead for remain over leave now - and that is welcome, as far as it goes. But for the majority of the population, the matter is settled, so the question is considered moot. If it were to be reopened, whether on the nature of the deal agreed or otherwise, the numbers would rapidly change - and the narrative and tone of debate would be even worse than before.

Now, this isn't intended as a council of despair - but it is intended as a dose of realism. It's also not intended as an argument against having a deal referendum. That's a policy I support, albeit I would have liked the party to have also adopted a line that categorically said election of a Lib Dem majority government^^^ prior to actually leaving would be a mandate to reverse the process. Would such a policy have made a difference at the last election? I doubt it, but I'm not about to second guess when the next election may be, the role Brexit may or may not have in that, or the outcome.

No, I support the policy on the pragmatic grounds, outlined in part in this exchange:

Farage will say anything for publicity, but Liberals have to ask themsleves how we would win a second referendum when we had no idea how to win the one on AV or the first Brexit vote

— Jonathan Calder (@lordbonkers) January 11, 2018

Absolutely. I'm not sure whether it is naivety or complacency that leads to the view that another referendum is the best way to get out of this mess. It would surely be just as unfair a fight as the last one.

— Alex Marsh (@ShodanAlexM) January 11, 2018

Yes - disturbing lack of circumspection from l/Liberals on Farage's intervention. I do support the Deal Referendum, but on pragmatic grounds: The referendum genie has been let out of the bottle, reasserting Parl Sov on this topic at this point would, to my mind, risk more (1/2)

— Andrew Brown🔶 (@oneexwidow) January 11, 2018

... than a referendum would. In addition, I really can't see parliament rejecting deal - at most I see Labour's official position to be to abstain, albeit with a significant rebellion amongst their ranks. (2/2)

— Andrew Brown🔶 (@oneexwidow) January 11, 2018

Of course we don't know how the 'meaningful' vote will be structured. But I'd assume you're right. It will come to Parly at the last moment & will be take it or no deal - and by then the consequences of not taking it will be so apparent Parly will vote not to go over the cliff.

— Alex Marsh (@ShodanAlexM) January 11, 2018

Put simply, I think the restoration and exercise of Parliamentary Sovereignty followed by the throwing out of Brexit would plunge this country into a much greater level of turmoil than another referendum. I'm not suggesting war, but there would be substantial civil unrest and political instability. In addition, the forces of xenophobia, Islamophobia and racism (not to mention other forms of hate and discrimination) that the Brexit vote has given licence to would then be unleashed in a way we have not seen in a century.

So, back to Farage. He has his own agenda, and we ought to be very, very careful in the way we react to his pronouncements. Rather than reacting with glee, his words should give us pause.



*One of the things I bitterly, bitterly despair about is the way Brexit colours *everything* in our political debate, and huge swathes of people identify, or are identified as, "Remainers" or "Leavers" without either side seeking to engage with the other. There is a lot of speaking in echo chambers, or slinging mud, insults, sneers and jeers at the "other side" and not a lot of anything constructive. And, before anyone else says it, I don't consider consider myself blameless in this regard, although I do try to avoid sneering: that's just not a pleasant, or Liberal, thing to do.

^Shorthand. I prefer to call it a deal referendum. Or "a first referendum on the facts." But as far as a choice between staying in or leaving the EU/EC is concerned, we've had two of those already.

**in short order.

^^Farage himself would have been only 11 at the time when 67% of those who voted opted to secure a brighter future for themselves and future generations.

***Gah, even I'm doing it now.

^^^I know, I know.

On Labour, their conference, and #Brexit

It's not often that I would share Labour Party graphics, but bear with me on this one...

Tonight, via the machinations of the Labour Party byzantine internal processes*, delegates to their conference opted NOT to discuss the party's #Brexit policy**.

So on the single biggest issue of our time, Labour's much vaunted internal "democracy" has ensured that it won't be discussed. Of course, this will suit the leadership in its continuing quest to face both ways on the issue: supporting Brexit whilst doing just enough to keep pro-Europe supporters on board. In this regard talking about "Austerity", the NHS, Schools and Inequality is the right approach for Corbyn.

And they are all important issues - and should be talked about: but it's hard to see how Labour's approach to Brexit will not have an adverse impact on all these areas. Corbyn's long term Euro-scepticism, and antagonism to pluralist politics, put paid to any prospect of Labour leading a coalition to mitigate the impact of Brexit and push for, say, the Norway solution.

But what of the picture? Well, surviving pro-Europeans such as Mike Gapes MP and Richard Corbett MEP are circulating it as proof of what Labour's policy is, decided at their last conference. Of itself, the wording of the policy may give heart to those who see Labour's approach as playing a long-game - but their actions since the referendum have not suggested that they have such a long term strategy.

Indeed, the policy itself was "clarified" just hours after to state a referendum didn't form part of their approach, and since then Article 50 was invoked with Labour support and a general election. In that time, Labour have disabused those of us who hoped they might argue for the Single Market and Customs Union. At best they have remained agnostic on these, at worst they have abandoned them altogether (other than in a transitional period.) This lack of clarity was enough to see them gain left-of-centre votes in a two-party contest. What remains to be seen is how long this anti-Tory support will weather a pro-Brexit policy.

*on that point, this is instructive: https://medium.com/…/how-they-stitch-up-conference-8a6727cb…

**in contrast to the Lib Dem conference where hundreds of delegates turned out first thing on Saturday morning to force a suspension of standing orders and a debate on a motion, rather than just a consultative session.

(This post first made on my Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/WhatAndrewThinks )

Some words on #IndyRef2

From over on my Facebook Page.

On the morning of the 24th June last year, as I lay in my tent at Glastonbury in shock at the referendum result, I thought to myself: "there goes the union".

No, not the EU - it will survive in some form without us - but the UK.

Today we could have seen what could prove to be another significant step on the road to the break-up of this sceptred isle (or these sceptred isles, to include Northern Ireland in the equation).

Back then, in the midst of my despair, I said I would prefer a Scotland in the EU but out of the UK, than a UK out of the EU. Over time, my thoughts mellowed, although I still (largely) hold by that opinion. However, I fear that the result of Scotland leaving the Union, would be a Scotland out of both Unions; and that would be in the interests of no-one.

So today's news has depressed me deeply. As far as I can tell, the SNP now intend to spend another two years campaigning for independence, and using Brexit to hammer a wedge between Scots and the rest of the UK.

And this is where I have a problem. Self determination is a right and proper principle, and there is no doubt that Brexit is not popular in Scotland. However, most recent polls have indicated that Scots still back the union, or at least don't back independence. Are we to have yet more time spent on an independence campaign when there are more pressing issues at hand?

If Brexit is so bad (which it is) and the Scots so opposed (as 62% were) then won't they come round to this viewpoint anyway - without the need for the SNP to campaign when they could be dealing with Schools, or the Scottish Health Service?

Of course, these questions are moot: the SNP have never stopped campaigning for independence: this day has been inevitable since 19th September 2014.

(And on this, I have to confess I've had cause to reflect since the Brexit vote, given my own view of that, and my urge to continue campaigning. In that case, though, I'm seeking to respond to a live political issue, rather than make live an issue that people had thought was put to bed.)

In the last campaign, Salmond spent two years seeking to take advantage of the unpopularity of the coalition government. This time, May's pursuit of Hard Brexit gives Sturgeon bumper ammunition. Her gamble is that May will help her succeed where Cameron and co failed.

For her part, May says she wants the country to unite - and she could probably have achieved an approximation of this if she had opted for a soft Brexit. But her reckless policy has exasperated divisions, and made the SNP's task easier.

Labour's position on Brexit has also made this all the more easy for the SNP. They could have laid down some red lines, and led a campaign for soft Brexit. They could have worked to get the remaining Europhile Tory MPs onside in an effort to soften Government policy. It may not have been successful, but it would have given an alternative vision of a post-EU future. Instead, they have opted to chase a collapsing UKIP vote - the one form of nationalism that hasn't gained traction in Scotland.

Having utterly capitulated to the "will of the people", Corbyn made the lives of his Scottish colleagues even tougher. When asked about another independence referendum, he may as well as shrugged and said "Whatever".

And the Lib Dems? Well, I find myself in disagreement with Willie Rennie and the Scottish Party leadership on this. Whilst I think he is right to oppose this at Holyrood; I don't think our Westminster MPs should then vote against, if Holyrood has voted in favour. The technical power to call such a vote may reside in London, the moral right surely lies in Edinburgh.

So that's it. Brexit. Trump. Scotland. 2017 continues where 2016 left off. No matter how the SNP dress it up, their brand of "civic" nationalism is, ultimately, just as divisive as those that preceded it. Sadly, this time, I fear it may win - but not before tearing Scotland, and the UK apart.

P.S. I would also make an appeal to English friends who feel the Scottish party is somehow illiberal in its support of the Union. Self-determination cuts both ways: the people of Scotland should be entitled to determine whether to be part of the Union or not, and the Scottish party, within the federal structure, should be entitled to its own view on the matter too.