Stick that in your pitch-fork and smoke it!

Last week saw a remarkable British by-election where the Liberal Democrats over turned a 23,000 majority and their previous near death experience to win a spectacular victory in Richmond Park.

The dominant issue was Brexit and the continuing fall out from Britain’s EU Referendum and a summer of political trauma.  The Liberal Democrats remain Britain’s most consistently pro EU political party and have campaigned passionately in support of the EU both before and after the referendum.  They are currently campaigning for parliament to scrutinise the Brexit proposition as it emerges and for there to be a second referendum to ratify any deal on the grounds that the terms of what Brexit meant were never specified in the original referendum.

This has been challenged as controversial and potentially undemocratic by leading political inquisitors such as Andrew Neil and the pitchfork wielding Julia Hartley-Brewer.
  
Are the peasants revolting? Is it the alt-right establishment twitching in defence of a tyranny of the majority?  Is it simply that parliament was silent on how Brexit would proceed should we vote to leave, either in terms of process or vision?

I think the issue about a second vote is therefore about having a vote on any future Brexit deal. There are so many moving parts to consider.  This is not just be about single market or not - or even whether we have access to the single market in some form.  How much do we pay in; what control can we exert over immigration; what level of political control do we exercise over our national destiny; what other areas of inter-European co-operation are we to participate in going forward and on what terms?  It is about all these things and more and we are only at the beginning.

My current preference would be to find, after exploring the Brexit options, that being part of the EU on the sort of terms we already had was the best deal and that we therefore exercise the option of staying.  Failing that, I’d like us to establish as close a cooperative and connected relationship with rest of Europe as possible. Whatever we do I’d like to do it with our eyes open.

Whatever we decide, it has to be done democratically since we have had a referendum.  We voted to leave and we are proceeding with that. For there to be any deviation from that or significant qualification after seeing the options, there needs to be a democratic process.

The problem the Leavers have, in my opinion, is that this was always a referendum to deal with an issue that has split the Conservative Party for a generation. It's not really been done with any vision about where we are trying to get to, let alone any detailed proposition behind it. And then the leaders of Leave seemed to step back and run away when they won. Now that’s a bit of a school-boy error from them.

In fact, we are seeing this right now in the Supreme Court.  The legislation around creating the referendum was poor and was silent on too much.

The referendum means we have decided to leave and that has to be delivered now. And this has to be delivered through parliamentary processes with proper scrutiny. Politics does not stop with a referendum and certainly not one where the population is so evenly split.

What Richmond Park does is to remind us is there are significant numbers of Remain minded people and some of their concerns need taken account of as we move forward to our new foreign policy. It is important to avoid a tyranny of the majority.

It also gives voice to a significant liberal - progressive section of our electorate - a section feeling under-represented with the void in the centre and centre-left of British politics.  This is a section of our people that look to politics that is open, tolerant and united.  A section that looks to a very long tradition of British liberalism that we need now more than ever.

Stick that in your pitch-fork and smoke it.

Let's bring down our whole rotten political system

While I'm interested in any Scottish solutions with regards to stopping an EU Brexit I think they are a distraction from the priority.  The Scottish dimension is not really about Europe it is about Independence.  For the Scottish Government see everything - absolutely everything - through the prism of Independence. For me the priority is for Britain to remain within or as close we can to the EU; and to be clear, for me, the EU has always been far more than just a free trade area.

There can't be a Second Referendum on the EU.  That would be undemocratic and we cannot call for one when we rightly call out Scot Nats for demanding Indyref2 barely two years after the first - and a clear decision to boot.

But referenda are not the only way. They are not even particularly good at deciding very technical issues like on the EU. And they are so final if the change option wins. This makes them inflexible and somewhat undemocratic in that sense. As a result of last week's EU referendum we have handed a blank cheque to I'm not entirely sure who, to do I'm not entirely sure what.

When we voted we had no idea what Leave would look like. There was no white paper, no model, no roadmap - nothing. And this is without addressing the apparent fact that two of the central claims of the winning Leave campaign appear to be ones that there was no intention, or knowingly no possibility, of delivering. That is to say paying '£350m a week into NHS' and ending free movement of people. This is also without addressing that some (not all) Leave voters were voting on misconceptions as evidenced by attitude surveys during the campaign.

I want us to stay in the EU or salvage the best we can out of our broken relationship with Europe and vote on it in the traditional way via a general election. That's perfectly democratic. Now this requires real Labour to have the balls to stand up for that. It also requires pro EU Conservatives to stop trying to hold power for power's sake. The pro EU ones are meant to be in the majority in parliament. This may all require pro EU candidates and groups to cooperate in a one-off pro-EU coupon election.

But failing all this I want the Labour Party to be strong again - they need to jettison their foolish People's Popular Front sect of malevolents and romantics. In the Conservatives I want to see the Brexiters and thinly veiled anti-Europeans (such as May) defeated and something constructive regarding Europe emerge. Most of all I feel we need outward looking British liberalism to start doing well across all the parties again.

Crucially, I want to see the Liberal Democrats, who have taken a far heavier electoral toll than they ever deserved, returning to strength.  We desperately need them in our political mix with a loud and vibrant voice.

These are turbulent times in British politics and all this may not be possible.  The stable of contenders for the Conservative leadership does not fill me with hope. Our continuing creaking democracy based on an 18th century system never designed for party politics let alone the multiple and changing choices we have today continues to depress me.  Not least when it begins to threaten our stability with embedded tribal loyalties and exaggerated regional differences with their ludicrous over representations.  This is an unresponsive democracy whose senses to real opinion are dulled, especially when they deliver absolute majorities on not much more than a third of the vote and on tiny shifts in support.

But there is many a twist and turn in the road ahead before we are done with these turbulent times.  Whatever happens I do not want to see a return to our political system as we have known it.  The realignment of the 1980s did not quite come off.  This time the fault lines of opinion have truly shifted.

This time I want to see real realignment and with it an end to our whole rotten political system.

We need Britiah liberalism now more than ever

On 8 May 2015 Nick Clegg made a powerful speech resigning his leadership of the Liberal Democrats.  He spoke of how we need British liberalism now more than ever.  I believe the events of the last days of this EU referendum campaign show that to be true.  I'm speaking of a liberalism that goes across several parties and across people of none, but the Liberal Democrats, of which I am a member, are a key part of bringing that to the fore.  A key passage of that speech was particularly relevant.  I thought I would paraphrase the argument in the context of today.

Liberalism is not faring well against the politics of fear.  Years of hardship after the recession and insecurities in the face of globalisation have led to people reaching out for new certainties.  The politics of identity, of nationalism, of us versus them are on the rise.  It is to be hoped that our leaders realise that this brings us to a point where grievance and fear threaten to combine to drive different communities apart. We must be aware of the potentially disastrous consequences to our way of life and the threat to the integrity of our United Kingdom, if we continue to appeal to grievance rather than generosity and fear rather than hope. It's no exaggeration to say that in the absence of strong and statesmanlike leadership, Britain's place in Europe and the world, and the continued existence of our United Kingdom itself is in jeopardy. And the cruelest irony is that it is exactly at this time that British liberalism, that noble tradition that believes we are stronger together and weaker apart, is more needed now than ever before. There is no path to a fairer, greener, freer Britain  without British liberalism showing the way.


You can view the full speech here:

EU - let's remember the good things too

Over the last few of days I have spoken to a couple of people who, while previously sitting on the fence, have decided to vote for Britain to remain in the EU.  In each case they have expressed a general cynicism about Europe but have decided on balance it is better for Britain to be In rather than Out, principally because of the economic case.

I think we can do better than that.  I think it's important to remember the good things about the EU too.

I think it's important to remember good things like: being a key part of the permanent structure of peace post WW2; cross border cooperation on crime and climate change; scientific and cultural exchange; and technological and business openess - in addition to the single market.

There is an important place for a close knit supra-national community of nations - particularly in Europe with our history.

Why an EU Ref makes a Yes Indyref vote even less likely

I love polls.  And I love the study of psephology - try saying that just after you have had your wisdom teeth out!  Most of all I love the detail revealed in the full tables of data behind the polls - the trends, the regional variations and the balance across age groups.

It is with this interest that I read the latest Panelbase Poll on Scotland and Scottish Independence.  It shows the following:

44% No, 36% Yes, 20% Don't know. (sample 1004, survey May 10-16)

Interestingly IPSOS Mori showed:

59 % No, 31% Yes, 10% Don't know (sample 1001, survey April 29- May 5)

The first showed a small drop in the No vote, the second showed a drop in the Yes vote.

Hmmmm - a little contradictory in terms of how big the No vote is and how many undecideds there are.  We shall see how other polls measure this and how the trends go.

My own view is this; the Yes camp has been stuck on around a third for a while and this matches pretty much the level of support Independence has had in Scotland since the 1970s give or take a couple of blips around devolution being introduced, Alex Salmond winning a majority in Holyrood and the introduction of the poll tax over 20 years ago.

Yes seem to be losing.  The Heather has failed to catch light.  And while millions moved in the streets of Barcelona, the Catalan capital, for their national movement, Scotland's just about filled the Ross Bandstand in Princes Street Gardens.

Yes seem increasingly on the backfoot under close scrutiny on the currency and several aspects of the consequences for pensions - both public sector and private.  Fissures have been appearing between the SNP on one hand who want to keep the Pound, the Queen and the Bank of England as well as shared financial regulation (funny independence that - may as well keep some political union if that's the game!); and on the other hand, the hard left who support a more recognisable independence complete with Scotland's own currency, a republic and withdrawal from NATO.

Other aspects of the movement's vision appeared to be wearing thin.  Strike out for freedom and let 1,000 flowers to bloom.  We could be a Nordic paradise free from Westminster austerity and injustice.

Is this from the SNP whose tax cutting agenda (Community Charge freeze, Corporation Tax, Air Passenger Duty and VAT) promises to deliver a social justice nirvana at the same time?  Or is it with a hard left agenda that presumably will bring with it high unemployment, accelerating economic decline and nothing but social justice disappointments?

It doesn't really add up does it?

But one thing could change the direction of this debate - Europe.

As the Conservatives set about trying to destroy themselves once more over Europe, an In/Out referendum for Britain in Europe looms large and exiting the EU a real possibility.  Note what today's Panelbase poll says:

If the UK is going to leave he EU the vote on Scottish Independence becomes:

44% No, 44% Yes, 12% undecided.  A dead heat!

The EU shenanigans may be about to open the field up again for the Scottish Independence Referendum.

I have just one set of thoughts I wanted to put down about this today.  That this is the electorate's gut reaction of the last few days as this issue has exploded onto the scene once more.  It is not yet a considered view in the light of analysis and discussion of the pros and cons of the various options.  Simplistically I believe the various options line up like this for a would be independent Scotland:

Scotland in EU, Rest of UK in EU
As you were, the Independence debate is framed as it was.

Scotland in EU, Rest of UK out of EU
Nightmare.  This is a nightmare for the single market that we hitherto shared with England.  The currency, financial regulation, and the operation of all sorts of cross border institutions become an even bigger problem. And what of Schengen and border controls in this sceanario. Nightmare.

Scotland out of EU, Rest of UK out of EU
Even bigger nightmare.  Not in the UK, not in the EU, small and on the fringes of Europe, and dealing with tariffs and a regulatory environment from the outside.

It actually strikes me that if the rest of the UK leaves Europe, which I think it would be mad to do, Scotland may well be better remaining part of that UK.

Another alternative may be to share a regulatory and monetary environment with the rest of the UK - both outside the EU, but that is not really independence is it.  Again, we might as well have a democratic political say in such a union if that is to be the case.

(And yes I know you could have Scotland out of Europe and the rest of the UK in but I think that is unlikely and if it were to come to pass I don't see that scenario as being too clever either).

Which all goes to show that as we consider what all this means, I think uncertainty over Europe actually makes a Yes vote for Scottish Independence even more unlikely!!

These are my initial thoughts.  I await developments and further analysis with interest.  And more polling too!       

  

That was quite a speech Dave

Well that was quite a speech Mr Cameron.  I guess it will take a few days for me to fully absorb what I think it all means for the future but some things strike me straight away.

On Twitter I asked whether it was Cameron's '95 Theses on the Reformation of Europe' (with thanks to Archbishop Cramner) or was it purely about Tory electoral prospects?  I think the truth is it is rather more about Tory electoral prospects and outflanking the UKIP.

Interestingly, Lord Ashcroft - the Tory benefactor, pollster and strategist - points out that when they talk about Europe they lose.  Well, we'll see, but I do think their position will unravel somewhat and its still all about the economy stupid!

I think the Conservative's position will unravel because we have no idea exactly what powers Cameron would like to repatriate or the consequences.  There is in some quarters a view that Europe takes over and tells us what to do but only 6.8% of UK primary legislation and 14.1% of secondary legislation has anything to do with implementing EU obligations  - and these are not EU diktats but policy that is agreed to, approved of and signed off by UK officials.

The fact is Euro-scepticism plays to an idea of Europe that "we are with Europe but not of it" to quote Churchill.

One of the really interesting things today was that if you substituted the word Scotland for the words 'Britain' or 'United Kingdom' it could have been Alex Salmond talking.  In fact the Scottish nationalist community has been quite taken with the irony of the whole thing and what Cameron is saying about the pros and cons of holding an EU referendum!  But this should not surprise us because both the Conservatives and SNP are nationalists.

The other question I posed on Twitter was 'what effect will this have on the Scottish independence referendum?'   

That remains to be seen but while there are some huge ironies in hearing David Cameron sound like Alex Salmond, I don't think it changes the fundamentals of the debate very much.  In fact, I believe this makes the case for Scottish independence still weaker.

In 2012 there was much debate about whether an independent Scotland could remain automatically within the EU.  While the process and basis for a separate Scotland becoming a member state are unclear there is little doubt we would take our place.  However, the possibility that you could have an independent Scotland within the EU and England & Wales outside the EU is not a good proposition.  Where would this leave the currency? This would not be a good place for Scotland's main market and trading partner to be, and what of the Schengen agreement on borders?

The fact is that to be a viable proposition Scotland needs to be part of the EU.  While I am a strong supporter of the EU, the rest of the UK does not need the EU as much as an independent Scotland would.  And, as I said, the prospect of our main market being on the different side of the EU's borders is something of a nightmare scenario - and it wouldn't do much for the 'social union' either.

I have argued before that our interests are best served by British unity, collective interests abroad like the EU and decentralisation at home.

The commentator David Torrance said something this morning I thought may yet prove to be quite significant.  He said, "PM's position vis-vis EU is basically devo-max for the UK.  And if that doesn't work , then he wants independence."  Yes, David Cameron is arguing for a looser connection with Europe but to remain inside none the less.  In this I sense the possibility of a changing view in England to the British constitution.  The parallels between the EU debate and the constitutional argument will not be lost on everyone.  The awareness of English nationalism, the value of regional autonomy and how these things can exist within something bigger is growing.  The fact that the Scots seem to be largely opposed to independence but want strong devolution within the UK is also becoming increasingly clear.  All these things add up to the possibility that maybe, just maybe, something that was unthinkable a few years ago could soon be thinkable. That is that people in England may come to accept a federal solution for the UK is a good thing.

This is important because today another poll put support for independence below 30% and the numbers supporting increased devolution much higher.

If independence is voted down in 2014 we can get on and take the devolution settlement further.  We can start to work towards making devolution part of a wider decentralised settlement in the UK.  How this develops is the more important question - not independence!

Meanwhile the European question remains and I fear David Cameron has opened a Pandora's Box.  I'm not at all sure where we are headed but I'm not sure he knows either!  My best guess is we won't hold this referendum for I don't believe the Tories will win the next election.  But, If we do hold a referendum I think we'll vote to stay in - by the skin of our teeth.  I can only hope that the re-engineering of Europe, because that will happen in the next few years whatever course we take, is one that benefits us all.             

 

We're doomed - America is finished, Europe's a basket case and the Empire is dead

There has been plenty of chatter amongst the McTwitterati of late about Scotland’s relationship with Europe if we vote Yes in 2014.

The world is changing and the canvas of nations being painted in an age of crisis is very different to the past.  This changing canvas cannot be ignored if we are to consider where Scotland’s future place in the world might be.       

Today the BBC news website reports that Winston Churchill’s 1946 Zurich speech has been featured on The European Council’s YouTube channel.  There are, believe it or not, those who regard Churchill as one of the fathers of the EU.

Why?

It is because in Zurich, in the aftermath of the second World War he said, "We must build a kind of United States of Europe” to “turn our backs upon the horrors of the past" and "look to the future".

However, he also said six months before that in Fulton Missouri, "If the population of the English-speaking Commonwealth be added to that of the United States with all that such co-operation implies in the air, on the sea, all over the globe and in science and in industry, and in moral forces, there will be no quivering, precarious balance of power to offer its temptation to ambition or adventure." (This was his famous “Iron Curtain” speech.)

For Churchill believed that peace in the post war world and stability in the face of communism would be guaranteed by three things - the United States, a united Europe and the British Empire.  He was a great European but he was also an Imperialist (born in the 19th century) and an Atlanticist (he had an American mother).  He saw Britain as part of Europe but not of Europe.

Well, that was 1946 and this is now.

In the future, the USA is not going to be the world power it once was.

She must look to the Pacific and China in the east every bit as much as she must look to the Atlantic and Russia in the west.

The Empire is long since dead and the Commonwealth is not what it once was.  In fact the Commonwealth may not outlive the present Queen by much.  It certainly won’t exist in the same form as the last 40 or 50 years.

Europe has an uncertain future as the Euro currency union seems to have failed so spectacularly.

The world we are headed for will not be a world of fixed blocs, rather it will be a world of more transient treaties and alliances.  And these alliances may be with peoples we don’t necessarily have naturally close alignments with.  These will not always be homogeneous groupings.

Britain’s links with the east through our mercantile past and through some of our large companies (many of whom have strong links in the far east) will be very important.  Our trade with European markets will continue to be a cornerstone of our economy and trade and links with China will be vital both politically and economically.

While the United States will cease to be the world’s super power it will remain hugely important for many many years to come.  A close relationship with her will be a lynch-pin of stability but we must be realistic about the ‘special relationship’ as America has more diversified interests than Europe.

We also need to contain the middle-east and support peace where we can.  I say support and maintain because the middle east has been a powder keg for two millennia and I don’t see that changing anytime soon.  However, I sense that if there are to be dangers that threaten us or troubles that will spill over into wider conflict they will somehow emanate from this region.

This means I think there is still an important place for collective security.  True, NATO is an alliance founded in the Cold War but times move on and the landscape changes. 

Denmark, a successful comparable country that Scotland often looks to as a model of what we could be is interesting in this case.  Denmark sought neutrality for 200 years and to free herself from the armed camps of the empires of Europe.  But she was overrun by Germany in the 1940s and suffered under occupation. The war means many in Denmark regretted they were not part of something bigger.  Today many in Denmark feel collective security is very important to them and NATO remains popular.  This doesn’t mean they believe the Cold War is still with us but they value collective security against any enemies – whether they are known or are yet to be known in an uncertain future.

Today, Danish foreign policy is founded upon four pillars: the United Nations, NATO, the EU, and Nordic cooperation.  She is a pretty committed member of NATO – which isn’t true of all members – even though she is a small nation. Denmark is also a member of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the World Trade Organisation.

She is a mercantile nation who believes in free trade, collective action and collective security.

This means I think there is an important place for collective security for Scotland in the future.  I think this should be as part of what we currently call NATO but that it will continue to move on to take a post Cold War form.

I think also in this uncertain world fragmentation does not help peace or prosperity.

A say in how the globe deals with the forces that affect us is important.

Top table

I have limited care for a permanent place on the UN security council, but a place at the top table with the G8 matters.  Being part of the UK which has such a place is therefore vital.

Consider this picture.  This is the G8 at Camp David earlier this year.  It is a small world and being part of the G8 is to have very personal input with the 7 other men and women who take the fundamental decisions that affect the entire world.  This is much more than mere tokenism, and while power can often be subverted by greater forces,  having a seat at the G8 is meaningful influence.

Free trade is vital to us if we are to have growth around the world once more and if we are to adapt to and make the most of the opportunities brought by the changing balance of economic power across the planet.

Preserving the UK and what is in effect an established and successful single market and currency union is also important.  The EU is uncertain, and our relationship with it is also uncertain.  I hope it survives with us as part of it because I think the EU has probably done more to ensure peace in Europe after the war than any other body.  However, Europe’s precise course is uncertain. 

And since the UK operates as a single market and a currency union and we are not envisaging changing that bit, it seems all the better to have some political say in it and some chance of influencing affairs.

But I believe this is best served by the UK following a system of government which allows for the expression of the different interests and identities within it and, at the same time, has the influence and strength which comes with the common purpose that I have been describing. This means a distribution of powers among the nations and regions of the UK, for joint action where we need it, and for significant democratic choice and opportunity where that best serves our interests.  This should be combined with the responsibility that comes from significant financial powers.  Whether you call this subsidiarity,  decentralisation or federal government it should, I hope, go some way towards reducing the alienation many feel in the political process and re-connecting political power to people and communities.

In the world of the 21^st century with its transient alliances and changing balances of power, being cut adrift as part of the fragmentation of nations will not serve Scottish foreign interests or trade well.  That way is best served by British unity, collective international interests and subsidiarity or decentralisation at home.

The Tories in Scotland are different

I originally posted this as a comment on The Green Benches blog.  It is a good blog.  You will find a link on my blogroll to the right hand side.

I think the Tories in Scotland are less concerned about being anti-EU and anti immigration than down south.

Many of the young Turks are interested in Euro scepticism and love characters like Dan Hanan but it just doesn't matter to them as much. UKIP barely register a ripple north of the border after all.

They aren't and cannot be Little Englanders.

Their belief in Britishness is strong. As the generations pass and the Second World War goes into the past so this dissipates somewhat but it is central to who they are.

One thing which stands out - I believe is class - I perceive the Tories in Scotland as being very much the party of many of the professional classes in Edinburgh and Glasgow, of people who were educated privately there, of well to do folks of rural Borders and Perthshire. As such they are a group who many Scots struggle to relate to and have become a small party marginalised to some extent.

The theme of localism that has been suggested that runs like a schism in Scottish politics - localism v statism. They love their communities. Wedded to Britishness they may well be but they are proud Scots too.

This sense of community and localism means they are less idealistic about small government and low taxes than their English counterparts. this also helps explain why they seem to have a narrower social mix than the Tories down south.

I sense many of the Tories in Scotland are socially quite conservative. The family, community, lack of political correctness and a residual element of the deferential society and belief in institutions is there. You highlight the connection with the forces,

Of course the 80s and Thatcher saw them seriously marginalised in Scotland becoming toxic under FPTP ensuring a tactical allegiance against them everywhere.

They seem to be uneasy bedfellows with the SNP and I think they are more right wing than you say Eoin. They are also unionists and not separatists and not all even convinced about devolution.

Nonetheless the SNP seem unlikely to deliver separatism producing a loose left of centre non socialist alternative to labour. The Tories are uneasy about their lefty-ness but they can unite against the Labour establishment.

In fact with the SNP having a loose belief in 'fairness' they occupy some of the space the LibDems occupy - especially down south - though they have good pockets of support in central Scotland too. It seems almost like a Con/LibDem coalition united against conservative, tribal,established Labour - who are rather - well - dull!

So an uneasy relationship but perhaps the SNP offer the Tories a cloak under which to do things, a chance - the only chance - to beat Labour and help in the long march back from the margins and being perceived as non Scottish.

Gavin