What should the Liberal Party do next?

Most of the Continental leaders like Merkel seem pretty candid about the fact that the Treaty of Lisbon will be pretty much the same in its substance to the EU Constitution which was thrown out by the French and Dutch voters. The differences are that rather than coming up with a single new document, the Treaty of Lisbon is an agreement to adopt zillions of detailed amendments to the existing treaties that define how the EU works. This makes it even more impenetrable than the original document, so it is hardly surprising that few mortals not actually paid to do so have actually read and absorbed it in full. The only other differences worth mentioning are that a few of the draft Constitution's nationalistic baubles (anthem, flag etc) have been dropped. However, the proposed working of the EU is little changed. Given that the Treaty of Lisbon is widely admitted to be substantially the same as the rejected Constitution, and given that the LibDems "pledged support for a referendum on the Constitution", I still can't quite see their justification for not supporting a referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon. Offering to instead vote for a treaty on EU membership is meaningless given that such a referendum simply isn't on the table. However, given Labour's splits on the issue, the LibDems probably could give us a referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon, in accordance with their election pledge. So why don't they?

Most of the Continental leaders like Merkel seem pretty candid about the fact that the Treaty of Lisbon will be pretty much the same in its substance to the EU Constitution which was thrown out by the French and Dutch voters. The differences are that rather than coming up with a single new document, the Treaty of Lisbon is an agreement to adopt zillions of detailed amendments to the existing treaties that define how the EU works. This makes it even more impenetrable than the original document, so it is hardly surprising that few mortals not actually paid to do so have actually read and absorbed it in full. The only other differences worth mentioning are that a few of the draft Constitution's nationalistic baubles (anthem, flag etc) have been dropped. However, the proposed working of the EU is little changed. Given that the Treaty of Lisbon is widely admitted to be substantially the same as the rejected Constitution, and given that the LibDems "pledged support for a referendum on the Constitution", I still can't quite see their justification for not supporting a referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon. Offering to instead vote for a treaty on EU membership is meaningless given that such a referendum simply isn't on the table. However, given Labour's splits on the issue, the LibDems probably could give us a referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon, in accordance with their election pledge. So why don't they? For Germany, it does indeed implement much the same measures. For Britain that's not actually the case since we've negotiated a whole load of opt-outs (which in my view are bad, actually, but they're still there). The Lib Dems made no election pledge with regard to the Treaty of Lisbon. It's as simple as that. The europhobes themselves declared the Constitution dead - apparently they now want to change their mind. The Treaty of Lisbon is indeed hard to understand (I have read bits of it). The Constitution was actually designed to be understandable, with only a little bit of effort. That wasn't even remotely possible with a reforming treaty. Are you honestly arguing that we should partially renege on our manifesto pledge (by not supporting a referendum covering Maastricht and Nice)? Better by far to expand our support for a referendum. We support lots of things that aren't immediately achievable. So do you.

For Germany, it does indeed implement much the same measures. For Britain that's not actually the case since we've negotiated a whole load of opt-outs (which in my view are bad, actually, but they're still there). Wonderful. I've just looked them up on Wikipedia, and the opt-outs don't seem to have anything to do with the actual operation of the EU. (They couldn't really, could they, without applying to everyone?) Still, if you think they will make a huge difference to people's perceptions of the treaty, then all the more reason to put it to the vote. The europhobes themselves declared the Constitution dead - apparently they now want to change their mind. Well, we were all told that adoption of the Constitution was dependent on the approval of the voters. It probably seemed reasonable to assume that, having been rejected by the voters in two major EU member states, and facing almost certain rejection in others, the Constitution was dead. However, it looks as if it was only ever window-dressing to claim that the public's opinions mattered. Politicians talk a lot about the need to involve the public more in the EU, but they apparently want this involvement to be a one-way affair. Seems like the EU will continue to be something that is done to us, not something that we make. Surely this is the antithesis of the old Liberal insistence that we should "trust the people"? We support lots of things that aren't immediately achievable. So do you. That's absolutely true. However, holding a referendum on the renamed, lightly-disguised EU constitutional treaty is achievable. There will be a Commons vote on it very soon, and LibDem MPs, if they choose, could probably swing that vote to bring about the referendum they pledged to support. In other words, for the first time in decades, one of this country's liberal parties has the opportunity to actually deliver on one of its election pledges. Don't let that chance slip away!

In other words, for the first time in decades, one of this country's liberal parties has the opportunity to actually deliver on one of its election pledges. Don't let that chance slip away! It wouldn't be the first time in decades, but our pledge was for the Constitution. Naturally, we should aim for the nearest possible equivalent since this pledge is no longer strictly applicable. The EU Constitutional Treaty rebuilt the EU from scratch. Hence, a vote on it would have been a vote on all previous treaties (most of which had no referenda). So, considering the options: A vote on the Reform Treaty is a vote on the Reform Treaty and it alone. A vote on the EU as a whole, with the Reform Treaty being approved by the democratically-elected representatives of the people in the meantime, includes all previous Treaties as well as this one. I think it's fairly clear which of the two options on the table is more similar to a vote on the Constitution. I can understand that the Tories cannot support that option because, if such a vote came about, it would likely split their party (between the "yes" and "no" camps). What's your party's excuse? :?:

If the original version of the EU Constitution had been put to a UK referendum, then the consequence of it being rejected would have been that the existing treaties (Maastricht etc) stayed in force. If the Reform Treaty is put to a UK referendum then the consequence of it being rejected would be that the existing treaties (Maastricht etc) stay in force. If EU membership as a whole was put to a UK referendum then the consequence of it being rejected would be that the UK would leave the EU. I think it's fairly clear which of the two options on the table is more similar to a vote on the Constitution. Yes, it is completely clear from the summary above!

If the original version of the EU Constitution had been put to a UK referendum, then the consequence of it being rejected would have been that the existing treaties (Maastricht etc) stayed in force. If the Reform Treaty is put to a UK referendum then the consequence of it being rejected would be that the existing treaties (Maastricht etc) stay in force. If EU membership as a whole was put to a UK referendum then the consequence of it being rejected would be that the UK would leave the EU. I think it's fairly clear which of the two options on the table is more similar to a vote on the Constitution. Yes, it is completely clear from the summary above! I am aware of those differences but I consider them more minor ones than those outlined. In any case you can hardly say that the Lib Dem attitude is betraying a manifesto pledge since it quite clearly goes above and beyond that.

Not sure you can say they are minor... it does look to me as if the new Treaty is functionally equivalent to the Constitution even if it is expressed in completely different language and legal form. I can't see a good reason for the LibDems to not back a referendum, even if Mister Bean says there won't be one. I really want to believe that the LibDems aren't simply breaking an election promise. I greatly respected the Liberal Democrats for having backed a referendum on Maastricht despite knowing that they'd probably be on the losing side. I thought that Liberals and Liberal Democrats might be campaigning on opposite sides of a referendum on this Treaty, but would be united in saying that there should be a referendum. I'm sorry I was wrong.

I really want to believe that the LibDems aren't simply breaking an election promise. I greatly respected the Liberal Democrats for having backed a referendum on Maastricht despite knowing that they'd probably be on the losing side. I thought that Liberals and Liberal Democrats might be campaigning on opposite sides of a referendum on this Treaty, but would be united in saying that there should be a referendum. I'm sorry I was wrong. Well, we are in favour of a referendum on this Treaty - just not a referendum on just this Treaty. As it stands it's a relatively minor reforming treaty - certainly compared to previous treaties where, strangely, there has been no referendum campaign of any significance. From the UK perspective it isn't functionally equivalent because the way it applies to the UK is different to the way it applies to pretty much everyone else. I think that's a bad thing but it's nonetheless true. Nice to see that supporters of the continuing Liberal party are prepared to quote the then Acting Leader of the Liberal Democrats in a positive light, by the way ("Mr Bean").

Nice to see that supporters of the continuing Liberal party are prepared to quote the then Acting Leader of the Liberal Democrats in a positive light, by the way ("Mr Bean"). Actually no, I was just making a cheap crack about the appearance of the Foreign Secretary, who rejected a referendum during the Commons debate yesterday. http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/David-Miliband.jpg Not a very original joke, either - I've heard it from at least two people and I assumed you must have already heard it as well. (See? We do sometimes have a go at non-LibDem politicians too!)

Actually no, I was just making a cheap crack about the appearance of the Foreign Secretary, who rejected a referendum during the Commons debate yesterday. http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/David-Miliband.jpg Not a very original joke, either - I've heard it from at least two people and I assumed you must have already heard it as well. (See? We do sometimes have a go at non-LibDem politicians too!) No, no. Mr Brown is the only Mr Bean in the House! The link didn't seem to work by the way. I really must keep a frequency chart of cont-Lib jokes/jibes/attacks and the target party - I think we both know what the result would be though!

Just to wrench this thread back on topic, why don't the Liberal Party merge with the Lib Dems? As I understand it euroscepticism formed no part of the original rationale for setting up the continuity Liberal Party. The original reason was simply to ensure that there continued to be a party purely dedicated to promoting liberal principles. The pre-1988 Liberal Party had been pro-European for decades and people like Micheal Meadowcroft had no intention of the continuing Liberal Party becoming an anti-EU organisation. In 2004 the Liberal Democrats passed an official statement of principles (It's About Freedom) at conference that explicitly committed the party to promoting liberalism. The original reason for the Liberal Party to exist has been removed. It seems to me that a merger could benefit both sides in places like Liverpool. If euroscepticism is the reason why this can't happen then perhaps it would be worthwhile for you lot to change your party's name to the Eurosceptic Liberal Party (or something snappier). This would clarify things for the voters and would allow us Lib Dems to shorten our name.

Just to wrench this thread back on topic, why don't the Liberal Party merge with the Lib Dems? I'm with you on this, but they won't because they're so used to defining themselves against the Liberal Democrats. And, of course, the continuing Liberals are so intent on leaving the EU that they'd never agree to merge with a party which is determined to try to make the EU work as it should.

Hi Andrew, and welcome to the forum. Appius thinks the Liberal Party is persecuting the LibDems, which given our relative numbers would be one of the most lopsided persecutions ever. Of course the Liberal Party has had various long-term splits in its history, and has always been weaker for them. I'd love to see Liberals and Liberal Democrats reunited as a single Liberal Party one day. There are many issues on which the two groups have always seen eye to eye. Nonetheless, this of all moments is a truly bizarre moment for a LibDem to be suggesting a merger! Most Liberals are hopping mad about the LibDems scuppering the chance for a referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon. We see it as a broken promise and a missed opportunity, and we aren't at all mollified by the new and undeliverable pledge to support a general vote on EU membership. Yes, we know that Labour have broken their promise too, but they never said they were liberals. The Liberals pre-1988 were indeed pro-EC, but like the LibDems today, and the Liberals today, they did include a whole spectrum of views on the subject. Also, the EC in 1988 may not have been perfect, but it was a much less powerful organisation than the EU today. I could put up with the 1988-style EC, and though I can't speak for anyone else I suspect that the same would go for almost all the supporters of the modern Liberal Party. Tell you what, instead of us changing our party's name, why don't you change your party's name to the "Pro-Euro Liberal Party", on the lines of the little "Pro-Euro Conservative Party" that you absorbed a few years back? :)

Hi Andrew, and welcome to the forum. Appius thinks the Liberal Party is persecuting the LibDems, which given our relative numbers would be one of the most lopsided persecutions ever. "Persecution" is your word, not mine! I think it's hard to deny that the continuing Liberals are obsessed with not being the Lib Dems to the extent that, if we're talking about name changes, "Anti-Lib Dem Party" is probably as good a description as any. Of course the Liberal Party has had various long-term splits in its history, and has always been weaker for them. I'd love to see Liberals and Liberal Democrats reunited as a single Liberal Party one day. There are many issues on which the two groups have always seen eye to eye. Nonetheless, this of all moments is a truly bizarre moment for a LibDem to be suggesting a merger! Not at all. From a Lib Dem point of view it makes perfect sense since the continuing Liberals are vaguely liberal and hence probably more at home with the Lib Dems than anywhere else. Most Liberals are hopping mad about the LibDems scuppering the chance for a referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon. We see it as a broken promise and a missed opportunity, and we aren't at all mollified by the new and undeliverable pledge to support a general vote on EU membership. Yes, we know that Labour have broken their promise too, but they never said they were liberals. The Lib Dems haven't broken any promises. Labour technically haven't, but the membership referendum is an appropriate substitute for the Constitutional referendum - far more so than a reforming treaty which, as you yourself have argued, isn't exactly revolutionary. Undeliverable? I could say the same of the Reform Treaty. The difference is that our pledge can be fulfilled now, later, after the next election if necessary... The treaty referendum can only really happen now - and this treaty isn't worth it. The Constitution was only worth it because it covered previous Treaties and hence was significant. The Liberals pre-1988 were indeed pro-EC, but like the LibDems today, and the Liberals today, they did include a whole spectrum of views on the subject. Also, the EC in 1988 may not have been perfect, but it was a much less powerful organisation than the EU today. I could put up with the 1988-style EC, and though I can't speak for anyone else I suspect that the same would go for almost all the supporters of the modern Liberal Party. Tell you what, instead of us changing our party's name, why don't you change your party's name to the "Pro-Euro Liberal Party", on the lines of the little "Pro-Euro Conservative Party" that you absorbed a few years back? :) We're often seen as mad about the EU. That's not actually true. We recognise pragmatically that it is useful. Providing that we can protect subsidiarity (i.e. the EU only does what it's actually useful for - not stuff which is just as effective lower down) it's therefore a good thing. The irony of this debate is that I actually want to reduce EU powers in many areas. I'd rather like to abolish the Common Agricultural Policy subsidies, for example - thus saving almost half of the EU's budget. At the very least I want to change the nature of the CAP so that it no longer acts as a protectionist measure.

Hi Tom, I've always been curious about what you lot get up to. Up until now the Liberal Party for me has just been a name on a web site or a ballot paper. It's good to hear from an actual party member about what motivates them to get involved etc. Incidentally, I don't think this is a bizarre time at all to suggest a merger. We've just elected an exciting new leader, are moving up in the polls and look to be embarking on a glorious new chapter in the history of British liberalism. I'd like you to be a part of it. On the European issue, I'm not particularly happy with my party's position on the referendum. Personally, I don't think we should ever have promised to hold one and our position now should be that we're not going to vote for one because it was a bad idea in the first place and we've seen the error of our ways. On the EU in general, in my opinion most of the bad things about the EU date from before 1988 (e.g. the CAP) and not from after that date. Maastricht still looks to me like an important extension of the freedom of British citizens. As Appius says you've got to be in the EU in order to make it better.

View Full Version: What should the Liberal Party do next?