After demanding new referendum incessantly, LibDems now just want to stop Brexit unilaterally
LibDem leader Jo Swinson confirmed on today’s Marr programme that the LibDems – in spite of ‘debating’ the issue at their annual conference today – will revoke Article 50 and ‘cancel Brexit’ if they get into a position to do so.
Marr objected that after demanding a new referendum up to this point, the LibDems want to say to voters, “Forget it, whatever happens you’re not going to get another referendum, you… are not going to get another chance to vote. We’re going to do it after an election and simply cancel the whole thing” and that some of her own MPs believe the LibDems should vote for a Brexit deal.
But Swinson – who admitted that there are no limits to her party political ambition – confirmed that, if forming a government or able to influence one, “…stopping Brexit is exactly what they will get. We will revoke Article 50.”
Marr responded that the LibDems would be disrespecting the votes of 17.5m people to:
simply cancel it out. You treat the whole Brexit episode like some old bullock that you’re going to take into a field and shoot.
With Johnson’s Tories pushing hard for a no-deal Brexit and the LibDems now committed to preventing it altogether, the blue and yellow Tories have left wide open what one senior Labour source called ‘a sanity gap’ for Corbyn to fill:
The LibDems have just abandoned any pretence of wanting ‘more democracy’ to give people a choice – and the Tories want to take everyone over a cliff. Neither gives two hoots for letting people actually have a say.
There’s a massive sanity gap in politics right now and Jeremy is the only one who can fill it. He’s the only one trying to represent the 99% instead of just the 48% or the 52%.
The SKWAWKBOX needs your support. This blog is provided free of charge but depends on the generosity of its readers to be viable. If you can afford to, please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal or here for a monthly donation via GoCardless. Thanks for your solidarity so this blog can keep bringing you information the Establishment would prefer you not to know about.
If you wish to reblog this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.
The policy is eminently sensible – if, and only if – the LibDems were elected with a parliamentary majority, that would constitute another “peoples vote”. In all other circumstances the party would push for another referendum.
Maybe I got that wrong,but are you seriously calling the libdems eminently sensible?
I guess Swinson’s policy announcement has achieved it’s objective of providing them with a bit of publicity. The chance of the LibDems winning an overall majority at the next GE is so remote they can promise whatever they feel will give them a bit of a boost. They are never going to have to fulfill these vacuous promises
Now labour lab has stolen fibdem’s position they have to be seen to offer something different.
Rita….for the many not the parasites.. And a rationalisation plan with rebuilding Britain’s manufacturing base…..I could say more but isn’t that dynamic enough for you..?
“Leaving Corbyn to fill ‘Sanity Gap’ ” ???
Sanity is ditching Brexit.
Jack T…my bet would be that Corbyns a much better politician than me or you when it comes to the sanity gap….Maybe we expect perfection when he leads for ALL the Labour party?
Sanity is ditching Brexit IN A SAFE WAY. Simply revoking Art 50 is not a safe way. Renegotiating, holding a referendum where neither outcome is catastrophic, and hopefully implementing a win for Remain is the safe way. The Lib Dem way would turbocharge the extreme right.
Ultraviolet, in this context, what do you define as safe?
Sanity is ditching Brexit.
Just like the lib dims. You’re in the wrong party, squire. Off you pop, over there >>>>>
Toffee, so which Part should the Libdems be in then?
By the way, if I’m in the wrong Party, so are 70% of our members!
“There’s a massive sanity gap in politics right now”
Actually it’s not ‘right now’ – it’s been around ever since 2010 and the Tories started cutting after a massive recession, grew when Cameron allowed the ERG to take over the Labour Party, expanded more when some on the ‘left’ started backing extreme Tory policy on Europe, got out of control when Cameroon promised the moon, burgeoned as a significant population fell in passionate love with the lies of the Tory press, thinking them a revolt against, rather than an expression of, the elite.
Ever since, like useless, but persistent Japanese Knotweed, the loopiness has spread and spread – largely immune to a bit of logical weedkiller.
Given all that, it is, indeed, only another vote that allows a possible medication.
I believe anything is possible in todays rabid politics,but theirs always going to be pride before a fall….and swansongs ambitions outstrip her intellect…Go forth and prepare for government.? And some would say r Do they never learn the libdems?
Swinson isn’t banking on being in govt.. She says ‘or able to influence one’. In other words, it would be the price that she would demand for supporting the largest party, be that Con or Labour.
She is emulating other foreign small parties in demanding extreme and unpopular measures in return for her support. This is one of the real dangers of proportional representation. It may appear to be more democratic but it produces another kind of distortion.
Sue…..do you really think the lib dems will prop up Labour,it would be electoral disaster for them,especially in Lewes Sussex.I wonder what Norman baker thinks your former former lib dem mp.although it might help Labour to point out how dangerous another Tory libdem
demolition job might be,. You really don’t have much chance of electing a Labour mp in your constituency…..still we live in hope
The LDs propping up the Tories in 2010 was disastrous for Norman Baker in 2015 … it became clear just how much he depended on a tactical vote from Labour supporters. In fact, the Tory vote barely changed between 2010/15 but the LD vote plummetted and Maria Caulfield came through the middle to be elected.
Labour didn’t even win Lewes in 1945 so no, there isn’t much chance of winning the constituency. However, 2015 should have demonstrated to Lewes LDs that alienating potential tactical voters by dissing Corbyn, is not at all helpful to their electoral prospects.
Sue, I don’t think proportional representation even appears more democratic. By cursing us with an endless succession of coalition governments it would shift power permanently from the large parties to the small parties. The parliamentary elites of those small parties – not the electorate – would decide who forms the government.
This would be a decisive victory for the combined economic and political elite since internal party democracy including Labour Party democracy would not matter a fig any more – with all manifestos being rewritten after the polls have closed by coalition partners.
First Past the Post has given us a couple of hung parliaments lately but the absolutely endless coalitions of PR must be avoided at all costs.
New definition of ‘democracy’ : anything let lets my small minority view gain traction.
Will Labour fill the “sanity gap”? Charges of insanity are not particularly constructive being normally levelled by the Right against the Left, whether Trump’s denunciation of “crazy Bernie”, Wilson’s criticism of the 1973 Labour Programme of public ownership and planning as “outlandish” or the Blairite machine’s charges of mental illness against sundry opponents.
For the economic and political elite, being “sane” invariably means opting for the economic status quo. Unfortunately the Labour leadership – which was supposed to be different, the first left wing leadership since the interwar years – now supports the economic status quo by supporting the EU or possibly at best BRINO Brexit In Name Only – thereby depriving itself of the essential economic levers of planning over capital movements, immigration, state subsidies and public monopoly. This adds up to a very “sane” way of leaving things much the same and not in any way fundamentally shifting wealth and power in favour of working people.
I’ve just finished chucking up over Chukkup and his new mates being given an easy ride on the WatO, with free airtime simply to deceive over the Labour Party (the LP response was read out, then forgotten about rather than used to raise challenging questions). There was no balancing interview..
In fact, although questioned about the ConDems policy on Brexit – it was all anodyne stuff. No real challenge.
One thing for sure is that the increase of female presenters has certainly not breathed fresh air into the Beeb’s inherently conservative bent in its News output. Is this confirmation that simplistic gender policies provide, not so much an opportunity for equality as an opportunity for control in appointments?
Will conference be dominated by GND?
128 CLPs have put forward GND motions compared to a total of 90 Brexit related motions