Brexit: email exchange with Lord Paddy Ashdown, former leader of the Liberal Democrats.

This begins with Lord Ashdown's response to my email to Parliamentarians of 9th January (see previous post). Comments are welcome.

From Paddy Ashdown

Thank you for this. 

But I fear I must  disagree with you. 

Of course the Referendum as was technically advisory. But it was the people advising Parliament and it would be a brave (and in my view foolish) Parliament, which should be a creature of the people’s will, to ignore the people’s advice. In this matter the legality is less important than the politics.

There are of course those who say the referendum was flawed because the legislation did not stipulate a higher threshold for a vote to leave than 50% plus 1 vote. This too I agree with and supported an amendment to this effect when the Bill came before Parliament. But this did not succeed, and so was not included in the law. The law may be wrong but it is the law and has to be obeyed.

Lastly there are those who say that we should not accept the outcome because people lied. But claims of lying are very common in elections, not least General Elections. One person's lying is another person's hyperbole and a third person's legitimate campaign clam. Absent a body which adjudicates on the truth in elections (which we don't have) we cannot I fear reject the outcome of the democratic process just because some people claim that the other side has been lying. Can you imagine what would happen if people felt entitled to reject the outcome of a General Election on the grounds that they believed someone lied. The whole of our democratic process would break down.

I believe we must accept  the Brexit judgement and seek to enact it in a manner which represents the best interest of the country (i.e. the best deal we can make of Brexit is to remain as close to the EU - especially the single market as we can).

It may be that the judgement of the people will change as they feel the effects of Brexit. In which case I for one will be campaigning to remain in the EU.

But in this matter it is the people who must lead Parliament, not the other way round.

The Article 50 legislation will soon come to Parliament. As you may know the Liberal Democrats, while not opposing the Bill in principle, we will insist through amendments that,  accepting that the result of the YES/NO referendum was to leave, the people should also be consulted about the destination which the Government chooses for our future outside the EU. What started with an act of democracy cannot end with a Government stitch up.

I am sorry we do not see eye to eye on this matter, but thank you for writing to me.

Paddy

My response:

Dear Lord Ashdown,

Thank you very much for your prompt and detailed response and for engaging me on the points I made. I realise you will be terrifically busy but I do hope you will indulge me by reading my answer.

I’m glad we agree that the EU Referendum was advisory not mandatory but I don’t share your belief that Parliament should be “the creature of the people’s will”. In my view this offends the principle of representative democracy - and we are a representative democracy, and moreover one threatened by a world more at risk from demagogic populism than at any time since the 1930s.

You write that “it is the people who must lead Parliament, not the other way round”. Why? There are plenty of occasions when Parliamentarians don’t vote as delegates, or under the party whip, but instead answer their individual consciences. Why should they be allowed this luxury on lesser matters but denied it when the whole future of our country, its people and the coming generations is at stake? That seems strange, perverse and, yes, cowardly to me. I believe that it’s precisely at such times that Parliament should represent [sic] the nation and be robust about it.

Nor do I agree with you that the legality is less important than the politics - and not just because you then go on to say with regard to the voting threshold that the law must be obeyed simply because it is the law! (That said, I appreciate and thank you for your attempt to stipulate a higher threshold. What a huge shame - in both senses of the word - that it was rejected.)

I believe I’m right that the 2011 Alternative Vote Referendum was mandatory. This immediately raises the question why the EU Referendum wasn’t? The matter was given much prior thought so there must have been a purpose. Therefore, rather than a “technicality” it is of great significance: why on earth would it be in a piece of legislation of such vast importance if there were no circumstances envisaged in which it would be used?

I agree with what you write about general elections with regard to the matter of lying and deception. But I question your comparison with referendums and with the EU Referendum in particular. In general elections voters compare and judge wide-ranging party manifestos. I’m sure that no politician (or even a party leader, although you would know better than I!) has ever agreed with everything in their manifesto. They are necessary compromises, as are electors’ decisions whether or not to vote for them. And political parties are scrutinised with regard to their promises. If they don’t deliver, or have been shown to have lied, they are responsible both to Parliament and, at the next election, the voters, who can throw them out. We don’t then ask whether one man’s lie is another’s truth, and I think that your reducing the matter to this level of relativism doesn't honour its seriousness.

Referendums are different: there is no way back once we leave, at least not in our lifetimes. Referendums ask a straight question. The entirety of each campaign is addressed to it with the aim of producing a single answer, here “Yes” or “No”. Once decided (assuming the result is mandatory, although I note again that this one isn’t!) then there won’t – or shouldn’t be – another bite at the cherry. That is why I ask you and all Remainers in Parliament to campaign to remain in the EU right now, before it is too late. It will be no use hoping, as you write, that people will see their folly after Brexit, nor to campaign to remain in the EU once we have left it. We will be out.

So while I can foresee a sad future moment when I might agree with that part of your final paragraph committing the Liberal Democrats to tabling amendments for a second referendum over the terms of Brexit, this for me is a weak and pusillanimous fall-back position to take now. The horse will have bolted.

We are at present surrounded by decent people with the right instincts and arguments wringing their hands over Brexit and justifying a truly disgraceful and nationally embarrassing travesty with procedural and technical arguments. That, if I may be bold, is a very fine example of what Leavers like to call “the Westminster bubble”. It is banal perhaps to quote Eliot’s wonderful but hackneyed phrase but I know none better: “The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.”

Perhaps you and your otherwise admirable colleagues, from all parties and none, don’t fully grasp why we need you to make a stand. Like millions, I swallowed the result of the AV Referendum - and have done many other retrograde disappointments over the years - and I’m not a natural law-breaker. It is simply that this is such a vast question, the Referendum campaign had so many and such grotesque flaws, and the consequences for our nation are so great and so dispiriting that we have to say enough is enough, and here we stand. And with our steadfast support behind you, we need you guys to get off that fence - because right now no one else is showing the moral and political courage to do so. That, I regret to say, is shameful.

With best regards,
Peter Roberts

Paddy Ashdown's response:

Thanks for/this.
Where we agree, I am grateful. Where we don't I fear we will just have to agree to disagree. But thanks for your detailed response and best wishes.

Paddy

My response:

Dear Lord Ashdown,

Thank you for your response. Although I am disappointed that you didn’t respond to my points I appreciate that you have many things to do.

I’ll continue to lobby in the hope that a core of Parliamentary resistance to Brexit can be found or encouraged.

As this has been a personal exchange, may I ask for your permission to share it with like-minded people? This would not be to score points or invite personal criticism of you, but because I would like to make those who think like me aware of the arguments being advanced by Remainers who are prepared to accept Brexit. I would preface any circulation with this caveat.

Good luck with your attempts to resist the most damaging effects of Brexit.

Yours,

Peter