Remain is not extreme
After the Liberal Democrats decided to put in place a new policy of revoking Article 50 if they win a majority in a general election, adopting an unequivocally pro-EU stance, a number of commentators and politicians, from both right and left, have come out to declare that this policy is 'extreme'. Labour's Shadow Foreign Secretary, Emily Thornberry, has even gone as far as comparing the Liberal Democrats to the Taliban as a result of this new position.
This is entirely wrong. Putting aside discussions over the coarseness of current political rhetoric in the UK, the very idea that wanting to stay in the EU is an extreme position is unsustainable the moment it is put under scrutiny.
The first key point is that EU membership is not in itself an extreme policy. It has formed a key plank of our political consensus for decades and is instrumental to many of our interests and policy objectives. By definition, seeking to maintain membership of an organisation we have been part of for 40 years cannot be extreme.
Being part of the EU is a position endorsed by multiple formed Prime Ministers, both during their time in office and afterwards. During this same time, it has been widely endorsed by the UK's allies around the world and was again during the 2016 referendum. It is a view supported by hundreds of millions of people across Europe, including in countries outside of the EU. Many current MPs, elected as recently as 2017, believe and have been explicit in their belief that the UK should stay as a part of the EU. And let's not forget, in 2016, 48% of people voted to stay in the EU. Most polling evidence we have suggests that at least this many and likely more would vote the same way if there were a new referendum.
Contrast this to Brexiteers' current favourite - either leaving the EU through a Hard Brexit or crashing out of the EU under No Deal. Until just a few years ago, this was a policy that would have been kept firmly at the fringes. Indeed, a No Deal Brexit would have been found only on the fringe of the fringe. Far fewer senior political figures from our history endorse this position. It has never enjoyed the kind of partisan consensus that EU membership has in the past. And in the rest of Europe it is an approach that pretty well nobody would consider as even anti-EU parties have had to soften their position in order to win public favour. More broadly, in the international sphere, it is an approach that receives little support from the UK's allies and which is almost entirely endorsed by actual extremists: radical right parties and politicians with deeply unpleasant views (even if some outlets have now ceased to care who actually supports their Brexit vision).
Are we really to believe that between these two options, it is Remain that is extreme? The weight of political and public opinion, over many decades, both in the UK and the rest of Europe, firmly places a desire to be in the EU as a mainstream policy.
But, there is a second layer to the accusation that wanting the UK to stay in the EU is extreme. It is an argument that says that in supporting this view, you are seeking to 'overturn' the 2016 referendum result. The implication is that staying in the EU would be implemented by some kind of diktat, with no voice or representation for the people of this country, whose views would be run over roughshod.
This is disingenuous and not a fair representation of the argument being put forwards by defenders of our place in Europe.
We need to be clear about the position that is actually being discussed here - the proposal is to revoke Article 50 and stay in the EU, that is true, but only after either a referendum, if the Liberal Democrats do not win a majority (also Labour's official policy), or after a general election if they do win a majority. In other words, the Leave result, which Parliament has been working towards ever since the 2016 referendum, would not be changed without democratic endorsement
Why should this be considered wrong or extreme? If people voting to change a policy decision is condemned as extreme then what options are left in a free and peaceful society? If it is not possible to hold a policy that explicitly endorses another nation-wide democratic event then what we are being told is that the 2016 referendum result is irreversible, that Brexit can never be opposed or changed. How is this democracy? If a political decision has no room for legitimate opposition, then free debate is shut down. We would cease to be a democratic state in favour of being a Brexit state.
Overall then, what we are faced with is a policy that would allow the public to express their views through the ballot box and which, if the majority of votes go in that direction, would then lead to the implementation of a distinctly mainstream policy. It is quite simply impossible to defend the accusation that this is extreme.
Image via Flickr
This is entirely wrong. Putting aside discussions over the coarseness of current political rhetoric in the UK, the very idea that wanting to stay in the EU is an extreme position is unsustainable the moment it is put under scrutiny.
The first key point is that EU membership is not in itself an extreme policy. It has formed a key plank of our political consensus for decades and is instrumental to many of our interests and policy objectives. By definition, seeking to maintain membership of an organisation we have been part of for 40 years cannot be extreme.
Being part of the EU is a position endorsed by multiple formed Prime Ministers, both during their time in office and afterwards. During this same time, it has been widely endorsed by the UK's allies around the world and was again during the 2016 referendum. It is a view supported by hundreds of millions of people across Europe, including in countries outside of the EU. Many current MPs, elected as recently as 2017, believe and have been explicit in their belief that the UK should stay as a part of the EU. And let's not forget, in 2016, 48% of people voted to stay in the EU. Most polling evidence we have suggests that at least this many and likely more would vote the same way if there were a new referendum.
Contrast this to Brexiteers' current favourite - either leaving the EU through a Hard Brexit or crashing out of the EU under No Deal. Until just a few years ago, this was a policy that would have been kept firmly at the fringes. Indeed, a No Deal Brexit would have been found only on the fringe of the fringe. Far fewer senior political figures from our history endorse this position. It has never enjoyed the kind of partisan consensus that EU membership has in the past. And in the rest of Europe it is an approach that pretty well nobody would consider as even anti-EU parties have had to soften their position in order to win public favour. More broadly, in the international sphere, it is an approach that receives little support from the UK's allies and which is almost entirely endorsed by actual extremists: radical right parties and politicians with deeply unpleasant views (even if some outlets have now ceased to care who actually supports their Brexit vision).
Are we really to believe that between these two options, it is Remain that is extreme? The weight of political and public opinion, over many decades, both in the UK and the rest of Europe, firmly places a desire to be in the EU as a mainstream policy.
But, there is a second layer to the accusation that wanting the UK to stay in the EU is extreme. It is an argument that says that in supporting this view, you are seeking to 'overturn' the 2016 referendum result. The implication is that staying in the EU would be implemented by some kind of diktat, with no voice or representation for the people of this country, whose views would be run over roughshod.
This is disingenuous and not a fair representation of the argument being put forwards by defenders of our place in Europe.
We need to be clear about the position that is actually being discussed here - the proposal is to revoke Article 50 and stay in the EU, that is true, but only after either a referendum, if the Liberal Democrats do not win a majority (also Labour's official policy), or after a general election if they do win a majority. In other words, the Leave result, which Parliament has been working towards ever since the 2016 referendum, would not be changed without democratic endorsement
Why should this be considered wrong or extreme? If people voting to change a policy decision is condemned as extreme then what options are left in a free and peaceful society? If it is not possible to hold a policy that explicitly endorses another nation-wide democratic event then what we are being told is that the 2016 referendum result is irreversible, that Brexit can never be opposed or changed. How is this democracy? If a political decision has no room for legitimate opposition, then free debate is shut down. We would cease to be a democratic state in favour of being a Brexit state.
Overall then, what we are faced with is a policy that would allow the public to express their views through the ballot box and which, if the majority of votes go in that direction, would then lead to the implementation of a distinctly mainstream policy. It is quite simply impossible to defend the accusation that this is extreme.
Image via Flickr
Comments
Post a Comment