On Revoking Article 50

The Lib Dems passed a policy at our Conference pledging to stop Brexit by revoking Article 50 if we are elected.

I’m delighted by this. We are showing leadership on the most important issue of the day, which is what political parties should do. The Lib Dems believe that we should stay in Europe. So pledging to do anything else if elected would be an abdication of leadership. The result of a People’s Vote could compel a theoretical Lib Dem Government to deliver Brexit.  Would it really be right for a Lib Dem Government to do this? A Prime Minister shouldn’t put an issue to referendum unless they have a plan for both outcomes – something which we criticised Cameron for many times. We think Brexit is a disaster. So we shouldn’t deliver it under any circumstances.

The result of the referendum in 2016 doesn’t change our views or values. If Corbyn wins a landslide in 2019, the Conservatives won’t go to the next election promising to implement socialism as it is “the will of the people”. Political parties are there to fight for their beliefs. The fact that Corbyn is pledging to stay neutral in a People’s Vote to “leave it up to the people” is absurd. Why bother campaigning in elections at all if that’s your attitude? We should all just knock on voters’ doors and say “it’s up to you who you vote for, I have no view”.

If I was the last person in the world who believed that the UK should remain in the EU, I would be out campaigning to persuade people to change their minds. Politics is about standing up for what you believe in. I’m glad that the Lib Dems are doing this.

The most well-intentioned counter arguments I’ve come across focus on the difference between an election and a referendum. The two main lines here seem to be:

1. You should deliver the result of the referendum before trying to reverse it.
2. You can only reverse a referendum with another referendum, as General Elections are run on FPTP, and focus on many different issues apart from Brexit.”

Taking them in turn:

1. I see the validity of this in general (if there had been a Yes vote in the AV referendum, for example, I would have been angry if the Tories waited four years and then opposed it before it had been implemented). But I don’t think you can look at this in the same way, because implementing Brexit in any vaguely responsible way takes such a long time and can happen in so many different ways. It is also almost impossible to reverse and would have broad reaching implications on every aspect of our country for decades to come. You can’t expect other parties to wait for ten years before raising objections, watching as the realities of Brexit continue to be a million miles away from what was promised in 2016. If an election arrives before Brexit is delivered, we have a duty to fight for what we think is right.
2. I agree that FPTP is a terrible system, but it is the reality of how elections are run in 2019. The result in 2016 doesn’t bind us, as Liberal Democrats, to deliver something which is seismically opposed to everything we stand for. However you are elected to power, you should not do something which you think will be bad for the country. If you believe that the Lib Dems should hold a People’s Vote while in Government, then you must believe that we should deliver Brexit if Leave won that People’s Vote. I don’t think that can happen. There is no Lib Dem version of Brexit.

Ultimately, this is a matter of principle. On issues of such enormous importance to the country, political parties should always stand up for what they believe in. Millions of people have signed a petition to revoke Article 50. The Leave campaign’s promises have been exposed as lies. Our country has been paralyzed by Brexit for over three years. Standing to revoke Article 50 isn’t subverting democracy, it is democracy in action. And I expect us to be rewarded for it.