Tuesday, 24 January 2017

Opinion: Britain's Pro-EU parties should change their tactics

 In the wake of the Supreme Court rejecting the appeal made by the government against the High Court ruling in 2016 (that Parliament would have to vote on triggering article 50 for it to be triggered), the Liberal Democrat leader, Tim Farron, has announced that the Liberal Democrats will vote against any triggering of article 50 in parliament until there is a 'vote of the people on the final deal'.  While I agree with the Lib Dems' stance in principal, it seems to be the case that Brexiters have been quick to portray the Lib Dems as negating the will of the people by demanding a second referendum.  Similarly, Plaid Cymru are campaigning to keep Wales in the single market, on the grounds that Wales sells exports more to the EU than they import (which they do), and similarly, Plaid are being portrayed by their critics as being anti-democratic, (despite the fact that notable Leave Campaigners, an example being Daniel Hannan, are recorded on camera before the referendum stating that an exit from the EU would not necessarily mean an exit from the Single Market.)  In this particular blog article, I will argue that both parties should have followed a different post-referendum strategy, namely one which would have denied their opponents any opportunity to portray them as ignoring the result:

While I supported the remain cause before the referendum, and sympathize with the above stances of both Plaid Cymru and the Lib Dems now, I personally would have taken a different approach since the referendum.  I believe that both parties should have tried to find a way of staying true to their internationalist and anti-Little Englander values without appearing to be ignoring the referendum.  They should have criticized the government, the leave campaign and UKIP for their ultra-nationalist, neo-imperialist and Little Englander attitudes, along with the incompetency of the government since the referendum, without publicly advocating any alternative policy which resembled ignoring the result:

For example, I'd have condemned Nigel Farage's speech in the European Parliament on the day after the referendum in which he arrogantly taunted the other deputies that they jolly-well ought to give Britain a preferential tariff-free deal, because if they didn't, the other countries would be hurt far more than Britain would, but that the other deputies wouldn't understand that because none of them had 'ever had a proper job,' for its naked arrogance and rudeness. Equally, I would have spent my time since condemning other examples of that 'Brexit attitude' by other Europhobic politicians.  I'd have criticized the comedy trip, on the 21st of January by former minister Owen Patterson and chair of Leave Means Leave John Longworth, travelled to Berlin, in which they tried to persuade German business leaders to lobby Chancellor Angela Merkel to give Britain a preferential free trade deal, arguing that the continent and Germany needed Britain more than Britain needed them, and described Britain as 'a beacon of open, free trade around the world' (despite choosing to leave the world's largest free trade area,) only to be met with 'sniggers' and 'audible mutters of irritation' from the audience. I'd have also criticized the comedy incompetence of the government, and any examples of that, but I would not have campaigned for anything which could be interpreted by their Brexit supporting critics, and by the public in general, as ignoring the result of the referendum.

The point is this: if they had criticized both the government and the Brexit politicians generally but not actually announced any alternative policy, they'd have succeeded at criticizing their opponents while not giving their opponents, or the public, as much to criticize them about in return.  That's better than coming up with policies, such as having a Second Referendum, or anything which appears to want to 'water down' the government's Brexit plans, which only allows the other side to label you (however wrongly) as undemocratic.  If Plaid and the Lib-Dems had, say, gone about condemning the attitudes and values of the leave campaign, and their displays of arrogance and parochialism, both political parties would have stayed true to their internationalist values, those being tolerance and respect for other countries, without seeming undemocratic.  That is what both Tim Farron and Leanne Wood should have done, and that's what they should start doing now.  Also, put it this way; both Plaid Cymru and the Liberal Democrats know that they are not going to be in government before Article 50 is triggered, so what benefit are they going to draw from announcing any alternative policies to the government, with regards to Brexit, anyway?

No comments:

Post a Comment