An open letter to the new Lib Dem peers

Well done! Now abolish yourselves.

Dear Olly, Brian, Zahida et al

Firstly, many congratulations to your elevation to the House of Lords as Lib Dem Peers. I have no doubt that this honour is a reflection of the days, months and years of public service you have given and you have been chosen because it is believed you will strengthen our legislature and make our country a better place to live. 

And now, on behalf of a grateful party, can I ask you to work tirelessly to remove yourself from the House.

I know this is hard. You’re probably still flushed with delight at the news, wondering when you’re having the robe fitting and ordering new stationary. And I don’t blame you in any way for accepting the honour – I would certainly have done the same. But you are  Lib Dem peers, tasked with delivering party policy, and party policy very clearly states that  ‘We will reform the House of Lords and replace it with an elected second chamber ’. And that is what you must now fight to do. You are the enemy within.

If you need some inspiration, you could do worse that spend 15 minutes listening to Lord Ashdown doing exactly that in the House – but in case you haven’t got time (those robes won’t fit themselves you know), here’s a handy extract.

“I just ask my noble colleagues in this place, whether they find it acceptable, at a time when people are dying for democracy, that we should have in This Place, somewhere that fundamentally infringes the fundamental principles of a democratic state. Which is that the peoples laws are made by the peoples representatives”.

We know the peers in the House of Lords do good work. But the best work they could do would be to abolish themselves and replace the structure with representatives chosen, not by patronage, but by votes.

For what its worth – I’d vote for someone who delivered that.

Photograph: Getty Images

Richard Morris blogs at A View From Ham Common, which was named Best New Blog at the 2011 Lib Dem Conference

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Theresa May gambles that the EU will blink first

In her Brexit speech, the Prime Minister raised the stakes by declaring that "no deal for Britain is better than a bad deal for Britain". 

It was at Lancaster House in 1988 that Margaret Thatcher delivered a speech heralding British membership of the single market. Twenty eight years later, at the same venue, Theresa May confirmed the UK’s retreat.

As had been clear ever since her Brexit speech in October, May recognises that her primary objective of controlling immigration is incompatible with continued membership. Inside the single market, she noted, the UK would still have to accept free movement and the rulings of the European Court of Justice (ECJ). “It would to all intents and purposes mean not leaving the EU at all,” May surmised.

The Prime Minister also confirmed, as anticipated, that the UK would no longer remain a full member of the Customs Union. “We want to get out into the wider world, to trade and do business all around the globe,” May declared.

But she also recognises that a substantial proportion of this will continue to be with Europe (the destination for half of current UK exports). Her ambition, she declared, was “a new, comprehensive, bold and ambitious Free Trade Agreement”. May added that she wanted either “a completely new customs agreement” or associate membership of the Customs Union.

Though the Prime Minister has long ruled out free movement and the acceptance of ECJ jurisdiction, she has not pledged to end budget contributions. But in her speech she diminished this potential concession, warning that the days when the UK provided “vast” amounts were over.

Having signalled what she wanted to take from the EU, what did May have to give? She struck a notably more conciliatory tone, emphasising that it was “overwhelmingly and compellingly in Britain’s national interest that the EU should succeed”. The day after Donald Trump gleefully predicted the institution’s demise, her words were in marked contrast to those of the president-elect.

In an age of Isis and Russian revanchism, May also emphasised the UK’s “unique intelligence capabilities” which would help to keep “people in Europe safe from terrorism”. She added: “At a time when there is growing concern about European security, Britain’s servicemen and women, based in European countries including Estonia, Poland and Romania, will continue to do their duty. We are leaving the European Union, but we are not leaving Europe.”

The EU’s defining political objective is to ensure that others do not follow the UK out of the club. The rise of nationalists such as Marine Le Pen, Alternative für Deutschland and the Dutch Partij voor de Vrijheid (Party for Freedom) has made Europe less, rather than more, amenable to British demands. In this hazardous climate, the UK cannot be seen to enjoy a cost-free Brexit.

May’s wager is that the price will not be excessive. She warned that a “punitive deal that punishes Britain” would be “an act of calamitous self-harm”. But as Greece can testify, economic self-interest does not always trump politics.

Unlike David Cameron, however, who merely stated that he “ruled nothing out” during his EU renegotiation, May signalled that she was prepared to walk away. “No deal for Britain is better than a bad deal for Britain,” she declared. Such an outcome would prove economically calamitous for the UK, forcing it to accept punitively high tariffs. But in this face-off, May’s gamble is that Brussels will blink first.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.