³ÉÈËÂÛ̳

So the two alternatives Nick Clegg had to dodge were either:

a) being seen to be anti-democracy, or
b) being seen to be anti-Europe.

That really says it all, doesn't it?

I think your last point is valid Nick. Lembit Opik was trying to defend the lib dem position on this week last night, and despite (the highly hypocritical) Diane Abbot mocking him, I thought he did a good job.

The split in the lib dems is now over- there is no split on Europe, pretty much all of the party are pro- european, the only 'split' was with those who felt that they had promised their constituents a referendum on the TREATY and those that felt that there was no need for a referendum.

This issue is now largely over- the treaty will get ratified and we will hear little more of it, I suspect. But it HAS exposed the pro and anti european factions in the tories, and surprisingly, in the labour party. It was quite clear that numerous tory backbenchers don't want to be in Europe, and Cameron and most of his front bench team are kind of not too eager pro-europeans. Cameron simply couldn't have said that the treaty is different from the constitution and that there is no need for a referendum, because lots of his backbenchers wanted a referendum because they knew the right wing press could convince the British public to vote no, and this would then give them a reason to say that they public don't want to be in Europe.

He is tainted goods now; there is no way I could ever vote lib dems with this man at the helm.

One thing the lib dems needed was to be seen to be the party of the ppl, with this I think it is now the party of nick clegg.

He has not been in the job long and already I suspect the long knifes are lurking behind him.

He knew there was a large majority of ppl wanting a say on the treaty yet he played games with the in and out nonsense.

When it was time to stand up and represent the majority he did a run and hide act.

I personally have only one choice who to vote for and it is not labour.

The lib dems should have asked ming to stay.

I fear Clegg will find that
"Abstinence makes the votes go yonder."

That doesn't make sense.

Nick Clegg is pro-european so would not vote for a referendum about a treaty that the government might lose. But he was requesting a vote on whether to stay in Europe or get out.

So a pro-european wants a vote on whether we stay in or not, but not on a treaty that takes us further in with the possibility of going further in without it going past government scrutiny due to some peculiar wording.

If he is pro-european surely he should have voted no on treaty referendum and not requested an in-out referendum. This supposedly due to some throwback to Menzies Campbell's position. Is the leader now or not?

Completely ignoring the fact that every party apparently had a manifesto commitment to a referendum on the constitution.

Lembit Opik on This Week was talking complete rubbish as well for a man who got elected to do one thing and then comes out with a load of old waffle when he decided to do as he was told.

Original to put the word principled and the words Liberal Democrat in the same sentence!

Anyone with principles would have let the public vote

According to your article he didn't take a principled stand at all. He didn't support a referendum, but he was afraid to vote against it.

Principled stand?

Was the above straight from a LbDem briefing? Cos only a LibDem supporter or an official briefing could write that imo:-)

It's too early to tell the impact on the Opinion Polls. Wait a month for the impact to sink in.

In my opinion the LibDems are strong on rhetoric and achieve nothing. Despite sharing power with Labour in the 1970s, they achieved nowt on electoral reform.

IF they had voted against the Government, they MIGHT have achieved something.

"So the parliamentary party agreed to vote neither and to live with the consequences"

I don't think the Party agreed to have a third of its member rebel againsts a Three Line Whip.

This whole article is spin and seeks to defend a total political misjudgement.
To be fair, I think it will achieve something. It will show that the image of principle the LibDems rightly gained after the Iraq war (they were right).. has gone.

Some achievement!

So political positioning takes precedence over the views of the public. Who does Mr Clegg think he is? Who does Mr Brown think he is come to that? It really is time the politicians were reminded with a thump what their job is supposed to be.

The countdown to Clegg's demise started on Newsnight when he accused the government of reneging on their referendum pledge, when Brown has used exactly the same 'it's a treaty not a constitution' to justify his deception.

If Brown reneged, then so did Clegg. Very amateurish.

Voters won't forget this deception.

Getting noticed for not having an ability to lead and make a decision one way or another, and accepting compromise for expediancy, does not bode well for any party leader. The Lib dems though are known for looking both ways at once.

The problem with your piece, Nick, is the last paragraph:
"He hopes though this week that the public may also have noticed one other thing – that he took a principled stand on something he cares deeply about despite the obvious problems."
Yet, earlier you identify Clegg as a keen pro-EUer:
"The problem is that a number of key figures would have refused to join them. The former leader Charles Kennedy, the man Nick Clegg narrowly beat, Chris Huhne and above all, Mr Clegg himself.
"All passionate pro-Europeans, they believed it would have been irresponsible to risk derailing the EU treaty by forcing a referendum which the government might well have lost."
You go on to identify fear of Cable as a key element in Clegg's thinking.
Forgive my ignorance, but how on earth can you put all those factors together and make them "a principled stand"?

In other words, he put himself before his country.

There is nothing principled about this decision by Nick Clegg. If he prioritizes the EU over the manifesto commitment they were elected on then how are they liberal democrats? He is supposed to be leader of the Liberal Democratic Party and not the Federalist Party.

Nick Clegg's original views on the need for a referendum on the EU Constitution were set out by him in a 2003 article in the Guardian (see below). That he has changed his mind is clearly down to calculation rather than principle, i.e. the calculation that the referendum he believed necessary would likely be lost.

I've voted Lib Dem in the last two general elections (since I was old enough) although since I've always lived in a safe conservative seat my vote has never counted for anything. Well, that safe Conservative seat just got a bit safer as based on yesterday they seem to fit my view on this subject (the referendum, not europe) better than any other party. There were some exceptions in both the other parties who rebelled and they should be commended for their integrity.

Nick,

It wasn't a principled stand. There is nothing principled about reneging on a manifesto commitment to the voters.
Very simply if Clegg and Brown were confident of their position and had the guts and the faith to trust the electorate, Clegg would not have been in this position.
As it is Clegg has made himself look a fool, but much more importantly he has treated the electorate with contempt. In two or three years he will be forced to go back to thsoe same voters ina General election. He now runs the risk that they will treat him with the same contempt. I hope so.

I thought that the job of politicians is to analyse and understand legislative issues and then make a potentially difficult decision based on what they have learnt and the promises they have made to the electorate. Nick Cleggs’ stance of abstaining seems like a gutless way of avoiding having to do this!

As someone close to the Lib Dems and their officials, I was convinced that the primary reason for abstaining was because a referendum on the treaty would not have been a vote on the contents of the treaty at all...it would be about how pro-european voters are, hence Clegg's call to have a referendum on the 'real issue'. As a political scientist who has read the treaty, I still don't understand the full implications of it (mostly due to the way it is written). So how on earth can ordinary members of the public make sense of it and then vote on it? I don't believe they can, and neither do most members of parliament.

"Nick Clegg is pro-european so would not vote for a referendum about a treaty that the government might lose. But he was requesting a vote on whether to stay in Europe or get out."

Clegg's call for an "in-out" referendum was nothing more than an attempted diversion away from his fudge on the Lisbon Treaty. He knows that: a) Such a referendum would never get past parliament, b) No party has a withdrawal policy, so all leaderships would campaign for IN, and c) If there was a referendum, IN would probably win.

By focusing on this obscure policy while ignoring the big issue of the day (Lisbon), Clegg only reinforces the Lib Dem's third party status further. It's a shame that they can't present a more creditable alternative.

I have to say that Nick Clegg did represent a rather pathetic spectacle; and the temper tantrum he threw in the face of Michael Martin when they stomped out is beyond nonsense. The idea that a referendum on Lisbon can be equated - in the mind of most people - on whether or not to stay in the EU is so beyond a commonsense line of thinking that it takes the Lib Dems to the depths of ridiculousness. However one chooses to characterise what went on tghe fact is that all parties promised a referendum on the constitution issue. Referring to it as a treaty when it it contains virtually everything the constitution did is just playing with words; it reminds me of the joke that: if it's big, has big ears, little tail, four feet, a trunk and is grey then the chances are it's an elephant. No doubt Nick Clegg can sit back with some smug satisfaction that his ploy worked and the vote was won by the government; maybe he's also earned himself a place in the EU as a commissioner or something in the future. Who knows?

Lembit Opik openly admitted not reading the Treaty yet still believed he should abstain.

How many other politicians are in the same boat - they have not read and do not understand the document but will vote on 'party lines' rather than in line with what their public wants!

I agree with post 11 above, this was nothing to do with principle and everything to do with pragmatic politics.

He was fully aware if he had asked for a vote in favour of the referendum he would have had a lot more than 13 rebel. Similarly if he asked for people to vote against it he would have had more than 13 rebel.

He took the road that would cause least resistance, nothing what ever to do with principle and does not show much in the way of leadership either.

Quentin Letts has just started a whimsical series on ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ Radio Four. I look forward to his thoughts on "What's the point of......the Liberal Democrats"!

Clearly, they can no longer be taken seriously.

& the idea that this was a principle stand is totally misconceived. The duty of an MP is to represent his constituents in debtaes and votes in Parliament, not to sit on his/her hands with a glum "well, I don't really know" look on his/her face.

Pathetic!

What are these 'Lib Dems' you speak of?

I see nothing principled in Nick Clegg and the Lib Dems' behaviour. I feel totally betrayed by them and, though a former life-long Liberal, I will never support the Lib Dems again.

Here, in Harlow, where I'm one of the IWAR, cross-party volunteers who campaigned our hearts out for a national referendum, 90% of those who participated in our local Referendum voted against the treaty and 88% voted for a referendum. Our campaign was of just 19 days duration. The majority in Harlow and the other nine referendum constituencies are appalled at the Lib Dem's refusal to listen to the message we sent them so loudly and clearly.

Nick Thornsby couldn't be more wrong when he states: "This issue is now largely over- the treaty will get ratified and we will hear little more of it, I suspect. But it HAS exposed the pro and anti European factions in the Tories, and surprisingly, in the labour party."

IWAR are not anti-European, we are the true Europeans, it's the anti-democratic minority, the European elite, who would test the EU to destruction with this despised treaty. Thornsby is wrong too in claiming that this issue is now largely over - it will never be over. In Harlow we have resolved to move our campaign on to the next stage.

Do you think the Lib - Dems selected the right leader, Nick?

Why so much spleen?
If staying in Europe IS important to the Lib-Dems, then voting with the Conservatives could have put that in danger. Also the wording of the issue IS very important. Since, with our present moronocracy voting in a referendum, many would follow the views of the Murdoch press.
So trusting a fallible, unknowing demos, or adopting political expediency was the awkward issue.
I don't think Nick Clegg deserves so much vitriol for his stand.

Whatever the rights or wrongs of his approach, Clegg has successfully destroyed years of hard work by Ashdown, Kennedy and Campbell. I cannot take this man seriously. His staged walkout in the Commons was frankly a disgrace. His MPs are there to represent their constituents and take part in debates - not get in a sulk and behave like a five year old.

The public watched Vince Cable demolish Gordon Brown. Now all they see is a petulant schoolboy who does not display any statesmanship like qualities.

Perhaps he should grow up.

By taking the stand he did, Nick, he effectively spoiled the chance for the vote to go the way of achieving the promised referendum, as required by 88% of the public.
Nice one...

see nothing principled in the conduct of Nick Clegg and those Lib Dems who abstained from voting for a referendum and feel totally betrayed by them. Though a former life-long Liberal, I shall not support the Lib Dems again.

Here, in Harlow and in the nine other referendum constituencies, cross-party IWAR volunteers have campaigned our hearts out for a national referendum. Many of our campaigners were Liberals. Polling experts have confirmed what we all know, that the views of the 88% who voted for a referendum in the IWAR ballots are representative of the whole country.

Nick Clegg and a majority of our allegedly community politics loving Lib Dem MPs are now suffering a well deserved, angry backlash by treating the views of the overwhelming majority with contempt.

Nick Thornsby couldn't be more wrong when he states: "This issue is now largely over - the treaty will get ratified and we will hear little more of it, I suspect. But it HAS exposed the pro and anti European factions in the Tories, and surprisingly, in the labour party."

Most IWAR campaigners are not anti-European, we are the true Europeans. It is the anti-democratic minority, the European elite, who would test the EU to destruction with this despised treaty.

Thornsby is wrong too in claiming that this issue is now largely over - it will never be over while this treaty survives. The Harlow campaigners have resolved to continue to work our socks off for a Referendum as the campaign moves into the next stage.

"Paul", who is "someone close to the Lib Dems and their officials" says "As a political scientist who has read the treaty, I still don't understand the full implications of it (mostly due to the way it is written). So how on earth can ordinary members of the public make sense of it and then vote on it? I don't believe they can, and neither do most members of parliament."

So why are MPs voting for something that it's impossible to understand?

If the treaty is that incomprehensible, then shouldn't responsible MPs be rejecting it until it's expressed in such a way as they (and the voters) can understand it?

Or are the LibDems saying that the structure of the European Union, like quantum physics or the number of angels who can balance on the head of a pin, is something that only a very small number of very clever people can ever be expected to understand? And that, by implication, includes all of our terribly clever MPs?

I think that's why stupid ordinary voters like me won't be voting for the Lib Dems next time round.

Mr Clegg must be a very charming man in person.
There is no other reason for writing this piece, full of contradictions which could not possibly be lost on its author.
You may feel uncomfortable insulting Mr Clegg, but please refrain from insulting us.
You may have be better to 'abstain' from comment.

They used to have some credibility but under Nick Clegg afraid not.He is young,inexperienced and tends to just mock the other parties.Ground breaking new policy to reduce vat on fruit juices.Well that was controversial wasnt it.He should join the Bottlers party .

"As a political scientist who has read the treaty, I still don't understand the full implications of it (mostly due to the way it is written). So how on earth can ordinary members of the public make sense of it and then vote on it?"

The obvious thing to do with a legally binding contract that you don't understand is to do what you can to avoid being signed up for it. Unfortunately, there is very little you can do in a country where the wishes of those outside the established political elites count for nothing. Incidentally, when Nick Robinson says that the Lib Dems now depend on being applauded for a principled stand, he isn't making a mistake; true-blue Nick is inviting you to deduce that they are not to be supported. The LDs actually depend on their lack of principle being forgotten ASAP.

"What's the point of the Liberal Democrats?"

They serve to remind the electorate that there is absolutely no point in voting for any party other than the two established parties; no matter that many million of your compatriots also vote for major minority parties, influence on the actions of government will be virtually zero, rather than - as it should be - proportionate to party support.

Nick Clegg in the short time he has been in control is a walking disaster zone as far as I am concerned. I have not voted Tory since the days of Margaret Thatcher as John Major was a man who's judgement I never trusted. So have voted Lib Dem ever since. NOT ANY MORE. CLEGG HAS TO GO BEFORE I WILL EVER VOTE FOR THEM AGAIN. HIS JUDGEMENT S ARE MAYOR FAULT LINES.

I started to listen to Nick Clegg at the Lib Dem conference and frankly I had to switch off. For me, any chance they had at getting a surge in popularity and votes were killed off over the EU referendum and the fact that frankly they have nothing new to say. No point keep lambasting the other parties when you can't keep to your own policy agenda. We as voters aren't left with mich in the way of choice come the next election are we? New Labour, who have made the tories of the 90s look rank amateurs in terms of sleaze. Lib Dems, well who knows what they stand for anymore. That leaves the Tories again and frankly they're about the best of the bunch. At least when they left office last time we were all in credit and well away from recession. Labour will leave office as they did in the 70s, we'll all be in debt, rampant inflation, high unemployment, high crime, no immigration control,NHS virtually bankrupt and in a worse state than 11 years ago despite billions thrown at it.Crime, violence,all up. Lets face it, there are only 2 things that stand out with this new labour lot, a smoking ban,(which has smashed the pub trade anyway),and a fox hunting ban,again, that ban was purely a revenge thing about class, had nothing to do with animal welfare.
The danger now is parties like the BNP could step into the breach especially in the usual labour strongholds.UKIP, if they get their act together could also benefit from this current political stagnation too.
I think I'll quote something written some years back, "will the last person to leave the UK please turn the light off."

In answer to posts above, it clearly WAS a principled move in so far as Clegg maintaining a consistent position throughout, as well as insisting on the vote the Lib Dems had initially called for.
Yet those who have separate reasons to be anti Lib Dem will inevitably claim otherwise.

On another issue, it should not be left unquestioned that referendums (or is the plural referenda?) are inherently more democratic. There is a reason countries such as Germany prohibit them- they can be used to engineer a mandate far beyond what has been granted; they can be tactically conceived at opportune moments, and so on... the best way for people to express their wish is at election time.

A principaled stand???? Refusing the electorate a vite because he feared he would lose it? Fearing the treaty would be derailed.....ecause the British People don't want it!!!! if this is the new definition of 'principalled', then will the lat person out turn the light off!

Waste of space,fancy denying the people of England a referendum,by walking out,by not voting,PUBLIC are being conned by all politicians,they do what they want!are you listening, is it sinking in! they do what they want!SO WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO ABOUT IT! IN THE NEXT ELECTION! get your self a politician who listens to you! NOT HIS LEADER!..now go and do when.....

Nick Clegg. The man who managed to make the Lib Dems even more unelectable. That is quite a feat I have to say.