Are Liberals immune to euro-skepticism?

We are hearing a lot recently about how both Labour and the Tories are divided over the EU. Meanwhile Tim Farron recently said that he wants the Liberal Democrats to be leading on the 'in' campaign. At a glance it might seem like the party is unanimous in this, but does that mean Liberals as a whole are?

Speaking for myself alone, I can say I believe that people have a democratic right to have this explained to them properly, instead of just being told how some very clever people think we should stay in the EU and that it would be wise to listen to them.

For instance, while I'm fine with the concept that our economy, as a unit, will be better off in the EU, I'm not convinced that this translates to a healthier internal economy. The single currency, for example, appears to allow capital to move around extremely quickly resulting in unpredictable local markets. I'm not arguing that this is true, just that it's something that appears to be true.

Now looking around to other people, there's a @LibDemsForLeave twitter page. This doesn't say much about disagreement within the party, but it does clearly show that some disagreement is indeed present.

So, no, there is plenty of healthy euro-skepticism to go around, and Liberals are not immune.

Next I'm going say something that many may find ridiculous: I feel that UKIP supporters (if not members) are generally liberals. What sets them apart from the Lib Dems to these people? Well, for a start UKIP gained it's momentum on anti-Westminster feelings, more than anti-EU feelings. It's certainly not based on xenophobia, but rather a fear of being ruled over by far off people with no connection to the everyday lives of citizens.

I'm not saying this is what the actual UKIP membership feels, maybe they do, maybe they don't, I don't know. It's just clearly a powerful aspect to the proven appeal of the party among the disenfranchised. They are seen to say the things that nobody else says, to ask questions that nobody else is even willing to talk about, seemingly.

The reality is, in my view, that UKIP is not really answering many questions, or providing any real solutions. Much of the populist support for them is thought to be draining away in favour of Corbyn, who is now the peoples' man-on-the-inside, there to show Westminster who's boss.

As much as this might be true for Corbyn himself, he faces threats from both sides. Obviously the Tories hate him, by and large the base hates who they are told to hate, almost. Many in labour strongly disagree, and apparently without seeing the irony publicly rebuke their own party leader for fictional slights like a conspiracy to oust MPs who disagree with him.

The other side is also a threat to Corbyn's chances because, most topically, they are the ones who may oust perfectly electable MPs for disagreeing with them. To some extent there's a democratic argument that this is right and proper, which I'll admit plays on my own sympathies. Corbyn's grassroots support is part anti-Westminster democrats, and part 'radical social progressives'.

The reason I can say that with any certainty is that I am one of those democrats. What pushed me away was the irrational nonsense from the ideologues who seem to shout so loud nobody outside of these grassroots can hear anybody else. I and people like me are liberals. We don't like the head-in-the-clouds matter-of-fact attitude of the Westminster elites and we want a decent, representative democracy. This means healthy skepticism of the EU and just who among us it is actually good for, and democratic transparency on things like TTIP.

Just like what seems to be happening a bit with the SNP and UKIP, the liberals among the Corbynites will begin to wonder whether they are in the right place. With the recent bursting of the Westminster Bubble at the heart of the Lib Dems I suspect that I wont be the only one coming back to the fold.