Before deciding
that I’m writing about Labour when I should be writing about the
disaster that is Theresa May, please read to the end.
As it becomes
obvious (sort of) that there is no majority among MPs for a People’s
Vote (something that has actually been clear
for some time), the argument has been made
that this justifies Labour’s failure to support a People’s vote
and instead to seek a compromise, a softer Brexit. I have talked
about the wisdom of compromise over Brexit before,
but I want to make a different point here, about the stance that
Labour has taken over Brexit.
In 2015 Labour lost
a General Election where the strong card, perhaps the only strong
card, of the Conservatives was their handling of the economy: in
other words austerity. It would therefore not be ridiculous to claim
that the vote was a verdict on austerity. Some Labour MPs did just
that, and argued
that if Labour were to win the next election it had to match George
Osborne’s policy.
Thankfully on that
occasion a new Labour leadership did not take their advice. There
were three compelling reasons to continue to argue against austerity
- indeed to argue against it much more strongly than Balls and
Miliband had done. First and most importantly, it was a policy that
made pretty well everyone worse off, and almost certainly
led to premature deaths. Second, austerity was a policy that was very
unpopular among party members. Third, there were good reasons to
believe that the popularity of austerity among the public at large
would fade away over time.
I think all these
points apply to Brexit as well. Does the fact that 2016 was a
referendum while 2015 was a General Election make a difference? Here
we have to talk about the nature of the 2016 referendum result. It
was not, and could never be, an unconditional instruction to leave
under any circumstances. As the form of leaving was unspecified, and
the conditions under which we would leave were strongly disputed
(with the winning side proving to be completely wrong), it should
only have been a request for the government to investigate how we
might leave.
It was also won
narrowly, with the winning side spending significantly more than was
legal. That alone casts a question of legitimacy over the result. I
find it extremely odd that some on the left say otherwise, and
suggest Remainers have to prove that the additional spending made the
difference, something that it is almost impossible to do. Do they
realise the precedent they are setting? The right always has more
money for obvious reasons, and if the only consequence of
overspending by the right is a fine then that is an open invitation
to try and buy elections.
Labour’s early
approach to Brexit was successful in avoiding the 2017 election being
a rerun of the referendum, but there were other ways of doing that. A
reasonable strategy that would have achieved the same end was to
accept the vote (obviously), but to reserve judgement while the
government was negotiating. It would make sense to put down markers
about being extremely skeptical that Brexit promises could be met
and, crucially, whether a deal that was beneficial could be found.
As the outlines of
the government’s deal became clear, Labour should have done what
was right and what its members wanted, and campaigned for a second
referendum. Once Labour had to put its cards on the table,
triangulation ran out of road. The case for a vote on the final deal
became unassailable once it was clear Leave promises about what the
EU would do were worthless, that there were alternative ways of
leaving each of which had some public support, and the public were
not getting behind Brexit but were still deeply divided about whether to Leave and how to Leave.
The Labour
leadership’s arguments against doing that were of exactly the same
form of those who wanted to adopt Osborne austerity after 2015: the
policy that members wanted was seen as a vote loser. Even if they are
right about backing a second referendum being a vote loser (and I
strongly suspect
they are wrong), the only argument I can see for treating austerity
and Brexit differently is a belief that one matters much more than
the other, and such a belief is very misguided.
What about the
argument that there are not enough MPs in parliament to support a
second referendum? In my view that is an entirely separate point. In
general opposition parties cannot get their way, but that does not
mean they stop campaigning for what they think is right. It may well
be that parliament will never vote for a second referendum, and some
compromise - a softer Brexit - is all that can be achieved. I hope
that is not the case, but it could well be. But that does not mean a
party should start off campaigning for the compromise you may be
forced to reach, rather than campaigning for what is right.
Some people argue
that we have to support Brexit to show solidarity with those left
behind who support it. That ignores those left behind who voted
against it, but even so it is not a good way to proceed. You could
say exactly the same about immigration, which many of those left
behind blame for their situation. It would be quite wrong for Labour
to adopt an anti-immigration policy they did not believe in just to
show solidarity with those who wanted it. The same is true of Brexit.
But I have to make
one final, and critical, point. I think Labour’s Brexit policy is
tragic because it has, directly or indirectly, diminished support for
Labour and its leadership among many people who might vote Labour. By triggering Article 50 Labour bear some responsibility for Brexit, and I have suggested before that the successors to the current leadership should come from those who voted otherwise. However I cannot say with any certainty at all that Labour’s policy
has had any effect on the Brexit process as such. It is not at all clear that if Labour had adopted the stance I suggest above it could have stopped Brexit, This Brexit mess is entirely Tory affair. To quote
Alison McGovern, “This is a Tory problem, a Tory solution and a
Tory obsession.” It is Tory disunity and madness that has delayed
Brexit. It is a terrible Tory Prime Minister that has made democracy
in the UK become a laughing stock among the rest of the world. Those who claim the Tories and Labour are equally to blame or equally responsible for Brexit are wrong.
May's speech to the
public on Wednesday night was Trumpesque, and extremely dangerous.
She blamed MPs for delaying Brexit when she had delayed one vote for
no good reason, and then basically said its my deal or no deal. She
pretended she was acting for the people while parliament was
frustrating the people’s will, when in reality less than 40% of
voters support her deal and parliament is reflecting that. She seems
on the point of taking us over the cliff edge and it is only Tory MPs
that can stop her. To make such an authoritarian, populist speech
without realising what she was doing tells you all you need
to know about her character and political ability.
Her proposal to the
EU only made sense if she was prepared to leave with No Deal, which
in turn signals to the ERG that they should not vote for her deal.
The EU is much too sensible to agree with that, and has in effect given
parliament three weeks to work out an alternative to May’s deal.
That requires Tory MPs to cooperate with the Labour leadership,
something they have not yet been prepared to do [1]. To the many who
suggest that somehow the Labour leadership could have prevented the
mess we are in I say show me how you can be sure of that, because to
me this looks like all the Tories own work from David Cameron to
today.
[1] If Tory MPs do finally have serious discussions with the Labour leadership, the Single Market is critical. If all the leadership does is demand to stay in a Customs Union (something inevitable with May's deal given the backstop), it will be equally responsible for the damage caused by leaving the Single Market. Phrases about 'access to' or 'staying close to' the Single Market bind the government to nothing.
