When I suggested after the vote a possible way that Brexit might be
avoided, I was conscious that I might simply be in denial. I have
subsequently been encouraged by others suggesting similar things -
first
Jolyon Maugham, then
Nick Pearce and Gideon Rachman in
the FT - but of course they may also be in denial. If you ask a
Conservative or Labour politician right now they will say that the
referendum result must be respected: to do otherwise appears to
disrespect voters. Equally European politicians want to make it clear
as quickly as possible that there will be no extra concessions to
avoid encouraging other exit movements.
That is why delaying Article 50 for at least a month or two is so
important. It allows the immediate passion of the vote to die down,
and its immediate economic consequences to sink in. Hopefully that
will also discourage other EU countries from going down the same
route. By September it will also become obvious to people in the UK
that as part of bargaining with the EU it might be a good idea to
keep delaying implementing Article 50, and this may also encourage
European governments to think about concessions. Maybe.
I don’t think Boris Johnson would have any problems going down that
path, once he was elected leader. (In the meantime he will continue
to imagine we can have the impossible, because it allows him to get
the votes of MPs in his party who are hardline Leavers.) But what
about Labour - assuming it still exists of course. Will it worry
about losing its ‘heartlands’, and so be tempted to insist that
the referendum means free movement is no longer an option?
I think this would be a disastrous political error. Whatever they
might propose in the form of controlling EU immigration, they will be
outdone by UKIP. That part of the heartlands that really dislikes
foreigners are lost to Labour and will not return. (Of course many
Conservative voters share similar views.) But if Labour appear to
block free movement (and therefore continued EU membership) they will
lose a large section of the electorate who voted to Remain. (Remember
most Labour voters did vote Remain.) If Labour rejects free movement
in any substantive sense, and therefore denies the possibility of remaining, many of these voters will go to the LibDems
or elsewhere.
The best Labour can hope for, when it comes to the heartlands, is to
capture the many
voters who dislike immigration not for itself, but because of what
they believe it creates: more competition for public services, and
worse working conditions. (For the majority of Leavers immigration is a fear rather than a direct experience.) Labour can target those voters in two ways: by
promising more money for public services across the board, but also
by proposing a substantial and very visible scheme by which money
follows people.
This is also a critical point for anyone aspiring to be Labour
leader. Labour heartlands are now the cosmopolitan cities like
London, Manchester and Bristol. They see the personal benefits of
migration and being part of the EU. They have no problem with, and
many happily embrace, policies that divert more resources to public
services and the lower paid. But they are highly mobile in the
political as well as the geographical sense. If a Labour leader tries
to appeal to both this group and voters that want above all else to
control EU migration by leaving the EU, then they will fail.
