I want to say at the start of this article, I’m still a little uneasy about the whole concept of a second EU referendum myself. This is because either result of such a referendum would bring with it major problems. If Remain won, there would be an undoubtable feeling of “the establishment kept asking the people until they gave the correct answer” which may well infect our politics even further; if Leave won again, it may well cement the idea of the nuttiest version of Brexit imaginable being carried out. I say this now so that my critisism of Corbyn can be seen in context; I don’t think it foolish that he is not behind a second EU referendum. It is a perfectly reasonable position to assume. For the right reasons, I hasten to add, any number of which I don’t think apply to the Labour leadership.
I think I understand why Corbyn is so against a second EU referendum: whatever the result, its would be a disaster for him and his leadership of the Labour Party. A second EU referendum would put his Eurosceptic credentials under a spotlight that I don’t think he could withstand. According to a recent poll, eight out of ten Labour members want a second referendum. 87% of Labour members want to remain in the Single Market according to the same poll; 85% want to remain in the Customs Union. This is a really soft to no Brexit group of people.
If there was a second referendum, Corbyn and his bunch couldn’t sit on the fence they have been enjoying for the last 18 months. He would be called upon to take a stand. And if he went with his longstanding Eurosceptic instincts, that could cost him the leadership – particularly if Leave won again and he was seen to have been a co-conspirator in such a result.
However, if he submitted to the whims of the membership and really came out for Remain, Labour could be ripped apart. There are so many Labour seats in which the party taking an explicitly pro-Remain line would be electorally suicidal. Of course, Jeremy could go on the offensive and try and win over Labour voters who voted Leave – you know, show them why Remain is actually better for them in the long run. Sorry, that was me being whimsical.
Corbyn is being tactical here – in other words, he’s being a politician, just like any other. He wants to preserve as much of Labour’s tactical advantage as won in the 2017 general election for as long as he can. I get it, that’s fine. This is what functioning, grown up political parties do. In fact, it is how democracy works – parties that fail to listen to the electorate for long enough end up on the scrap heap of history. All I ask is that we stop pretending this is about anything else other than that.
Pretending it’s about something else is falls into the “being a politician” bucket. You concede he’s doing what’s best for him and it includes this.
He will lead the Labout party until the membership wake up to the fact that they intended to join the Labout party not the Corbyn party.
He will lead the Labout party until the membership wake up to the fact that they intended to join the Labout party not the Corbyn party.
But what percentage of the current membership intended to join the Labour Party and what percentage intended to join the Corbyn Party?
It might be quite close to half and half…
Broadly agree with this Nick. Indeed, why would either of the two main parties wish to re-advertise their divisions over Brexit in another referendum unless they really had to? The Conservative government at least has the seeming advantage of being in tune with the majority of its members and voters. But the Labour leadership’s finessed stance of a fuzzy two-faced Brexit policy makes sense from a party management point of view, given the greater potential for division over the issue between the top of the party, the membership in the middle and its electoral base, as you say.
It needs to be stated that up until European Commission President Jacques Delors made a well-received pitch for giving the single market a social dimension in his speech to the TUC conference and Mrs Thatcher riposted with her anti ‘superstate’ speech in Bruges – both events in September 1988 – the Labour Movement’s attitude to European Community matters had been largely – how shall we say? – one of scepticism. In fact this is the point where the Conservative and Labour parties each start to pivot in opposite directions away from their traditional post-war attitudes towards ‘Europe’.
“There are so many Labour seats in which the party taking an explicitly pro-Remain line would be electorally suicidal.”
Is this true? Are people in these areas really so exercised by Brexit? Europe and the EU have long been too abstract and distant to register significantly for most voters. This is why the leave campaign took to exploiting immigration and immigration from outside the EU at that, in order to succeed in the referendum.
In any case very many, if not most, the Brexit voters will not be Labour voters. I just do not see masses of Labour voters in Labour safe seats switching to the Tories. Some might have been seduced by UKIP, but UKIP are out of it these days and there is no real prospect of a revival.
If there were a referendum, I doubt it would be much of a choice – between a lousy prospect and an utterly appalling chaos. I doubt that withdrawing Brexit would be on the cards.