Skip to main content

Corbyn's sensible position on a Brexit deal?

Jeremy Corbyn's position on a Brexit deal is a sensible one, whether or not people agree with it.  But no doubt it will be criticised from all sides.  Corbyn is set to frustrate those who wish for an entrenched position on either side of the fence.

They want it all to be simple.  Either you are in or out.  Corbyn now asks an interesting question: shouldn't we wait and see what deal can really be achieved with proper negotiation?  He also dares to suppose that, with the right kind of arrangement with the EU, we "could be" better off out.   Note that he doesn't say we would be.  He simply thinks we should consider it.  After all, if we could get a "good" deal, it might make it possible to heal a divided country and rescue the United Kingdom from a constitutional crisis.

Today on BBCs Marr show he teased out the distinction between those who support the EU as a matter of principle and those who want to remain but do not like the move to an  'ever closer union'.

The problem is Brexit has been considered as a binary issue, yet we have three divides on Brexit.  First whether to be in or out, but we also the more important division about what we are in it for and what role we wish to play in Europe.

There are many who wish to remain in the EU but who are concerned about the ever-closer integration.  I am one of them.   Political integration is not the answer to everything.

This does not mean I don't support the EU on principle.  I do.   It is vital that European countries working together to foster democracy, civil rights and environmental protection.   But this is not necessarily best achieved by creating an unwieldy  'United States of Europe'.   People need to feel empowered in relation to the issues that affect them.

This is why 'take back control' was such a powerful slogan in the EU referendum.  The EU became the whipping boy for all the problems in the United Kingdom, and Brexit a miraculous cure.  It was a simple message, we will be better off "free" from the "shackles" of Brussels.  Get us out at all cost.

No amount of analysis of that cost will change that message.  Food shortages, medicine shortages, business closures, unemployment, on and on the list goes...but to no effect.  In the end, such statistics have nothing to do with the central issue of British "sovereignty."

Would "hard-remainers" accept any kind of deal? Only, perhaps, when faced with no-deal. But in reality, they never wanted any kind of deal.  They want to remain, just as much as "hard-leavers" want to leave.

So Corbyn is probably on a hiding to nothing, even as he presents perhaps the most honest answer to the problem, which is to see what kind of deal we can get, and then let the people decide.

If Labour now adopts a simplistic remain at all costs position, along with the Liberal Democrats, then we are left with a deepening rift.  A general election could then produce another hung parliament but with the Tories elected on what they consider a mandate to take the UK out deal or no-deal.  That is a recipe for disaster.

My heart is in remain. Currently, in a people's vote, I would vote remain.  After the referendum result, all the main parties said they accepted the result but that we should leave with a deal.  Abandoning that position is not good for our democracy, and nor would it with certainty produce the result remain would wish for.  Perhaps we should give deal a chance.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As