9th May 2017
First things first, cards on the table. I am a Labour Party member. I voted for Corbyn in both leadership elections. In the referendum I voted, worked for and contributed money to the Remain campaign.
Just to get a few other things out of the way, I think that the way that the referendum as framed was ridiculous. To decide to embark as such a complex course of action as leaving the EU on the basis of a bi polar question is just plain reckless. To decide a constitutional question which has such far reaching implications for the future and even the make up of our country by a simple majority was beyond reckless. The result of the attempt to settle a squabble between public school boys by simple plebiscite has resulted in what promises to be a more horrific act of communal self harm than anyone can imagine.
All that being said, I am heart sick of Remoaning.
I am heart sick because it is not getting anybody anywhere. Moaning seems to be the be all and end all of the piece. It is like in football when the opposition centre forward dives. The ref awards a penalty. The penalty is scored and the game restarted and there are still guys complaining it was never a penalty.
I want Remoaners to shut up and get on with the game. I am going to give that a go. Protest without proposals poses no problems to power.
Unlike The Tory government, I do not believe that no plan constitutes a plan. I would like a plan that was the result of some planning. Below is my attempt at that planning.
I believe that a large chunk of referendum votes were cast viscerally. I think that is particularly true of Leave votes. I do not think that they were cast on any reasoned basis. I have no other explanation for why Sunderland would effectively vote to get rid of Nissan; why Cornish and Welsh, net recipients of EU funds, would vote to rid themselves of that funding.
I think that one element of that vote was that people felt that politics and politicians had turned away from them; not Tory politicians as nobody believed they had ever paid any attention but the Labour politicians who over the last 20 years had become more managerial than principled. As my friend, Charlie Harden, said to me on the way to the 1997 election count, “New Labour, New Suit.”
A choice was offered to the electorate and a choice was made. A response of “wrong choice” would only serve to confirm Leave voters in their opinion that, as we Liverpudlians say, there is nothing down for them.
Their decision must be respected and followed, however reluctantly, until such times that there a signs of minds being changed. Article 50 had to be triggered. Article 50 is a statement of intent. It’s second paragraph begins, “A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention.” That is to say its present intention. For me, so far so obvious.
That leaves the question hanging, “What will signs of a change of mind look like?”
This is where the slap dash nature of the referendum can come to our rescue. Like all Remainers I would argue that something as complex as the withdrawal from the EU should not, could not and cannot properly be put to the electorate as a simple bi-polar question. Bill Shankly once said that “Football is not a matter of life and death. It is more important than that”. This is more important than football. A constitutional change with the ramifications of our withdrawal from the EU should not be decided by a simple majority.
The opportunity is there for Remain to set out what are currently called “red lines”. It should be stated that these will be the matters which if they are not included in a Brexit deal will permit that deal to be opposed.
Before I get to trying to establish the red lines. I want to have a go at investigating who should do the stating. I hope that it will be the Prime Minister, Jeremy Corbyn. However, planning for the worst, it should be the main opposition party, the Labour Party. I do not think that any other party can feasibly do so as they lack sufficient MP’s and in the case of the SNP, Plaid Cymru and the Ulster parties do not have UK wide representation. However, that is not to say that the other parties cannot fall in with the Labour lead although I also want to stress that the Labour party must not make this look anything other than a cooperative venture. It would be an interesting test of the appetite for a so called Progressive Alliance and in that respect I have severe doubts about the Liberals.
I have to confess that I have no idea how the SNP will react. I wonder how much they feel that the hardest of hard Brexits will serve their ultimate interests. Will the desire for a second referendum allow them to commit to anything that will allow the Union to be portrayed in any sort of reflected glory however pale?
As for the “red lines” there haven’t been so many red lines about since the British Army gave up redcoats for khaki. I have to admit that at this point I am going to do something that goes against the grain which is politic. Looking at this pragmatically, on the basis of parliament as it was prior to the coming election, no bill, Brexit or other, could pass without, at the very least, Tory abstentions and preferably some Tory support. Whilst I am not privy to the numbers, I am sure as I can be that sufficient Tories are pro Remain to do the business. The big problem is to get them to break ranks. That is where the selection of red lines becomes crucial. They must be so obviously preventative of national self harm that even a Tory (other than Ken Clarke) will rebel.
This where I need some help. My own personal favourite red line is the status of EU citizens currently resident here; the old “people not bargaining chips” refrain. This may be because I am married to a Slovak; a gorgeous, kind, funny Slovak but a Slovak nonetheless. Although it is morally unimpeachable, I doubt if the possible deportation of my wife or anybody else’s wife or husband will be a cause around which dissident Tory MP’s will choose to rally.
I think that the operative red lines will be economic; the single market, the customs union, retention of membership of the Common Aviation Area. These red lines should be comparatively easy to draw. There are a myriad videos on line of the chief proponents of the Leave campaign saying that none of these things would be lost in the event of Brexit. If they had any decency at all they would be unable to argue that Brexit was a vote for the loss of any of those rights. They have no decency and will argue but the contrary evidence is there.
Many of economic red lines have the added value that they would involve the UK in continuing to comply with EU regulations. For example, continued membership of the Common Aviation Area would involve acceptance of all EU aviation law and the jurisdiction of European Courts. This in turns open up a sort of “when is leaving not leaving?” argument.
Establishment of these parameters would allow Remoaners to become Remainers again. Yes, the Leave campaign took a dive and the ref was conned but we can stop complaining and go for an equaliser.
Any and all comments gratefully received. Then I can start trying to convince anyone that matters that any of this matters. That will be a different matter.
Site Title 