Why Corbyn's wrong on Article 50

Jeremy Corbyn wants to impose a three-line whip on Labour MPs to compel them to vote in favour of triggering Article 50. I think this is wrong, for the following reasons.

1. Even if we grant that Brexit is the “will of the people”, it doesn’t follow that Brexit on the terms proposed by May is. Some voted leave in the hope of staying in the single market, others for a liberalish Brexit that wasn’t focused on migration controls. There’s a case for opposing triggering Article 50 until it’s clearer that we really want May’s hard Brexit.

2. May’s Brexit means harder times for workers, simply because leaving the single market would hurt the economy by more than any free trade deals with non-EU firms would benefit it. It would also be bad for both potential immigrants and those already here, to the extent that, ahem, nativists regard migration controls as a legitimation of their own prejudices. This would be especially the case if the Tories use Brexit to turn the UK into a low-tax, low-regulation economy in the hope of attracting global capital. Labour should oppose this path, and one way to do so is to do so from the off. Or at least, if there’s a path from May’s Brexit to a healthy socialist economy, Corbyn should tell us what it is.

3. Most Labour MPs voted remain, and nothing much that’s happened since June suggests they were wrong to do so. To support Article 50 now therefore means that, as Paul says, MPs “will be behaving like a delegate and not a representative.” If Burke was wrong to say that an MP owes us “not his industry only, but his judgment”, why was he?

4. Many Labour MPs not only oppose Brexit themselves but represent constituencies that voted remain. What sort of model of democracy is it that requires MPs to abandon both their own judgment and the will of their constituents? Are MPs to become just the slaves of national opinion polls?

5. I’m not sure that a three-line whip would be electorally successful. For one thing, the fact that some MPs would defy it will increase the perception that Corbyn is weak. For another, voters respect people who stand by their principles. And for a third, any leave supporters won over by Corbyn’s stance might be offset by remainers defecting to the Lib Dems or Greens. Yes, Tom Quinn is right to say that Labour needs to win leave voters in marginal seats in the North and the Midlands. But it can do so by arguing for policies that really would improve jobs and living standards.

Now, I accept that there’s no easy answer here. Labour does risk being divided between liberal metropolitans and older workers in poorer areas who (wrongly) see Brexit as a hope for meaningful change. Perhaps the best way of managing this potential split is to allow a MPs free vote whilst trying to unite them around economic policies that really would improve prospects for people in left-behind areas.

Tom Quinn says this would mean Labour having “no collective position on the most important issue in British politics for a generation”. But Brexit is an important issue largely because it represents a threat to workers. Labour should be trying to diminish its importance by asserting the priority of serious economic policies.  I agree with Philip Collins that Labour’s best hope is to “change the subject as often as possible.”

Let’s remember that Brexit is the Tories’ mess. Labour should try to rise above it.

Comments

[patrick]

"Tom Quinn is right to say that Labour needs to win leave voters in marginal seats in the North and the Midlands"

This might be true, but it needs to do so in such a way as not to lose remain voters in marginal seats in the North and the Midlands. Despite the way it's presented in the media, a significant proportion of the population in those areas voted remain, just as nearly 4 in 10 Scots voted leave.

[Jim]

"Even if we grant that Brexit is the “will of the people”, it doesn’t follow that Brexit on the terms proposed by May is"

Exactly the same thing could be said about people who voted Remain - some may have wanted a reformed EU, some may have wanted controls on immigration but wanted to stay in the SM etc etc.

So if Remain had won would there have been any democratic input into the nature of the UK's relationship the EU going forward, or would we just have been told 'You voted to stay, now you'll get what we (the EU) tell you you're getting?'

I think we all know the answer to that.

[e]

“Let’s remember that Brexit is the Tories’ mess”. Yeah, and the Conservative offer of a referendum was supported by right leaning, liberal, Labour MPs. Seen now as incapable of supporting a Labour party not consistent with their personal interests which serves to indicate that it was never a question of not knowing or understanding the crap deal their politics meter out.
Corbyn was right from day one. He claimed trigging Article 50 for the done deal it has proved to be. Had he been supported, the opportunity of being seen as the party only interested in “arguing for policies [a deal] that “really would improve jobs and living standards” was there for the taking.
But as your text indicates, instead the separate question of staying or not in the single market has accidentally on purpose become inextricably linked with triggering Article 50. Misfiled by a newly enfranchised electorate under no Brexit, re-run the referendum, your “nativists” therefore nothing at all; ahem, your just ugly minded bigots.
Frankly has Labour/the working and non-working poor, whichever way they voted, anything to lose by forcing the hand of those more suited to conservative/neo-liberal democracy?

[Patrick Kirk]

It seems that Chris Dillow didn't see what happened when Labour defied its voters in Scotland. They switched to other parties and Labour as only 1 Scottish MP left. South of the border, most seats held by Labour MPs voted Leave. If the Labour party ignores that simple fact, it will suffer the same fate south of the border as in Scotland.

[Neil Wilson]

In a democracy if you sign up to a vote, you agree to accept the result. If you don't want to do that, don't apply to have a vote. IF you're on the voter roll there is a 'tacit acceptance' of the result as a matter of philosophy and justice.

So if you were on the roll then you agreed to leave the European Union. To do that you have to trigger article 50. And that is what we are doing.

There is no justification for delay at all, and since the Tories are in power, had this vote in their manifesto then they get to do the negotiation. Not Labour - who lost.

There comes a point as a democrat that you have to accept the decision. If you don't then you head on the road to becoming a demagogue.

Opposing the government on this point when the country has given clear instructions to leave despite all the threats metered out to people during the campaign just says to the country that you will not accept their judgement.

UK in the EU is over. The polls are clear that sovereignty and immigration are the key point. So that means controlling our borders and the EU won't move on that point. So we leave everything.

And we will be fine doing so.

[Bob]

"Some voted leave in the hope of staying in the single market, others for a liberalish Brexit that wasn’t focused on migration controls."

Why would Labour care about them?

[EdHart6]

There is simple omission from your list: May's government has a working majority of 16.

Without a sizeable number of defectors, Article 50 is a fait accompli; it isn't contingent on what the opposition do.

Don't ask the Tories to put the country (that's the UK not just England), logic or reason before the interests of the party. They have neither the moral courage nor the inclination. A free vote for Labour MPs is pointless unless all other parties do the same; on its own it would be futile.

In essence, short of a serious Tory rebellion or a dramatic economic collapse (highly unlikely before March - that'll come later), there is nothing that the opposition parties can do to divert May from her preferred course. If WTO is the chosen option, they'll rubber stamp it.

[TrumpisaJew]

May/Tories are trying to delay '50' for as long as possible. They have been for months now.

They know when it is triggered, there will be a credit crunch. Unlike what people want to believe, the UK and especially the Tories had very lax immigration controls. Leaving the EU probably will make it worse. Never fall for the dialectical illusion. This is a mistake "nationalists" have been making for years and years.

Just like we see the Trump admin fill the US government up with zionist jews, right below our noises.

[Dipper]

One of the signs of weak leaders is they choose the wrong issues to demonstrate their authority.

As a Leaver, I'd say that most leavers wanted to see parliament be the sovereign body and that parliament should reflect the will of the people. If that means that in strong Remain constituencies the MP wants to vote against triggering article 50 then so be it.

As has been said elsewhere Corbyn is managing to convince Remainers that he is in favour of the EU and convince Leavers that he is against the EU.

[windsock]

Dipper: "Corbyn is managing to convince Remainers that he is in favour of the EU and convince Leavers that he is against the EU"

That makes him a far better politician for which hardly anyone, even those posting here, has ever given him credit.

[Dipper]

@ windsock - yes got that the wrong way round. My corrections has disappeared for some reason (probably my own inability to click on the right button).

Blair would have managed to do what I said in my post, whereas Corbyn has done the opposite.

[AndrewD]

There is a different point of view about JC's policies expressed here

https://skwawkbox.org/2017/01/28/if-article503linewhip-have-you-stumped-these-2-perspectives-may-help/

[Blissex]

As another commenter noted, Corbyn's party cannot overturn approval of article 50. Voting against the outcome of the referendum would be a futile stand.

Plus the "Remain" vote was heavily concentrated in a small number of constituencies, most of which would likely vote Labour anyhow (e.g. Islington North, Corbyn's constituency, 75% for "Remain").

Labour is vulnerable most to lose seats in constituencies with a "Leave" majority and in which even significant but not overwhelming Labour majorities could be overturned by disappointed "Leave" voters abstaining from voting Labour at general election time.
In particular Copeland and Stoke Central, where there are by-elections of great significance to Labour in 2-3 weeks.

Whether "Leave" was a good idea is no longer a point worth fighting over, unfortunately.

BTW I am astonished that neither Labour nor Liberals not UKIP have submitted an amendment making the government's exercise of Article 50 conditional on giving an extra £350m a week to the NHS, just to see the Conservatives vote against it.

[Blissex]

«Whether "Leave" was a good idea is no longer a point worth fighting over, unfortunately.»

There is a bigger picture about that:

* For the past 43 years the USA and the UK elites of both major parties have pushed, and their voters endorsed, globalization via supranational multilateral treaty organizations like the EU, WTO, ... because the USA and the UK expected to dominate them and profit from flooding other countries with their services and capital.

* The election of D Trump and the "Leave" vote is a clear sign that the USA and the UK, both voters and elites, no longer think that they can dominate and profit from supranational multilateral treaty organizations, as other countries are using them for their own advantage too. The mood is that the USA and the UK should negotiate bilateral treaties in which they are clearly the dominant party, tailored to their benefit.

[Blissex]

«Trump admin fill the US government up with zionist jews»

That's the usual simplistic "point of view":

* J Corbyn himself is an avowed (two-state) zionist. There are plenty of pretty reasonable jews and non-jews that are zionists like that, and there are many non-zionists too among jews and non-jews; jewishness is an ethnicity with a vast spectrum of opinions, not a political orientation (and vice-versa).

* The foreign politics of most USA and UK governments regardless of ethnic background (mostly WASP actually) are those of Likud and neocons (and even dominionists), that is far-right extremism. Many and even most jews and non-jews are opposed to Likud/neocon politics, and many much prefer progressive/Haaretz Labour/Haavoda politics, without being extreme pacifists either.

* The Trump administration seems to be strongly influenced by neocon/likudnik politicians regardless of ethnic background, but then so was H Clinton as a candidate, and she could be fairly described as a warmongering neocon/likudnik herself.

[aragon]

The issue of article '50' was settled by the referendum.

Regardless of what the Supreme Court say's about lack of clarity on the consequences of the referendum.

MP's opposing article '50' are engaging in self-indulgent moralising and grand standing.

Which I dislike intensely: They lost the vote in the country. In this case you are a delegate, having voted for the decision to be made by the public.

[David]

I remember that MP's approved a non-binding referendum.
In any alternative universe that would be called a "poll".
David.

[Dave Timoney]

As leavers never tire of reminding us, the Brexit decision has been made. We don't have to reinforce it with further popular votes and the likelihood of a conclusive referendum on the terms of separation (or even an early general election fought on the issue) looks remote.

For that reason, I'm dubious that Labour's electoral prospects would suffer because of its position on this one topic, no matter how fudged, though I suppose it could damage the party's chances by crowding out other issues in debate (I think I espy an agenda).

Voters don't only care about Brexit, and those that insist on virtue-signalling (in either direction) through a secret ballot are unlikely to be "reliable" voters anyway. We look to be making a mountain out of a molehill.

PS: This comment thread was worth it just for the Freudian slip of "right below our noises".

[Dipper]

@A2E

There was a poll from Stoke that said a Labour Leaver would have a 10% margin over UKIP, and a Labour Remainer a 10% margin behind UKIP, so in one of the most extreme cases, it appears to have a huge effect.

No prizes on what choice the local labour party made ...

[Dipper]

Dominic Cumming's view was that a third of the population were religiously Remain, a third religiously Leave, and about a third open to persuasion. Labour's best option could be to campaign for the best deal either inside or outside, but they lack the wit, relevance, and power to even begin to address that in any serious way.

People who say Leaving would be a disaster and we absolutely must remain in the EU under any circumstances are the ones who keep me awake at night. The lack of imagination and experience to see that we would get absolutely and completely buried negotiating under those conditions is truly terrifying.

[Cityunslicker]

May's Brexit....

indeed, what rot.

May took over when the deed was done. the EU have told it is full EEA memebership with no rules on immigration and the ECJ - or nowt and hard brexit.

This is the decision she has spent months working hard to square. There was no squaring the EU position in the negotiations (or not, as they proved to be) meant Hard Brexit.

[joe]

It is not really relevant what Corbyn says or does. The average UK voter does not see him as a viable politician, nor any leader of a party, let alone the country. They have stopped listening to anything Corbyn says or does - he is politically irrelevant. By-election voters will be switching to UKIP and UKIP light in droves. Labour could oppose Article 50 for reasons of history. Once UK commits economic suicide in March at least they can say we did what we could to oppose that folly. What can the 2/3 of Parliament who fully know UK is making a huge mistake but will still vote for Article 50 for their own very short term interests.

[TrumpisaJew]

Trumps zionism is crazy zionist. I think UKIP will die soon enough and its lie plus the zionism will be replusive.