It pains me to say this, but the LibDems have got a better
(and clearer) policy on Brexit than the Labour Party.
The LibDem leader has reiterated that his Party (all 8 of
them) will vote against Article 50 unless the expected legislation is subject
to a second referendum on the terms of Brexit.
Presumably he is assuming that the Supreme Court will dismiss the
Government’s appeal, and that, if a second referendum goes against the terms,
the Article 50 Notice can be withdrawn before it finally takes effect. Lawyers disagree amongst themselves on this,
but Article 50 doesn’t say that it can’t be revoked, and the normal rule is
that what is not forbidden is permitted. So Mr Farron’s assumption is probably
correct.
By contrast, the Labour Party is in a muddle on the issue - with
different spokespersons saying contradictory things and the official front
bench shadow minister (Keir Starmer) failing to clear up the confusion.
A few days after the referendum, John McDonnell (Shadow
Chancellor) was quoted in the Daily Mirror as ruling out a second referendum
(see link). However, according to the Guardian on 22 July
(see link) Emily Thornberry
(Shadow Foreign Secretary) circulated a briefing paper opening up the
possibility of a second referendum on the terms of Brexit. The same line was taken by Owen Smith during
the leadership election.
More recently Jeremy Corbyn, no less, was quoted (again in
the Mirror - see link) as saying
“he was not against the PM triggering Article 50 but would vote against Mrs May
unless she adopted the “Brexit bottom lines” (including preservation of
workers’ rights, access to the single market, and guarantees on safeguarding
consumers and the environment). However,
he added that he was not calling for a second referendum.
The Corbyn interview seemed to imply that in certain
circumstances Labour might vote against Article 50. However, other parts of the Labour hierarchy
were quick to contradict this threat.
Shadow Brexit spokesman, Keir Starmer, sought to “clarify” the position
in an interview with John Humphrys on the “Today” programme, but he repeatedly
dodged the key question what Labour would do if the Party’s conditions were not
met. In a Guardian article (see link) he then repeated the (presumably
agreed) formula that “Labour
will not block a parliamentary vote to trigger article 50 but would insist on
first knowing the government’s plans for how it would proceed with leaving the
EU.” Obviously this does not answer the
question of what the Party would do if the Government won’t reveal its plans or
of they are unsatisfactory.
So Labour is all over the place.
Should Labour “accept
the result of the referendum”?
What particularly concerns me is the frequent statement by
Labour spokespersons that they “accept the result of the referendum”, that it
is a “mandate”. I don’t agree.
- · The referendum was explicitly advisory and has no legal effect. Parliament did not say what to do with the result.
- · The Leave campaign was based on lies, deceit and false and unfulfillable promises, disseminated by right wing newspapers (mostly owned by foreigners or non-residents).
- · Even if the referendum result is regarded as some form of mandate, Members of Parliament also have a mandate: to use their best judgement in the national interest (cf. Edmund Burke). [This illustrates the problem of importing referendums into a system of representative democracy]
- · There is no clarity on what voters actually voted for or against: tariff-free access to the single market? free movement of people? The European arrest warrant? £billions more funds for the NHS?
- · Would they have voted differently if the terms had been clear?
- · Are voters not allowed to change their minds when they find out what Brexit really means?
- · 52% - 48% on a 75% turnout is a very narrow majority and could easily be reversed.
So what should
Labour’s position be?
Most Labour Party members (and an estimated 70% of Labour
voters) would prefer to remain in the EU.
However, many Labour MPs, especially those representing constituencies
with a strong “Leave” vote, seem to be worried about appearing to “subvert the
democratic will of the people” by opposing the triggering of Article 50. Understandably they are concerned about the
threat of losing their seats to UKIP in the North of England, but (again
invoking Burke) I would hope that they would also have the courage and
integrity to argue for what they believe in – rather than giving in to unprincipled
populism.
Brexit was not properly discussed at the Party Conference in
September. Although time is running out,
it is not quite too late to have this discussion now. I suggest a Special Party Conference to be
held in the next few weeks, so that CLPs and affiliated organisations can
determine what the Party’s stance should be – rather than having it dribble out
incoherently from contradictory statements from different Party spokespersons.
There is a precedent for this. On 26 April 1975 the Labour Party held a special
conference on the (then) Common Market (See link).
I hope that any policy that emerges would include a
commitment to vote against submission of an Article 50 Notice unless it is
conditional on Jeremy Corbyn’s various requirements (full access to single
market, workers’ rights, consumer and environmental protection) and is also subject
to a second referendum when the terms are known. If the referendum rejects the terms, the
Article 50 Notice should be withdrawn.
House of Lords
And what of the House of Lords? Any legislation would have to pass in both
Houses of Parliament, and it has been suggested that if the unelected Lords
were to amend or vote against a bill authorising submission of an Article 50
Notice, this would be a democratic outrage.
Perhaps so, but, as presently constituted, the House of Lords is already
an affront to democracy anyway, so any decision it makes – for or against - is just as
much a democratic outrage. So they might
as well vote according to their view of the national interest. Otherwise what are they there for?
If Lords’ resistance were to convert the Conservative Party
to reform or abolition of the House of Lords that would only be a benefit.
General election
It has also been suggested that if Parliament rejects or
attaches conditions to Article 50, the Prime Minister should call a General
Election – presumably assuming that it would return a majority Conservative
Government that could push Article 50 legislation through unamended. There are two problems with this.
Firstly, the Fixed Terms Parliament Act (FTPA) stipulates
that the next General Election will be in 2020 – unless a two thirds majority
of the Commons votes to dissolve Parliament, or the Government loses a vote of
confidence and no alternative Government can be formed. Or, given time, and subject to the acquiescence
of the Lords, it might be possible to repeal the FTPA and restore the Prime
Minister’s right to decide the date of elections. Whether these conditions could be fulfilled
is anybody’s guess.
Secondly, elections are unpredictable, and it is uncertain
whether the composition of the new House of Commons would be sufficiently
different to override opposition to Brexit.
Other election issues might crop up (inflation, the NHS, grammar
schools, benefit cuts, housing) and divert the debate away from Brexit. A substantial number of Conservative MPs were Remainers: would
they be deselected? Would Labour deselect
pro-Brexit MPs? Would UKIP stand against pro-Brexit Conservatives? Could Labour and the LibDems come to an
arrangement to oppose pro-Brexit Conservatives in marginal seats? We are in uncharted territory and an election
might not solve anything.
Conclusion
What conclusion can we draw from all this?
- · Ordinary Party members should have an input into Labour’s policy, and a Special Conference should be called to hammer this out.
- · I hope the outcome would be to oppose invoking Article 50 unless it is conditional on meeting Labour’s requirements and is subject to a referendum on the terms. It should also oppose repeal of the European Communities Act if the second referendum rejects the terms of Brexit.
- · If there is a General Election next year, Labour should consider an arrangement with the LibDems (and others) to oppose pro-Brexit MPs.
No comments:
Post a Comment