Still no clarity from Starmer

I tuned in to Andrew Marr’s programme last Sunday hoping to get some clarity on Labour’s position on Brexit – but no such luck.  To make matters worse Sir Keith has made a pig’s ear of the Opposition Day debate, which has only succeeded in confirming the Government timetable, resulting in  headlines such as “Parliament endorses Brexit”.

There were two major issues that Sir Keith couldn’t or wouldn’t clarify:

Firstly, he says that when the Government’s Brexit Bill comes before Parliament Labour will try to amend it to ensure that the UK retains “access” (whatever that means) to the Single Market, and that workers’ and consumers’ rights and environmental standards are protected. I don’t actually see how a UK Act of Parliament can achieve this as it cannot bind the EU to grant this “access”.  Moreover, if we do leave the EU it will be for the UK Parliament to determine workers’ rights etc and it therefore does not need to be the subject of negotiations with the EU.

But what will Labour do if the Government succeeds in resisting Labour’s amendments?  According to Sir Keith Labour would not vote against invoking Article 50.  This seems to me to undermine Labour’s position, since there is now no incentive for the Government to make any concessions.  Whatever the final form of the Bill Labour will support it, so the Government might as well tough it out.

The second major issue is this.  Supposing that Labour’s amendments are carried, and the Article 50 Notice is somehow made conditional on achieving stated objectives (such as “access” to the Single Market), what happens if these conditions are not met – e.g. if the EU insists on exclusion from the Single Market unless free movement of labour is accepted (a probable scenario)?  Will there then be a second vote on withdrawing the Article 50 Notice (assuming that it can be withdrawn)?  Should there be a second referendum? If the answer to these questions is “No”, then again what is the point of imposing the condition?  For the condition to be credible, there must be the threat that the whole process would be aborted.  

The reasons for Sir Keith’s lack of clarity are fairly obvious.  Many Midland and northern Labour MPs represent constituencies that voted heavily for Leave in the referendum.  Although they themselves voted to Remain, these MPs are fearful that, if they appear to obstruct Brexit, their voters will desert them for UKIP.  Rather than argue for what they believe in, they are prepared to acquiesce in a policy that they believe to be contrary to the national interest. 

Ironically, this is probably a miscalculation.  Most Labour supporters voted to Remain (some polls suggest >70%), and are unlikely to defect to UKIP.  However, there is every possibility that they may defect to a Party that unequivocally opposes Brexit – namely, the Liberal Democrats.  The results of the Richmond Park and now Sleaford byelections can be interpreted in this way.  Indeed, the Labour vote in Richmond was reported to be less than the number of Party members in the constituency!

If Sir Keith continues to lead labour along this path, the danger is that Labour will lose votes not only to UKIP but also to the LibDems.  Thus we risk getting the worst of both worlds.