Labour MPs need to call Brexit out for what it is - and demand voters get another say.
Last week, I was one of 70 south London Labour councillors to write to Keir Starmer.
We called for Labour to offer clear opposition to Brexit – and commit to giving voters the opportunity to review Britain’s relationship with the EU.
The letter detailed the ways in which the Brexit vote has harmed the communities we represent: the insecurity experienced by EU nationals, the difficulties local NHS institutions face in filling key posts, and how our poorest residents’ financial difficulties have been exacerbated by higher inflation.
If our appeal fell on deaf ears, Starmer surely heard the comments made by Andrew Adonis and Tony Blair. Adonis’ resignation letter called for a commitment to staying in the EU, alongside a “radically reforming government in the tradition of Attlee, working tirelessly to eradicate social problems.” Blair’s analysis argued that a changed context makes it reasonable for voters to revisit the Brexit question.
The three interventions were, at root, brought about by the same thing: a failure of leadership from Labour MPs.
Had the PLP as a whole been braver, there would have been no reason for us to write to Starmer. Had prominent MPs already united around an unambiguous anti-Brexit message, Adonis’ resignation would have been far less explosive. And had Jeremy Corbyn articulated as clear an alternative to Brexit as he has to other Tory-inspired initiatives, Blair would have fallen in behind him.
If Labour MPs are unable to muster the courage to keep the Brexit question open, they won’t find much support among party members: research by Queen Mary University shows that 78% of Labour members support a second referendum.
The appearance of organisations like Labour Against Brexit and Remain Labour underscores the determination of grassroots members to throw their energies into the campaign – with or without the support of their parliamentary representatives.
And yet the likelihood of bringing about a reconsideration of Brexit is so much greater if Labour MPs lead the effort.
The main reason why the leading anti-Brexit voices – Blair, Adonis, Alastair Campbell, Nick Clegg – have failed to hit home is not that their arguments are unpersuasive. Nor does it represent an unwillingness to learn from their mistakes in the Remain campaign (though this is undoubtedly a factor).
Their inability to inspire voters to reconsider Brexit rests, more than anything, on the fact that their speaking out comes at no personal risk.
As we’ve seen in the US, progressives can and should rediscover their assertiveness. In the case of Brexit, this responsibility rests with Labour MPs.
Challenging Brexit is far from risk-free. While there are clear signs that public opinion is shifting, the electorate has not yet decisively moved in favour of remaining in the EU. And with Labour ahead in the polls, and the government in a state of near chronic instability, MPs appear fearful of breaking rank on Brexit.
Yet break rank is exactly what they must do. Stockton South MP Paul Williams came very close to doing so recently, describing Brexit as ‘perhaps an existential threat to the NHS.’
If other Labour MPs share Williams’ view – that supporting Brexit is incompatible with the beliefs they hold most dear – they should say so, proudly and without delay. And they should assume leadership of the campaign to allow voters another say on Brexit.
James Coldwell is a Labour councillor in Southwark, south London.
Read the Labour councillors’ letter to Keir Starmer here
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
15 Responses to “It’s easy for ex-politicians to speak up against Brexit. But where are Labour’s MPs?”
Alasdair Macdonald
Jimmy Glesga,
i see you continue to plug the Brexiteer/unionist lie – and it is a lie – about handing power over to the EU. The EU is a union of sovereign states who agree by treaty to abide by certain principles. Some states have stepped back from some aspects of treaties, such as the UK with regard to the Euro and Schengen, for example. One of the biggest lies of the Leave campaign was about the control of immigration. The UK had the option of exercising more control over immigration, than it chose to do and it could have done so, without breaching the principle of free movement.
And, before you trot out another lie, an independent Scotland would NOT be forced to join the Euro.
Jimmy Glesga
Macdonald, I have an opinion and do not trot out lies. Scotland if independent would need a currency and it would not be the UK currency as it has chosen to leave the UK. So what do you suggest the currency could be? There is no guarantee of EU membership which would rule out the euro whatever the outcome therefore the Scottish nationalists have to invent a currency and sell it too the Scottish people.
Alasdair Macdonald
Jimmy Glesga,
(It is, perhaps, indicative, that you adopt the public school convention of addressing people by their surname. In Glasgow, where I live and where I was born, it is considered, insulting).
With regard to currency, Scotland is perfectly entitled to use sterling if it chooses. It is Scotland’s (and Wales’ and Northern Ireland’s) currency, too. In any case, even without that moral right, it can still choose to use pounds sterling because it is not unknown for countries to use the dollar or to peg their currencies to the dollar or the Euro, for example. There are advantages and disadvantages in this. It is probably a reasonable thing to do in the period shortly after becoming independent, while, simultaneously creating a new Scottish currency.
You also have to recognise that the pound is underpinned, substantially, in the global currency markets because of oil and natural gas in Scottish waters and by the massive potential in renewables. If that were removed from Westminster, then there would be a severe run on the pound and the London financial market would crash.
This is the reason that Westminster is so keen to prevent Scotland becoming independent. Far from being the basket case, forever demanding handouts from a benign and benificent England, Scotland pays its way. (And do not bother to throw at me the fiction that is GERS).
If Westminster were not to adopt a reasonable approach to Scotland with regard to the pound, Scotland, on independence, would have no national debt. The UK national debt would be entirely Westminster’s responsibility. So, a new state, with no debt, substantial oil and gas reserves (and these are more than just the North Sea, there is the Atlantic, too) and renewables potential, the largest part of the UK fishery, most of the territorial waters, substantial water sources, and charging a hefty rent for looking after Trident until a suitable base is found in England, would be an attractive proposition to the international community. So, I am sure we could establish a strong and stable currency in the medium term.
Alasdair Macdonald
Jimmy Glesga,
On rereading my previous reply I note that I have not addressed all the points which you raised.
Firstly, I accept without question that you have opinions and respect your right to express these. I disagree with some of your opinions, but that in no way, detracts from your right.
Secondly, the “handing over of power to the EU” is a proven lie as a number of lawyers and constitutional experts have pointed out. It is, of course, possible for you or me, to retell a lie without actually being aware that it is a lie. I can recall occasions in my life when I have asserted things to others which I subsequently found out to be untrue, and by that I mean that I based my understanding on something which was wilfully untrue, but that I had accepted it to be true. So, to use the rather robust and argumentative terminology in my earlier post, I had ‘trotted out a lie’. On the occasions when I ‘trotted out’ these lies I sincerely believed them to be true (perhaps it was wishful thinking or ‘confirmation bias’ to use a current phrase). Adopting the principle of charity, I can accept that your statement about the EU and powers is a sincere opinion on your part and that for me to use the terminology ‘trotting out’ has given offence and for that I apologise.
I hope that we can conduct future discourse in a respectful manner.
PS A Glaswegian of the persona implied by the nom de plume “Jimmy Glesga” would have responded to my previous comment with, “Ur you ca’in me a liar, pal? Ur ye? Eh?” Probably some who knew me as a youth would comment, ‘ipse dixit’.
Jimmy Glesga
Alasdair Macdonald, please be aware that I am not a PC person and do not get offended. Being offended is for the braindead religious types and others I suppose. And a Glawegian wid say are you calling me a fuckin liar and stick the heid on ye. I am a Weggie.