We must step back from Brexit before we cause irreparable damage

We must avoid rushing into any decision that continues to leave the nation deeply divided and resentful

The grave situation that the UK currently faces with Brexit is undoubtedly the greatest political crisis in modern British memory. In less than six weeks, there is a clear and present danger we might crash out of the EU without a deal but also the possibility that the nature of our democracy and society will have changed irrevocably. 

The decision to prorogue parliament and the populist rhetoric of Boris Johnson referring to another extension as “surrender” and other antics designed to frame an election with a binary ‘people versus parliament’ narrative are further steps in a trajectory going back to the initial referendum of 2016 that could bind the UK to forms of authoritarian nationalism reminiscent of countries like Hungary.

Johnson appears to be aching for an election, as does Corbyn. However, another election might be something we would be better off avoiding. An election could further deepen divisions in the UK and cause irreparable damage.

An election ranged against the crude populism and hyperglobalism of Johnson might offer an enticing prospect to Labour. There are real chances that a Johnson election campaign guided by Dominic Cummings might unravel and gift a Labour campaign based on a transformative agenda victory.

However, there is also a real chance Johnson might triumph. If Labour had enjoyed a sustained lead in the polls such a gamble might be worthwhile but we know that has not been the case and there is no reason to assume Labour can replicate its rapid and sudden surge of 2017 which still failed to dislodge the Tories.

 Instead, we need to step back. 

Such is the level of anger and division we need to step back, reflect, and deliberate upon the deep economic, social, and cultural causes of Brexit and fissures it has created. We must avoid rushing into any decision that continues to leave the nation deeply divided and resentful.

Johnson is desperate for an election because he knows his emergency politics will further wilt as parliament is allowed to assert its authority, hopefully pushing Johnson to the opposition benches and the ‘naughty step’ of British politics.

Would the EU grant a nine-month extension? Why not? The EU is acutely aware of the poverty of debate on this issue and the need for an informed discussion in the UK. The EU would be bolstered if the UK were to have a change of heart. As we know from history a broken and angry nation on the periphery of Europe can bode ill for the well-being of the continent. The EU will be keen to avoid such a scenario.

Instead of a rushed deal, a no-deal or an election that could cause further harm, let’s look at staging a second referendum after a six-month national dialogue on Brexit, framed by regional citizens’ assemblies. 

If the left wants to be bold on Brexit then we must commit to a radical remain and reform agenda centred on a robust conception of Social Europe, seeking institutional, economic and cultural change across Europe. Rather than bending to perceived resentments and anxieties in some working-class and left-behind communities, we need to challenge and reshape such sentiments with a principled and honest remain position. This should be shaped by and in accordance with Labour’s internationalist values which reject nativism and sees the sense of transformative change in addressing the underlying causes of Brexit.

Labour needs to develop its commitments to democratic reform. The statism of Corbynism has sometimes led to the neglect of an issue that could and should be closely aligned with a transformative agenda. Brexit has sorely tested the fitness of our political institutions.

We need to assess what has worked and what has failed. A written constitution, the degree of power afforded to the executive and the role of the media and donations in our democracy are all issues which need to be scrutinised and acted upon.

Such an agenda alongside Labour’s regenerative and redistributive economic policies could ultimately be a central factor in delivering a radical Labour government capable of healing the divides of Brexit Britain. 

Andrew Ryder is an Associate Professor at Corvinus University Budapest and social justice campaigner whose book ‘Brexit Britain and Europe at a crossroads: The politics of anxiety and transformation’ will be published in 2020.

As you’re here, we have something to ask you. What we do here to deliver real news is more important than ever. But there’s a problem: we need readers like you to chip in to help us survive. We deliver progressive, independent media, that challenges the right’s hateful rhetoric. Together we can find the stories that get lost.

We’re not bankrolled by billionaire donors, but rely on readers chipping in whatever they can afford to protect our independence. What we do isn’t free, and we run on a shoestring. Can you help by chipping in as little as £1 a week to help us survive? Whatever you can donate, we’re so grateful - and we will ensure your money goes as far as possible to deliver hard-hitting news.

5 Responses to “We must step back from Brexit before we cause irreparable damage”

  1. spiv

    Your argument In a nutshell:-

    Ignore the plebs and cancel Brexit

  2. Tom Sacold

    And you wish to remain in the neo-liberal, capitalist club of the EU. An organisation designed for the benefit of the bosses of european multinational corporations.

  3. Dick Symonds

    Agree, mainly – a small quibble that Labour’s Manifesto actually rejects what I perceive ‘statism’ to be, old-style Morrisonian nationalisation, in describing an Alternative Economy, with Cooperative and Mutuals involved.

    But the longer we wait for a Genenral Election the more Johnson’s contradictions will pile up.

  4. Bill

    As opposed to the capitalist clubs of the city of London and Wall street,
    both of whom brought down the ‘West’s’ economy and left the working class ‘mugs’ to pick up the tab. I will take my chances with the ‘social ‘ economies of the EU thank you. where restrictions on ‘fat cats’ money concealment is far more likely.

  5. Gary

    I think that many, including the author, live in a political bubble disconnected from 90% of the public. When you write “Such is the level of anger and division ” I think you refer to parliament and the online ‘anger’ that you’ll see both here and on sites like Guido Fawkes. From the extreme ends of the argument there is indeed anger. But these represent the minority of the public, the 10%.

    When I step out of my front door literally the ONLY thing I EVER hear about Brexit is, ‘when will it all end, I’m sick of it all’ Those who voted ‘Remain’ have accepted the outcome and those who voted ‘Leave’ have moved on. What unites them is that they fully expect the result to be implemented without further reference to them and without the inordinate delays that many are advocating.

    There is no indication that there has been a massive upsurge against Brexit so a second referendum would produce the same result. And what then? I’m assuming that the reason for holding a second one is that they think it’ll go the other way, what when it doesn’t?

    It DOES seem very much like politicians telling the people they got it wrong and to ‘do it until you get it right’ I did NOT vote for Brexit, nor would I but I am shocked at the attitudes of those who previously said that there would be ‘no way back’ that the referendum result ‘would be honoured’ then put it in their manifestos and finally voted to trigger Article 50.

    I’ve never seen such a U-turn and on something which was democratically decided. We have had votes before and they have been honoured, despite how people felt about the outcome. Why is this so different?

    The country is NOT divided except in the febrile imaginations of some political writer, however, our politicians are doing their level best to cause this. It suits their wish to overturn the result. This is a TERRIBLE idea. Never before, to my knowledge, has the UK government ever gone down the road of holding a referendum, promised REPEATEDLY to honour it and THEN overturned it or held a second referendum. This would very obviously be anti-democratic and cause any reasonable person to lose faith in our political system. Why would anyone trust politicians ever again??

    No, the only way, now, to be in the EU is to implement the result of THIS vote, ie leave the EU, then campaign for a vote to rejoin. Giscard D’Estang had vetoed UK entry to the EEC, as it was then called, for the reason that ‘Britain will only want to leave again’ and it certainly looks like he was right.

    The ONLY thing in this that’s more important than our membership of the EU is our principle of democracy. And that is in VERY real danger at the moment…

Comments are closed.