Whist I continue to be a Labour Party member, the Party's ambiguous stance on another EU referendum, I feel, ultimately leaves me with no choice on Thursday but to vote for a party who will support a second referendum. Having reached that difficult decision, the decision about which pro-referendum party to vote for me is easy: the Greens.
So why do I feel I have to vote for another party on Thursday? Isn't that a betrayal of my party membership?
I will be voting for another party, because I, and many other Labour supporters, want to send a clear message to our party's leader: he needs to quickly change direction on Brexit to unequivocally support a second referendum or else his party faces electoral disaster at the next General Election. Rather than being a betrayal of my party, I am voting for another party in order to further the party's longer term success, because I want to see Labour in government to bring about the radical changes I believe this country needs; to reduce inequality and injustice and to fight climate change. And unless Labour support another EU referendum, I am convinced, they will not get the support needed to become a government. All polling evidence shows they cannot win a majority otherwise (and indeed might well lose to a rejuvenated Johnson-led Tory party, swallowing Farage's hard Brexit). If both main parties failed to get a majority, Labour would surely only get support to form a government by offering the SNP and/or Lib Dems another referendum anyway.
Furthermore, unless we remain in the EU (and another referendum is the only legitimate way to bring that about), it will be much harder for the country to make (and afford) the radical changes Labour wants and to try to extend those changes to the wider continent and the world. Battling the global threat of climate change is the most obvious example of this.
Furthermore, unless we remain in the EU (and another referendum is the only legitimate way to bring that about), it will be much harder for the country to make (and afford) the radical changes Labour wants and to try to extend those changes to the wider continent and the world. Battling the global threat of climate change is the most obvious example of this.
But if the party supports another referendum, wont that be a betrayal of leave voters? Afterall, many of them traditionally voted Labour? Isn't it better the party support a compromise position of a soft Brexit to balance the wishes of remain and leave voters?Isn't that the only way to serve the interests of both and bring the country back together? No, no and no. And this is why (in my opinion).
Another referendum would not just be a re-run of the last one. We would be asking people to choose not simply whether we leave ,but where we go or, now people know the destination/s, whether they would prefer to stay after all? Without that being voted on, no particular form of Brexit can have any democratic legitimacy. If we went for the sort of soft Brexit Jeremy Corbyn favours, without putting that to a public vote, the large majority of leave voters would rightly complain this was a betrayal, as it was a Brexit in name only and not what they voted for at all; still having to follow most EU rules, including free movement, in order to have full free trade. Opinion polling shows only a small minority of voters favour such an outcome.
On the other hand, if we had a hard no deal Brexit that Nigel Farage and many Tories favour, whilst many leave voters would support that (it's the single most popular leave option now), many would not and nearly all remain voters would see it as disastrous. Again, it would be rightly said it was not the Brexit people voted for.
The only form of Brexit that most favoured was the unicorn variety that we were promised in the referendum by fraudsters like Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage; one where we could “have our cake and eat it”; full free trade access with no economic harm, whilst uniquely Britain would be free to set our own rules and immigration policy and save £350 million a week in EU subs, because “the EU needs us more than we need them”. If three years of bruising negotiations with the EU have taught us anything it's that our bargaining position with the EU was always much weaker than it was claimed, and the ideal unicorn Brexit was (as many of us said all along) pure fantasy. Since everyone's favourite sort of Brexit will not be on the menu, the country now has some hard choices (which our mps seem incapable of making); do we swallow the likely severe economic damage of a hard Brexit in order to get maximum freedom from the EU, or do we swallow most of the same EU rules as before (with now no say over them) to avoid the serious economic harm of restricted trade? Alternatively, now that it's clear this is the real available choice, would people now prefer we remain?
On the other hand, if we had a hard no deal Brexit that Nigel Farage and many Tories favour, whilst many leave voters would support that (it's the single most popular leave option now), many would not and nearly all remain voters would see it as disastrous. Again, it would be rightly said it was not the Brexit people voted for.
The only form of Brexit that most favoured was the unicorn variety that we were promised in the referendum by fraudsters like Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage; one where we could “have our cake and eat it”; full free trade access with no economic harm, whilst uniquely Britain would be free to set our own rules and immigration policy and save £350 million a week in EU subs, because “the EU needs us more than we need them”. If three years of bruising negotiations with the EU have taught us anything it's that our bargaining position with the EU was always much weaker than it was claimed, and the ideal unicorn Brexit was (as many of us said all along) pure fantasy. Since everyone's favourite sort of Brexit will not be on the menu, the country now has some hard choices (which our mps seem incapable of making); do we swallow the likely severe economic damage of a hard Brexit in order to get maximum freedom from the EU, or do we swallow most of the same EU rules as before (with now no say over them) to avoid the serious economic harm of restricted trade? Alternatively, now that it's clear this is the real available choice, would people now prefer we remain?
After all, notwithstanding the meteoric rise of the Brexit party, every single opinion poll over the last 6 months has shown public opinion has shifted rowads remain (partly due to demographic changes rather than individual changes of opinion). All recent polls have shown a majority for remain, ranging from about 51 to 60%+, and currently averaging about 54%.( And btw this includes Survation who accurately predicted the last referendum). Of course, things could change in a campaign and the result might go against remain, as last time But, even if it did, another referendum would still be vital so that the electorate could sign up to not just whether we leave but where we're going.
If, instead of putting the decision back to the people, our politicians just decided among themselves what form of Brexit we should have, as both our Prime Minister and Jeremy Corbyn favour, it is this that would be seen as the ultimate democratic betrayal. Because, whatever Fraudulent Farage tells you, the only question the last referendum asked us was, shall we leave the EU? It said nothing about whether we would, e.g, leave the Customs Union or the Single Market. Indeed Farage himself pointed to Norway as an example we could follow, enjoying the economic benefits of the single market outside the EU (but failing to point out that Norway also has to accept freedom of movement etc).
Its like we had always eaten roast chicken and the referendum asked us would we prefer beef instead. But it said nothing about what form that beef meal would take. Some may have had in mind a bloody slab of blue sirloin steak. Others may have been thinking of Spag Bol. But there is a world of difference between those two meals. And faced with a choice between roast chicken and a bloody, barely cooked sirloin steak many (who actually fancied spag bol) might prefer to stick with their old roast chicken. You see the first referendum, if it went in favour of leave, always needed a second one; to decide which form of leave people wanted. The only reason why it didn't was because, in David Cameron's mind, leave was never going to happen at all; the result was always going to be for remain and we already knew what that looked like… until the electorate gave Dave a bloody nose!
Its like we had always eaten roast chicken and the referendum asked us would we prefer beef instead. But it said nothing about what form that beef meal would take. Some may have had in mind a bloody slab of blue sirloin steak. Others may have been thinking of Spag Bol. But there is a world of difference between those two meals. And faced with a choice between roast chicken and a bloody, barely cooked sirloin steak many (who actually fancied spag bol) might prefer to stick with their old roast chicken. You see the first referendum, if it went in favour of leave, always needed a second one; to decide which form of leave people wanted. The only reason why it didn't was because, in David Cameron's mind, leave was never going to happen at all; the result was always going to be for remain and we already knew what that looked like… until the electorate gave Dave a bloody nose!
If our politicians now went ahead with imposing their own version of Brexit without putting that to the people, it is this which would come to be seen as the ultimate democratic betrayal.
And I'm afraid Labour’s current official position on this is little more democratically legitimate than the Tories: if we can have the form of Brexit we would prefer there's no need to consult you about that. You can only have a say if it's a form of Brexit we dislike. How incredibly arrogant! And if Brexit did go ahead on that basis it would be seen as the ultimate politicians’ carve up which put two fingers up to the general public. Jeremy Corbyn, and like minded Labour mps like Lisa Nandy, who favour this position, are not just being undemocratic, they are also being very naive. If they are worried about what their leave voting constituents think of having another referendum, they should be even more worried about what they will think if they impose on them a soft "Brexit in name only". Rather than rewarding them with grateful votes, they are much more likely to shift those votes to a hard Brexit party.
The real way Labour could represent the interests of both leave and remain voters is by backing a referendum which gives them a genuine choice over the way we go. And in my view the best, and probably only, way of achieving that is through a multi option referendum, with voters having a second preference. In my view, the choice must put forward must be options that are both possible (not Unicorn Brexits) and which seem to have significant public support: a no deal hard Brexit , a soft Brexit or remain. In my view, any referendum which did not have no deal as an option would lack real democratic legitimacy (and on that I do agree with Lisa Nandy). Importantly, it would also not close down the Brexit debate (whatever way the result went) , because you would the have the likes of Nigel Farage forever afterwards crying foul; that the most favoured form of Brexit was not on the menu (and for once he'd have a point).
It is because I believe this issue is so important to both the country's interests and also the Labour party's, that I feel for this one election I must loan my vote to a party who do unequivocally back another referendum.
If the mass loss of Labour votes does not have the desired effect on our party policy, I will remain a member in order to vote out Jeremy Corbyn in favour of a leader like Clive Lewis or Keir Starmer who will back a peoples vote, as I am quite sure a leadership challenge will inevitably be coming . And if all that fails, maybe I will leave the party and permanently move my vote. But we are a long way off that yet.
As for which party I will lend my vote to, the Greens for me are the obvious choice. They share many of the same radical reforming values of Jeremy Corbyn's Labour party and, importantly, on what should be the key issue of our time (not Brexit!), Climate Change, they are even more geared up to take action than Labour is. And it would not just be a wasted protest vote. Whilst the Lib Dems have more support nationally, in my region, the Southeast, the Lib Dems have no MEPs currently and the Greens have one. So there is every chance my vote would contribute to us getting one, or hopefully more, Green MEPs. (Note; Gina Miller's “Remain united” website suggesting tactical voting for Lib Dems seems badly flawed. If you want to know more about that see the post by my friend, the leading actuary Andrew Smith: https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10157242298417953&id=645152952)
And in voting in a Green MEP, I would be adding to a vital and growing Green political grouping in the EU, pressing for the radical action Europe and, indeed the world ,needs on climate change, equality and injustice; values which matter enormously to me as both a Christian and a Democratic Socialist.
