I mentioned over the weekend that I have suggested to some of my students that they should when making recommendations in essays that I am setting for them consider what they would do if faced with the problem they are writing about. I suggested the actions I'd take at HMRC as a consequence.
Today the country faces a bigger issue or even greater long term importance. Today parliament may permit Article 50. So what would I say if at the Dispatch Box for the Opposition. This is my suggestion.
This House has faced many difficult decisions.
We have been to war.
We have faced crises.
In modern times we have not in this country faced famine or widespread disease. But we have seen its impact elsewhere, and helped tackle it.
We have had to face the challenges of the troubles in Northern Ireland.
And the trauma of terrorist attack.
We are used to facing up to responsibility and accepting the burden it places upon us.
Until now that is. What makes today so different from the times when we faced those challenges and others is the sheer wanton recklessness of the decision we are being asked to support today.
Let me be clear. We had a referendum. It can be said the decision was not binding. The reality was that the result has to be respected. And respect it we will. But what we on these benches cannot do and will not do is fail the people of this country at this moment.
They asked this House to take them out of Europe. As a person who remains convinced of the merits of EU membership of course that pains me: I did not want this course of action. But I think we have to accept the decision made in a referendum, and I do.
Nothing though requires that we proceed as this government is doing.
It was decided that we should leave the EU.
But it was not decided that we should leave come what may, whatever the consequence.
Nor was it decided that we should leave without knowing whether the plan was revocable if that aim of leaving proved impossible to deliver without considerable harm resulting to this country.
And it was never the case that the Prime Minister was mandated to leave without a plan for what might happen if the EU would not cooperate in the process.
I accept that some people voted in the referendum to exercise their power without consideration of their responsibility. That was the right we gave them. But no one gave this House that right. It is our job to accept both power and responsibility. It is that second part of the equation that sets us apart. If we fail in that duty to act responsibly we not only fail this House, we fail the people of this country, our democracy, the proud tradition of our nation and the generations to come.
I put it to you now that we are being asked to abandon our responsibility. By voting to exercise Article 50 without having any idea of what it means, in the short term for at least four million peoples whose right to reside in their chosen homes is immediately challenged as a result, and in the long term for the identity, prosperity and security of this nation, then we will have not just failed in our duty, but we will have been knowingly irresponsible.
I am not saying we should not leave the EU. I am not saying we should not negotiate. I am saying we must first of all secure the rights of people whose lives must not be prejudiced by that choice. And I am saying we must be properly informed, and the people of this country must be properly informed, as to the consequences of failure. And we are not. In fact we have no idea at all of what we are voting for.
I believe a day will come when someone will be asked to define recklessness and they will say it was voting for Article 5o without knowing what it meant.
Saying that I concede, reckless acts sometimes turn out well. But it's not the job of this House to be reckless, especially when with more time and more care we could be taking an informed decision, knowing many more of the options that we face than we do at present. That would have been the right course of action for the government to pursue. That would have been the responsible choice for it to present to this House. But it has chosen irresponsibility instead. And we on these benches cannot support irresponsibility that may have untold cost for the people of this country. Which is why we will oppose the government tonight. Not to oppose the will of the people of this country, but precisely because we think it out job to uphold that will to the best of the our ability and the government is dismally failing to do that.
Never in the history of this House has there been a greater dereliction of duty than the actions of this government tonight. We will not participate in that wanton act of destruction of hope, prosperity and freedom for this country. There are responsible ways to leave the EU. The option we're being given is not that. Those voting for it will be failing the will of the people of this country. But they will know that the Opposition in this House is with them. An ugly divide will be opened tonight. But we know we are on the right side of it. And I believe people will thank us for that.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Corbyn has been hopeless on this.
But he’s not the one I’m most angry with. Where are the Yvette Coopers, the Rachel Reeves’, the Ed Milibands, the Alan Johnsons. Where have they been since June?
Sitting on their backsides washing their hands. Utterly useless. They are also guilty of gross dereliction of duty.
At least Starmer sounds coherent.
Here, here!!!
As I understand it (happy to be corrected) Corbyn voted against the referendum in the 70s as an ordinary voter. He voted against Maastrict and Lisbon treaties as an MP.
If this is right, it seems obvious he wants out. This explains his half hearted efforts to support Remain – he doesn’t believe in it.
That nails it well and truly! And good too that you point out that the referendum was power without responsibility, which was also of course the very reason Cameron called it.
Please can you outline why you think trading with the EU on WTO terms (the same as china, USA, India, etc) do is so bad? Yes, UK products will cost more in the EU (should the EU choose to penalise its own citizens) but we are free to set import tariffs for goods from the EU (i.e. 0%) so things we import don’t have to cost more…
Also we currently import roughly 50% from EU and 50% from rest of world yet we have no control over the imports from the rest of the world – we must charge what the EU dictates – if we leave we can also set this as 0% and suddenly all those products from China, USA, etc cost us less – why is this bad?
Have you not noticed there are no WTO terms?
There is no such thing as a WTO deal?
Really? Then what does the WTO do?
The WTO seems to think that “At its heart are the WTO agreements, negotiated and signed by the bulk of the world’s trading nations.”
Note: signed
You don’t crash into a WTO agreement if you fall out of the EU
You get to…nothing
No agreement at all
The WTO alternative takes years to agree
Really – so all those agreements that the EU currently have in place with non EU countries (under WTO rules) and the “Most-favoured-nation” clause of WTO terms it will take “years” to agree on trade?
Better yet we can just agree to not have any tariffs (as now) and be done before lunch!
All that being said do you really think that the EU will stop trading with us and not agree terms? WTO is the worst case scenario…
—————————————
There is no such thing as a WTO deal?
OR
The WTO alternative takes years to agree?
Please pick one…
Anyone can trade with the EU, so long as they comply with all EU rules
No one can on WTO rules
There are no WTO rules for trading with the EU as such: there are only EU ones with non-members
And there are also EU rules for trading with other nations – lots of them. But we will have no access to them
So we don’t go to WTO rules
We go to no rules
And very often that will mean no trade
And maybe no flights either
You really believe that the EU will abandon 60% of its exports at the same time as loosing one of the few major net contributors? have you looked at their economies recently? What would they gain from blocking all trade with us?
Yes
You do not understand the politics, very obviously
Oh I understand them very well – what I don’t understand is why people want to stay with people who are willing to “cut of their nose to spite their face”… If they are willing to risk the futures of their citizens only to prove a point why would you want to stay? I thought the point of the EU was to make life better… obviously not, it’s build a big government no matter the cost…
It is apparent that you are intent on producing the usual right wing neoliberal clap trap here
Please take note of the comments policy
I have a life and cannot waste it on such nonsense
I too wish he could say something like this. The middle classes would be on their feet and cheering. However, the experience of the Scottish independence referendum is not encouraging. With a weak recent history of support for the Scots issues, Labour came out strongly on the right side and was subsequently annihilated.
I’m not sure that we have earned the right in recent years to make this sort of speech.
Dear Richard
Did you read your first sentence before you posted this? Or perhaps this website rations punctuation marks?
If I don’t know much about the subject of an article, I tend to judge it on the writing, on the basis that if the prose is unclear, the thinking behind it may well be too.
Just a comment!
I tend to write several blogs before breakfast most days
Most are pretty well crafted
That sentence could be improved but it’s meaning is clear
If you really did not understand the speech I would quietly despair
What was your point then?