There are moments when I think the only way to decide on what I think an appropriate course of action might be is to put myself in the position of the person having to make the decision. It is not then some indication of delusions of grandeur that I, on occasion, wonder what I might do if I was to stand at the Despatch Box, whether for the government or opposition. It is simply a mechanism I use to imagine the constraints on the decision I might make if in the same position as those who actually are in those places. This was the device I used to imagine what I might do if I was to stand as Leader of the Opposition having to challenge the government on a vote on exercising Article 50. Would I be proposing a vote for or against exercising that option, and why?
First, I would recall the duty that my job imposed upon me. The clue is in the title. If I was Leader of the Opposition then my primary job is to oppose. This is not a negative task. The job that has to be undertaken is essential in a UK style democracy. Opposition in this context requires that those challenging the government hold it to account for what it is doing. This necessarily entails both probing what it is actually suggesting should be done and showing that there are viable alternative courses of action to whatever it is suggesting. The intention is quite clearly to improve outcomes: by suggesting there is a better course of action the intention is to improve that actually adopted.
Second, the job is to explain. By exposing what the government is doing the intention should be to make clear what the implications of that action are. This does, of course, require that the Oppsotion actually understand this. It also requires that they can articulate it. And that they have the ability to reach out to the media and get them to explain just what the difficulties in the government's proposed course of action that they would rather gloss over might really be.
Third, of course it is the job of the Oppsotion to make clear that they could do the job better than the government. The whole edifice of democracy is dependent upon this confidence, whether well placed or not.
How would these three requirements influence my behaviour if required to oppose on Article 50? First, I think it would require that Labour vote against the exercise of that option. There are several good reasons for doing so, all of which would have to be explained to achieve the second objective.
Those explanations would require that Labour suggest that exercising Article 59 now is reckless because we do not know if it is revocable or not. If it is, so be it. We can then explore leaving Europe as people have indicated they wish, but with the option of staying if it turns out leaving is a worse option. But if its irrevocable then the UK is throwing away its current position without knowing the alternatives. That's reckless. The government has a duty to find out the consequences of exercising Article 50 before acting.
Next, Labour would need to explain that exercising Article 50 must take place on the basis of a viable and costed alternative plan. It cannot be the case that exercising this option on the basis that nothing will change unless to the advantage of the UK, as the government is implying, is realistic when it is glaringly obvious that the EU will extract a price for our departure. Labour has find out what that price is before it can vote for Artcile 50. In that case each option, from leaving the EU, to leaving the single market, to leaving the customs union, has to be priced so we can be sure what the choices might be. But this has not happened. The alternatives, inclduing the hoped for gains, also need to be spelt out. The people of the UK need to know that this is not some grand folly. It is the Opposition's job to find that out.
Then Labour has to establish how long this process will take. The EU and all international precedents say that two years is quite unrealistic. In that case how long might it take, and why, and what happens between the expiry of the Article 50 notice period and a deal? It would be reckless to exercise Article 50 without knowing this.
And last of these high level objections, the direct cost of leaving has very obviously to be established. We know there is one and that figures of up to £60 billion have been mentioned. Some candour on what that sum might really be, how it will be paid, and when that might be necessary is required from the government and on that there has been no hint of a suggestion to date.
For all these reasons Labour has a duty to oppose the government. Not because it is ignoring the referendum result but precisely because it is its job to make sure that the government is properly fulfilling it. The suggestion has to be made that unless these issues are addressed then that is not the case. The government is not fulfilling its duty right now: it is instead acting recklessly and that is irresponsible.
By default, of course, this then implies that Labour would be acting responsibly by seeking to determine the answers to these uestions before acting. It would not be saying it will not trigger Article 50. What it would be saying is it would do so when the best basis for deciding the consequences of that action have been established precisely so that people can know what might happen and hold the government to account for it. That is, I think, Labour's duty.
But it is instead suggesting its MPs must vote for Article 50 come what may. In my opinion that is reckless, a failure on its part to do its job and a failure in its part to seek answers that reasonable people might have at present.
And it is more than that. Blindly voting for Article 50 now gives it no basis for opposition later if things do not work out well. And that's Labour failing to support the democratic necessity of supplying an alternative government.
For all these reasons if I was at the Opposition Despatch Box I would be pursing a very different course of action to that which Jermey Corbyn is following. And I think we would all be better off as a result.
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:
Thee is no question you are right. The country seems to have entered La La land and it is the opposition’s duty to scrutinise every decision with a fine tooth come. There are so few ways of getting Brexit right and so many to get it catastrophically wrong that more than any time possibly in the past few hundred years it is imperative that every decision is critically analysed and subject to the fullest scrutiny.
Labour are in a very weak position – too weak to do the right thing as you suggest in your fourth from the bottom paragraph.
They are already in a popularity crisis due to the Corbyn/PLP spat and UKIP waiting to hoover up their traditional vote as a result.
If they do the right thing and ask for more time to initiate Article 50, they will be vilified for it in the pro-Tory MSM. So – dominated by fear – they may just vote for it to go ahead so as not to take that risk.
This would not be about democracy: it would be simple self-preservation.
Labour’s problem is one of communication. Of course they should oppose the notification of A50 for all the reasons Richard lists and no doubt more.
But if they do so, they have to get out and explain why they are. Clearly. They have to speak to the ordinary people who are being duped and explain why opposition is currently the best approach. They have to communicate the risks and uncertainties clearly on television, radio and in the printed media, demanding op-eds in hostile papers.
Now is the time to fight, not appease. If they appease they have failed everything and everybody they have ever represented. Gains of the previous century are threatened. If necessary they need to walk from Corbyn – I don’t know how but it has to be done.
The trouble is I can’t see these things happening
To me opposing this total folly is a no brainer.
Think this way: if Brexit works out, and I don’t think it will, then the rewards are going to go to the Tories anyway and Labour are finished.
If it doesn’t work out, as seems most likely, then despite any short term hit arising from the rightwing hysteria that would trigger, when that eventuality occurs the Tories are doomed and Labour has a chance to rehabilitate itself.
Mindlessly trooping through the division lobby in favour of triggering A50 is the worst option.
Precisely
It’s like austerity again. There is no alternative. When the Tories decide there is an alternative you can’t say I told you so.
Absolutely on the nail, Ben. There’s no way back for Labour if they support the triggering of Article 50. They are cursed as the Tories will soon be.
And I’d add that a summary of Richard’s blog should provide the basis of a statement that all Labour MPs who represent constituencies that voted leave put out to justify their position and thus make clear they are not reneging on the vote but acting to protect the interests of ALL of their constituents.
I’s also add that earlier in the week The Guardian quoted from a speech (one of the few) May gave when she was a remainer on the potential costs of Brexit. There was some frightening stuff in there and if even half of it is accurate then we are in for some suffering. That speech should also be widely and endlessly used.
Finally, I noted a survey that was reported on earlier in the week that found unambiguosly that a majority of those who voted leave said they did not support that action if it meant they’d be in any way worse off. Well, they will be – period.
Consequently, there’s more than enough material to make a solid and convincing case for following the course of action set out in the blog.
However, we all know that Corbyn is a long time anti EU supporter so it won’t happen under his leadership. But I hope at least some Labour MPs defy the whip – as Corbyn has done on many occassions.
Rumour has 80 will
That’s a pretty fundamental number
Regarding the Whip, there seems to be confusion over if there is going to be one
http://www.thecanary.co/2017/01/20/did-you-get-duped-by-the-guardians-three-line-brexit-farce/
Love to hear peoples thoughts on the above article.
I do not consider the canary a reliable source
@ Richard
Why do you not consider the canary a reliable source?
Because it appears to be poor grade propoganda and diatribe at best
About as reliable as the News of the World was
There has been much discussion about whether Cameron was the worst prime minister this country has had. We might reflect on whether we now have the worst leader of an opposition (or either party) in terms of his effectiveness in defending the interests of the country as a whole. Talk about a perfect storm…
Thank you, Richard, for this and many other thoughtful pieces. What I find so difficult at the moment is how little effort is being put in to explaining. Yes, the issues are complex but they are being further obscured by being buried under meaningless partisan statements. Please don’t stop what you’re doing. Even if you were to find yourself standing by the dispatch box!
Thanks
And the last is very, very unlikely
Keir Starmer seems to be supporting voting for article 50 as well, and I thought you rather liked him.
Not that I disagree with your basic premix that article 50 should not be evoked. However the populists will crucify us all as thwarting the “will of the people”.
Its catch 22.
I am Luke warm at best on Keir
This is no catch 22
I have explained a wholly plausible and communicable policy
Thank you again Richard for, as Lucy puts it above,reducing the arguments to a few pithy-and irresistible- paragraphs. Again I have to ask why there’s no-one in Corbyn’s team who can do this…or get him to listen? (tho’ I’m left with the impression that others now are pulling his strings or winding his clockwork).
I wondered if you had had a chance to read Dominic Cummings’ blog last week
https://dominiccummings.wordpress.com/2017/01/09/on-the-referendum-21-branching-histories-of-the-2016-referendum-and-the-frogs-before-the-storm-2/
(also in the Spectator) – a candid and refreshingly honest (and very long!) piece from the bogeyman/architect of Brexit.
I would suggest it should be required reading for Corbyn’s team – or should have been if they had decided to follow your suggested course. The bit about what happened to the ‘£350 million for the NHS’ is an eye-opener (and could have framed a decent PMQ).
I doubt any of team Corbyn come here
I very much suspect he may not have been elected without me (apologies, and others tell me this) but now I am ‘the other side’ or whatever blinds them
Unfortunately that may not just be their loss, as you point out
I’d loved to have been a fly on the wall in the room when they were discussing how to disown you.
Ha ha! So it’s all your fault Richard?…Pygmalion?…Frankenstein’s monster!?
It has been suggested to me that it might be
I’m definitely one of those people who was advocating voting for Corbyn because he was taking advice from you! If my work on the phone banks is representative, a huge proportion of the new members were inspired by the vision of a decent society that your work represents. If the Corbyn camp doesn’t understand that, they really are as foolish as the Guardian would have us believe.
Thanks
I wish I could sense he does know that
I am not convinced because the narrative is not present – especially in what John McDonnell is saying
I dont really see why its not possible to accept the referendum vote, while also to properly hold the government to account over its handling of brexit. That’s what oppositions do.
Now I accept Labour will probably end up irritating one group or another, but it seems clear to me that if they thought the EU was a good thing in June, then why would that view change when the evidence so far indicates we are in for a very tough time negotiating an exit. That it may leave us worse off is reason enough to ask tough questions and expect the government to deliver a brexit in everyone’s interest.
Having a leader who plainly wants out isn’t helpful but the great majority of Mp’s, members and supporters voted to remain. Surely that must be reflected in the party’s position which hasn’t changed from the 2015 election and this years conference?
What do you say to this, Richard: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-vote-parliament-tim-farron-liberal-democrats-revolt-a7464371.html
Politicians are confused
The problem with your argument is that Bexit is not a government decision, it is a decision of the people. Opposing Bexit is opposing the instructions of the people.
Parliament is Sovereign. However, behind that is the more accurate statement that The People are Sovereign, and from time to time The People temporarily lend their sovereignty to Parliament, instructing Parliament to excercise that sovereignty in whatever manner that Parliament sees fit. In last year’s referendum Parliament handed that sovereignty back to The People. The People exercised their soverignty in instructing Parliament to follow a certain path. The People did *not* select a Parliament to make this particular decision as Parliament sees fit, The People instructed Parliament.
Importantly, The People did not instruct the government, they instructed Parliament. They re-loaned their soverignty back to Parliament with an instruction of a future path to follow. Crucially, this means they instructed the Opposition as well as the Government to do this as well. The People were not instructing Parliament to form a government, they were instructing Parliament to adopt a certain policy. It was not a government vs opposition decision, particularly as all the parties represented have a membership that is split on the policy.
It was impossible to vote for a “Remain Government”/”Leave Government” as there is no such thing as “The Remain Party”/”The Leave Party” that can form a government. Saying “I want you lot from Labour plus you lot from the Conservatives plus you lot from the SNP to form a government as you collectively agree with me on this one policy” is not a functional instruction.
Yes, the Opposition have a duty to examine how the Government implements this policy, and do what they can to get what they beleive to be the best implementation of that policy. But they have been instructed in what that policy is to be. Parliament chose to hand back to The People their soverignty on this policy decision.
What a load of nonsense, which is why I think your time here is up
The people could not decide: the vote was advisory
Parliament can respect their wishes though. It seems intent on doing so. I am not arguing it should not. What I am saying are three things
1) No one voted for Theresa May’s version of leaving: she wanted to remain
2) Opposing her version of leaving is not then opposing the will of the people
3) Seeking to reform her version so that it has a chance of working is respecting the will of the people
I am being the true Brexit supporter here
You’re offering incoherence and support for incompetence, if I put it as politely as I can
Whilst the referendum vote was supposed to be advisory both the leave and remain campaigns were run as if it were an absolute vote. Even the government’s own literature on it was written in a ‘this is a decision by you’ manner. Furthermore, during the referendum anyone trying to remind people it was supposed to be advisory was shouted down in no uncertain manner (felt the sharp end of that stick often!). It’s also instructive that wild claims such as the ‘£350 Million a week for the NHS’ were not jumped on by the government despite calls to have the proponents of it brought to book. Given that, what chance did the public have of making any sort of informed decision? Never the less, it was a marginal vote to leave which was bad enough but now the Tories are intent on taking that to the extreme in a manner that was never talked about before the vote
So we have what we have and the question is what to do about it? On the one hand Article 50 could be triggered and then the quite absurd demands that May has made can be seen as pie in the sky thinking, or parliament could block the triggering but then what?
I think it probably has to be tried
BUT only if it is revocable
If it isn’t it will be a case of ‘sorry folks: we couldn’t commit economic suicide on your behalf’
George – you seem very confused – so much so that I am moved to write.
1) What about the people who did not consent to BREXIT? Are they part of this concept of ‘the People’? And should this not inform how we leave?
2) Given the confection of lies that there was before the vote, is the decision of ‘the People’ based on sound information? Since it has been proven and admitted that lies have been told – is the vote still valid at all?
3) Sovereignty is a monarchial concept – it is an enduring factor from the kings of old – and it is Parliament that took sovereignty from the king to be used by it to govern the country – not by the ‘the people’. The People supported Parliament – did they not? Therefore Parliament does have a final say even though people may disagree. It is Parliament who authorised and appropriated sovereignty therefore it lies with them. Any politician claiming any right of governance without consenting to Parliamentary scrutiny is not being democratic and undermining Parliamentary sovereignty. This is in my view disgraceful and a criminal offence. Blair should be in prison for misleading Parliament over Iraq and May is courting contempt of Parliamentary sovereignty as I write – as are too many of her ministers.
4) There was no ‘loan’ of sovereignty to the people in the form of a vote. This is a weird interpretation to be honest. Parliamentary representation was based on a principle of giving legitimacy to MPs who sit in Parliament – so the popularity contest known as the election was created otherwise any Tom, Dick or Harry could turn up claiming to be representative. Could you imagine a parliament heaving with thousands of delegates? It would be impossible. Not a good advert for Parliamentary democracy when you are arguing against the absolute rule of a monarch. From too much power in one individual to power being dispersed through too many. What we have now is a good – but imperfect of course – compromise.
So let us be clear: Parliament is Sovereign – not the People. But the UK system is that the People are allowed to be heard and have there say in the exercise of that Sovereignty but this does not constitute sovereignty in its own right. This is where the advisory concept comes in. I believe this to be the case and that you George are wrong.
5) The people voted to leave which in itself is a principle of sorts. But the other principle was how we leave. That was not voted on during BREXIT (because David Cameron thought he would win – ha, ha, ha ). It should be in the hands of Parliament and it is their problem to solve in the interests of both Leave and Remain camps (see (1) above). This is called ‘good governance’. Also called ‘parliamentary democracy’.
As Richard points out, what we need now is a ‘good exit’ – that is to say that the majority party needs to listen to Parliament so that the act of leaving is carefully orchestrated in a way that does not burn our bridges and causes as little harm as possible. The neo-lib free marketeers on the other hand in the Tory party want as much chaos as possible in order to set up deals with people they have made promises to. Why was Gove in the USA meting Trump?
Considering this, I am truly moved by what Barack Obama said to his supporters recently – it was one of the best speeches I’ve ever heard a Western politician make and gives you a hint of what Obama could have achieved if the Republicans had not dominated both houses of the US State.
Obama said something along the lines that the Trump phenomenon is really just a blip in what will be a long journey towards democracy for the United States – a journey that will span generations.
For me it was something to cling to for my own country – the United Kingdom. Ours maybe an older democracy but like the States it is still imperfect and we share a growing problem in common – the way in which the Top 1% influence government policy.
There is no doubt in my mind that we are going to be leaving the EU whether hard or (hopefully) soft. But I do believe (maybe I have to believe) that one day we will be back in Europe because we will see that we have made a big mistake.
Thanks PSR
Seconded by me
Richard
With respect,
People wern’t informed that the referendum was advisory. Not until after the result went the wrong way.
A desision was made based on reforms that wern’t ever reveled and wern’t secured anyway
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRowLjb0x48
Nonsense
That’s what the law said
The referendum was definitely advisory but given the shameful referendum campaign I’m not surprised many people weren’t informed. An interesting article in the IR from Chris Johns:
“When Theresa May says that the Leave campaign was crystal clear about exiting the single market she is lying.
Boris Johnson, Nigel Farage, Daniel Hannan and many other prominent Leavers can all be looked up on YouTube declaring their affection for the single market and assuring us that free trade with the EU, usually via a Norway/Swiss-style associate membership, would not be threatened by Brexit.
‘Orwellian’ is an overused term, but seems particularly apposite right now. May spent most of her time at the Home Office failing to curb immigration despite being single-mindedly devoted to that objective.
She can now resume the fight, but this time with more chance of success.”
http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/chris-johns-theresa-may-continues-to-lie-about-brexit-1.2941575
Orwell is attributed as saying “1894 was a warning not a blueprint.” Lying about the past is the hallmark of a totalitarian regime.
“The government has a duty to find out the consequences of exercising Article 50 before acting.”
I disagree: the government can work out the consequences of exercising article 50 now, and act accordingly with prudence. If art. 50 turns out to be revocable, so much the better.
So you always do things without knowing the consequences?
And you think that wise?
John – I agree with Richard that trying to work things out and anticipate is always a good idea but the fact remains that:
1) the civil service has been decimated by ideologically driven austerity driven cuts – numbers and expertise in the Service are down – who would do this work of working out the consequences in departments pushed already?
2) to work out the consequences implies thinking before doing. Given that the Tories have an election in 2020, they do not want to be accused of slowing things down whilst they attempt to work out the consequences. And plenty of rabid BREXITEERS would be there to stick the knife in – including those in the Tory party like Liam Fox and David Davis. It could rip the Tories apart and May knows it. Prudence will not be accepted by the gung-ho likes of UKIP, the Daily Mail, Telegraph and Sun.
To be fair, the Tories are in the same boat as anyone else wanting to have a reasoned withdrawal – they will just attract a negative reaction and the ‘hoi polloi’ will join in. There is no doubt though that the Tories will win 2020 on the basis that they at the party to take us out. I think that that is why May is going for a hard BREXIT.
Even if the Tories were to deal with each problem as it arose, does it have enough resources to deal with them given the decimation of the civil service since 2010? You can plan and have a strategy as much as you like but you cannot anticipate everything and therein lies the danger.
Which is why we shouldn’t be doing this in the bloody first place.
And what is David Cameron up to these days?
You’ve made the moral case eloquently, Richard. There’s also a pretty sound tactical case.
Suppose Labour fought the implementation of A50 bitterly. Line by line, clause by clause, outraged objections of “we didn’t vote to make ourselves poorer” or “taking this route will mean ruin for Britain’s hardworking fishermen/farmers/car manufacturers.” One of the constraints on government power is parliamentary time. It’s hard to get all the legislation passed, even dull stuff like road widening etc. The time spent fighting to get brexit through would be time the government is not implementing nasty welfare reforms or re-legalising fox hunting.
Next it would unite the party. The PLP was 96% Remain 4% Leave. And even the Leavers didn’t vote for a Ukip-oriented hard brexit.
It would also rally most of the non-Labour opposition: the LibDems, the Greens, SNP, PC.
It would raise the terrifying prospect of a backbench revolt against the goverment’s bill which means the government might back down on some of the more hardline stances they have taken.
It would also point the media at the shakiness of the government’s position. A strong parliamentary opposition followed by the government backing down on immigration (eg trading off some freedom of movement for some freedom of trade) would generate howls of outrage from the right wing tabloids.
Labour presumably are supporting the government because they don’t want to antagonise Leave voting white working class people but instead they’re disappointing everyone by appearing like they have no idea what to do. It’s a tactical blunder.
Agreed
Richard, I agree with a lot of what you say, I would also like to add that the decision should not be based mostly on financial data. I have spent a certain amount of my time discussing with those in the financial industry that there are many other factors on which to base a decision: the administration, the environment (political, legal, technical, etc. – you know the model), the human factor and the strategic factor. What do you think?
I agree
Finance is but one issue in many, and not the most important
Building on Stabs point – we have the situation where the leadership of the 2 main parties plus UKIP are taking us down a path that a majority of MPs (most Labour, many Tory, all SNP, LibDem and Green) think is profoundly bad for the country. At the moment very few of them are prepared to stand up either to their leadership or to a predominantly hostile media. The pro-Brexit part of the public is very noisy but arguably as yet the Remain side has been quieter, whilst the evidence of the damage it would cause keeps developing.
There has been talk of a broad coalition but this has assumed that they would be working together on the full range of issues, as a potential alternative to the Tories. However, Im concluding that the broad coalition is unlikely to happen as they would find it impossible to agree on the broad range of issues and are too tribal. However, perhaps there is alternative, given the seriousness of Brexit which overrides and shapes everything else. What might work is a coalition just on Brexit alone. It might be possible to get a time limited agreement on shall we say a very soft-Brexit as a desirable endpoint, maybe retaining membership of the EEA for example. With sufficient MPS there would be a degree of safety in numbers.
They would need support in terms of campaigning, directly targeting the consequences of the hard Brexit now on the table, and positively promoting the alternative. I still think that the business community might yet be engaged to support this sort of campaign, given their concerns. At the moment no-one is representing their interests – Im excluding the fringe end of business such as oil/gas, JCB et all. They might even be a source of funding for what is intrinsically not a party political campaign.
One can see organisations and MPs who could be the start point for such an initiative, such as Open Britain. We need something much more challenging and we need it soon. Every month that goes by, we are sliding further into the abyss and it becomes harder to crawl back out
I agree, but:
“Those explanations would require that Labour suggest that exercising Article 59 now is reckless because …” has a typo 🙂
Sorry!
Hi Richard,
I really enjoying reading your blog. You do make a lot of sense.
Is it not about time you put yourself forward as a political candidate? Is it not the best way to make things change?
Best regards,
Jonathan
I am not temprementally suited to the MPs life
I could advise the right person
If we had a revised second chamber I might be interested