
First of all, there is the problem of time. Theresa May has left us perilously close to the deadline of March 2019, perhaps deliberately hoping that the fear of no deal will enable her to garner sufficient parliamentary support for her deal. If Labour is to make the argument convincingly that the alternative is not “no deal”, the party has to explain how it will take over, either as a minority government or through a general election and negotiate a new deal in a few short weeks. Even if the EU were to agree to further negotiations, is this feasible? Surely it would require an extension of Article 50 but would the EU agree to this on the basis of the further ‘purgatory’ of endless negotiations? The party has to explain how it will take over, either as a minority government or through a general election and negotiate a new deal in a few short weeks.
Overcoming polarisation?
Secondly, is there a more sensible deal that would meet Labour’s six tests and meet their stated goal of overcoming the polarisation between leavers and remainers? The agreement made by May with Brussels is not actually the deal. It is an agreement on the terms of withdrawal covering money, citizenship rights and the Northern Ireland border and a rather vaguely worded political declaration about the content of a future deal that would govern the relationship between the UK and the EU. Basically, everything remains much the same during the transition period. The political declaration about the content of a final deal commits us to the single market and probably the customs union for goods, although there are caveats, but allows for future control of immigration and is rather vague about everything else. It is a bespoke framework that is close to the Norway and Switzerland options but with control of immigration.
How would Labour’s version be different? According to John McDonnell, it would involve a permanent customs union and more of the single market; it would mean a relationship that is closer to the EU than May’s deal. Such a deal would not meet Labour’s own six tests and would be no more popular than May’s deal. The second of Labour’s six tests is that it must offer the ‘exact same benefits’ as our current membership. The main objection to Theresa May’s agreement would equally apply to an agreement negotiated by Labour. In both scenarios, we would have no say on the EU rules that we would then have to adopt, only some sort of ‘consultation’ might be allowed. Such a deal might be marginally better than May’s deal for jobs, the NHS, the environment and for science and it would ensure that the border between Ireland and Northern Ireland would be kept open. But it would represent a huge diminution of sovereignty – less not more control – and would thus satisfy no one. It would rule out the possibility of contributing to desperately needed European reforms, thus committing us to neoliberal rules in perpetuity. Indeed what is weird about Labour’s insistence on the Customs Union is that it is the most neo-liberal part of the EU architecture.

Ambiguity is just not possible now
Third, will Labour get a chance to renegotiate a more ‘sensible’ deal? Will there be a minority government or a general election? Will May survive a vote of no confidence? May’s deal like the Chequers deal is hugely unpopular; there is a hardening of both remain and leave positions and neither side supports the deal. Even if such a deal got through Parliament as a result of support from Tory soft Brexiteers, it would weaken Labour’s electoral position. Despite Theresa May’s lamentable performance, Labour is still neck and neck with the Tories in the polls. Such a deal will not win back the hardcore leave voters who switched first to UKIP and then to the Conservatives in recent elections, any more than Ed Miliband’s commitment to the ‘controls on immigration’ won him back voters from the Conservatives. The Tories are just more convincing on Brexit and control of immigration – these are right-wing issues. To win, Labour needs to capture the remain vote that is currently despairing about the government yet disaffected with Labour’s stance on Brexit. Labour’s ambiguity on Brexit may have helped during the 2017 election because it allowed both leavers and remainers to assume that Labour was on their side; that ambiguity is just not possible now.
Remain and reform
So what alternative could Labour offer to May’s deal, other than ‘no deal’, given the constraints on time and the difficulty of finding a compromise between leavers and remainers?
In the end, the best option is ‘remain and reform’. We need to keep our close relationship with the EU for a host of reasons – jobs, Northern Ireland, climate change, security or research and universities. But if we are to address the real concerns of the leave voters we need to be inside the EU campaigning for a change of rules. It is beyond absurd that a constitutional decision of this importance should be taken on the basis of negotiations within the Tory party and with the EU. There needs to be a genuine constitutional debate throughout the country – a debate about the kind of society we want to live in and how to tackle the deep-seated problems linked to jobs, housing, health, and, above all, democracy that led to the howl of anguish represented by the Brexit vote. There has to be a debate on the European mainland as well. Europeans are facing many of the same problems and reforming the European Union has to be part of the agenda.
Of course, there needs to be a public vote to reverse the decision to leave but it needs to be part of a far-reaching deliberative exercise in both Britain and mainland Europe. The huge demonstration for a People’s Vote on October 20 and the continued protests represent a social movement in the making. The overwhelming majority of Labour members are pro-remain; many of the marchers were Labour and there were clear left messages on the march, if not on the platform. This is Labour’s opportunity. It could be leading this new social movement and linking it directly to the legitimate concerns of leave voters and it could be leading the campaign against the rise of fascism across the whole of Europe. This is the moment when Labour needs to call for the extension of Article 50 and a UK wide and Europe-wide debate.
This post represents the views of the author and not those of the LSE Brexit blog, nor the LSE. It previously appeared on Open Democracy.
Mary Kaldor CBE is Professor of Global Governance at the London School of Economics and Director of the Civil Society and Human Security Research Unit.
“Of course, there needs to be a public vote to reverse the decision to leave but it needs to be part of a far-reaching deliberative exercise in both Britain and mainland Europe. The huge demonstration for a People’s Vote on October 20 and the continued protests represent a social movement in the making. The overwhelming majority of Labour members are pro-remain; many of the marchers were Labour and there were clear left messages on the march, if not on the platform. This is Labour’s opportunity. It could be leading this new social movement and linking it directly to the legitimate concerns of leave voters and it could be leading the campaign against the rise of fascism across the whole of Europe. This is the moment when Labour needs to call for the extension of Article 50 and a UK wide and Europe-wide debate”
– move the goalposts, cancel referendum result (fell outside ‘acceptable decision criteria’-) re-run until correct result acheived.
– Pure EU stuff that.
oh, and the slush fund? the bung?
Absolute rubbish!
Another attempt to inject Russian style mind bending “remain” propaganda.
We leavers are far too thick to be able to make a decision, remember we didn’t know what we were voting for!!!!!
So it wouldn’t be a fair second vote anyway!
And if it were close we can ignore it, after all any further vote can only be advisory!
Then the parliamentarians can argue for another ten years, we can then have another and another and!!!
We will need to absorb this time the full detail of the deal, so far 580 or so pages.
We will need therefore a vote on at least ten subject matters.
And if it goes to remain then we should have a third vote, that’s only one all!
Blimey,
Shouts of uncertainty will carry on for further years whilst the campaign machines gear up, borris will have fleets of busses around the U.K..
Government will spend further millions with leaflets telling us minions what we should do, ( thats not against rules) huh!
Ann sour face will be running around telling us we should stay in the German republic of Europe where nothing happens without merkel say so.
Italy will be tamed, Greece will be punished.
Do not think you can leave this camp without repercussions, this camp that you didn’t vote to join originally.
Are you mad???!!
I’m not mad, I’m furious!
Respect the vote!
I seriously hope the present mayhem results in a walk away.
Stop using the words hard, and crash.
They are further examples of attempts to twist our minds.
There is nothing wrong with WTO rules.
Sit back and watch the panick setting in in Europe, sit back and watch the pound fall and our exports as a.result flourish.
Watch the queue of countries wanting our money.
Use the £39b bribe money in our own country.for a whole raft of needs.
Watch the government support businesses like steel ( which they cannot under euro rules) because of unfair subsidies elsewhere.
And watch the dictatorship and bullying EU collapse and national identities resume.
Bring it on!
Well Dennis, you can’t be sure if the troll is a shill or just egging Leavers on. The entire exercise since Cameron threw in the towel has been a travesty. Unreal in a way, but it’s happening. One has to adjust to the new reality. The Kalergi plan, or whatever it is, has been going since WWII, if not before. To deal with it, one has to exercise patience and gain an understanding in how it works. Fuming is unlikely to clear the picture.
Jacob
I’m calm thank you.
I’m also half German, so have been known to have a rant every so often.
The prime minister is signing away the ability of the U.K. to decide for itself it’s destiny,
We can only do something if the European 27 say we can.
Many people have died in defence against such dictatorship.
All in the name of money!
That’s all!!
Yes, btw, have you read a 2001 Bruges Group speech by Christopher Booker. How has the MSM been able to keep the wraps on that for 17 years?
Ms. Kaldor — You are urging Labor to a particular course of action based on what’s best for Britain. Instead, you should be asking what course of action would be best for Corbyn and Labor.
Coming out in favor of Remain at this time would be very bad strategy for Labor. If they firmly push Remain, they anger a big portion of their base. Successfully preventing Brexit would be even worse — Brexiters will now be free to pretend that a glorious Brexit was treacherously averted by Corbyn and May. It is not clear if there is electoral gain for Labor in this.
Labor should be pushing towards a covert “disaster Socialism” scenario where the situation gets so bad under the Conservatives that the electorate is willing to put Corbyn and Labor in.
To accomplish this, what is needed from Corbyn is some sort of half-hearted dithering with “will of the people” and “all options on the table” thrown in. Just don’t take responsibility for anything, but always appear very very concerned. Inasmuch as this bears resemblance to current strategy, it indicates that the sharp minds in the Labor leadership are also in agreement.
A convenient “disaster” could best be accomplished through few months of a “no deal” Brexit (or “May deal” Brexit), brought about by Labor voting against May’s agreement and then half-heartedly preventing a parliamentary majority for any option (including remain or referendum).
The economy will be a mess, and the May government on the brink of collapse. But this also leaves Corbyn’s hands clean (“We would have done much better! This is May’s mess!”) and in a position to advocate for a Norway style deal at a time that people will just be relieved to have the whole thing behind them.
Labor may even support a second referendum at that time, with their deal or no-deal as options – just to keep the pot stirred and the Conservatives divided.
What about the Remainer majority in Labor? They will fret and fume for a few months after March, take a good look at UKIP/Conservatives, and vote Labor. Lexiters will likewise be happy to come back home, victorious and chastened.
The current course of action with an apparently muddled Corbyn advocating a General Election while non-committal about a second election is totally brilliant and just what is needed in the best interests of Labor.
Raju
What you spell out here is guerrila tactics in order to achieve Labour Party power.
The sacrifice of uk. Democracy and independence cannot be justified for that aspiration.
That’s the issue st heart here, that serves to divide the U.K.
Self serving interest instead of interest that serves the country..
My views about independent U.K. are contrary to my business best interest, however my business and all business interests do not userp the reason that two wars were fought for.
Yes, Raju is quite up-front about the best pseudo-socialist, I would say, Stalinist, methodus operandus politicus, but as to self-serving… if it came to pass that Corbyn’s Labour, or even a Bliarite Labour were to attain government, how could it serve the interests of people such as Raju? Would Raju get a pension enough to allow him/her to retire to wherever luxuriating while Britain burns?
It is a strange logic which leads people to support a cause which is clearly detrimental to the well-being and proper functioning of the nation-state. The Internationale is a strange political beast. What would it do for the plebs if a world socalled government were to come about? It would be a terrible dictatorship, as there would be no other way it could, even minimally, function.
The socialist ideal on its own is gravely deficient. It needs to be part of a trinity, the other parts being democratic government and Common Law, overseen by spiritual honesty about the reality of human existence. That will take some time before people get it. The term “useful idiot” has been used to describe politically active people who allow themselves to be used by some ideology or other, the which in almost all events is a vehicle for the grabbing of total power over others. Raju, being quite open about it, appears to take an academic view of the matter. Good on him/her, as it facilitates open debate.
In that regard, “For Your Own Good” is the ever recurring theme of abusers from the most mundane level, in the family unit, to the highest levels of human organisation. I find it remarkable, yet not surprising, that the abuse in family units so clearly mirrors the treatment of peoples and nations by those in power, who, lets not forget, only arrive by a position of power over others by methods good, good governance resting on civic trust, and methods bad, the whole gamut of dirty dealing, bluff, bluster, intimidation, fear mongering, abuse of people’s trust and the legitimate power of the state and violence.
If the UK were to Remain in the EU now, it would leave us in a position of weakness and no authority. The idea that we could lead a campaign for reform of the EU is just laughable. The blogger has lost all sense of reality.
Mary Kaldor has been taken in.
As a professor academic and all academics at LSE should read the link below.
https://campaignforanindependentbritain.org.uk/britain-europe-bruges-group/
Yes it is published by campaign for independent Britain, but the speach by Christopher Booker is persuasive that we have all been taken in and will be taken over if we do not be aware.
My thanks to Jacob above for pointing this out.
If the British public were more aware there would be much resistance to the federal state.
As for Blair
We know when he is lying
His mouth opens!!!!!!!
The main ‘real concerns of leave voters’ was immigration, not EU economic policy such as it is, (remember that the Uk is not even in the Eurozone) so I assume that the rules Mary Kaldor wants to change are those over free movement. Basically this piece is pandering to Euroscepticism, or rather it’s a display of it.
Remember too that millions of leave voters were people whose lives are perfectly comfortable: they are not poor, they are just bigoted people dreaming of the British empire. Are you intending to take account of their ‘real concerns’ ?
The problems, real problems faced by the UK are all of the UK’s own making. They have nothing, nothing to do with the way the EU operates. So to hell with ‘remain and reform’. The message should be ‘remain’. Full stop.
” they are just bigoted people dreaming of the British empire. ”
Thank you for sharing your bigotry with us.
Every single debate in the referendum campaign featured leave voters whose motivation for voting that way was that they wanted fewer foreigners in the UK. That’s an empirical observation, not bigotry.
Charles
Cambridge dictionary
Bigot
a person who has strong, unreasonable beliefs and who does not like other people who have different beliefs or a different way of life:
I have no dislike of you.
There are very few leave voters that I have encountered that dislike those who voted stay.
It is you who calls “leave voters bigots”
What does that make you?
It doesn’t make me anything in particular. I don’t like bigotry, whatever form it takes. I have yet to hear any leave campaigners offer a coherent argument for leaving the EU. All I have heard is little Englander prejudice. I have heard them threatening civil disturbances if we end up remaining in the EU. There has not been one instance of remain voters threatening leave voters. There have by contrast been numerous cases of people being attacked in public merely for speaking Spanish or Polish. The leave side is not full of racists by any means, but almost all the out and out racists in the Uk favour leave over remain. It would of course be highly amusing if the effect of their vote was to decrease the proportion of white European Christians in the UK. I wonder what they will do then.
Charles
I personally have been threatened, abused, and insulted.
I’ve been called a bigot, ( by you)!a racist, an idiot, an old faggot that should die as soon as possible ( on one of these forums)
“I don’t know of one leaver who has been threatened”
There is your example of one person.
See this link.
https://news.sky.com/story/police-plan-for-civil-unrest-after-no-deal-brexit-11493685
Police plan for civil unrest after no deal Brexit!
Tell me please how many leavers will be advocating civil unrest in a hard Brexit?
The picture painted by many remainers is one of resentment that they didn’t get their way, therefore they will disrupt in any way they can.
There were lies ON BOTH sides.
But the biggest lie is about to unfold this week.
“ we will honour the result”
There were no caveats.
There were no “ well we will only half honour”
I think that it would be fair to say that during the campaign there was 100% warnings that a hard Brexit would damage the country.
That cannot be denied.
But the majority of those who voted, non the less voted out.
In the biggest turnout in the U.K. for generations.
Do not say that we did not know what we were voting for. We were told, and we still voted out!
Out it should be.
Charles
If you haven’t heard a coherent arguement for leaving
Please read this from academic Christopher Booker.
https://campaignforanindependentbritain.org.uk/britain-europe-bruges-group/
My personal views are irrelevant and unlikely to bear any influence.
But
My view on this original article are as follows.
Europe won’t let us leave.
We try to negotiate but they say no is the answer what is the question!
So according to Labour Party we should now change our government because of Europe’s intransigence.
Or we should stay within Europe because EU don’t wish to respect the vote.
Moreover they are actually encouraging a sovereign state to ignore our democratic decision.
Unbelievable that they should seek to interfere where will that end?
What sort of of cockeyed version of democracy is that??
If we reverse the decision we will certainly carry no influence whatsoever, because we will be tail between legs.
Reform is therefore very very unlikely, that’s the basis of business negotiation, he who is strongest wins.
If remainers wish to reverse the decision they should have a vote on that.
BUT
Not before we leave, only after.
The government must carry out the instruction, else democracy in the uk is dead.
17.5 million people in the uk may never vote again, because it’s mesningless.
That could mean a government can be elected by as few as 20% of the voting public.
That means the door is wide open to extremism.
A vote to be part of the EU can quite rightly be done if there is a parliamentary decision any time after March 2019.
That way democracy is seen to be carried out.
And that is important, more important than just money.