Never Mind the Brexiters - Labour should support a People’s Vote

Guardian columnist Owen Jones tweeted at weekend, and expanded in a well-written article about why he thinks it dangerous to call for a People's Vote on the Brexit deal, suggesting that it would not only be ineffective but  counterproductive and divisive. I challenged him on his thinking, he told me to go away and read it before responding. So I have, and am. Here are the reasons why I think we absolutely should continue to fight for a People's Vote on the government Brexit deal, and why Labour should support it.

Firstly, the way the referendum was won is increasingly brought into question, with the Electoral Commission actually talking about UKdemocracy being under threat.

We all know that political campaigns indulge in bending of the truth and rules, and that both sides did so during the Referendum. But in this case every main plank of Leave arguments – EU budget contributions, immigration controls, EU laws, £350m per week NHS "Brexit Dividend" are proven complete lies in the face of political reality. Electoral Commission findings show breaches of the law, even without considering Cambridge Analytica involvement, indications of links to Russia, and the precise whereabouts of all that money. Does the argument "both sides lied, and broke some spending rules", make the Referendum more, or less, legitimate? Would the UK likely call into question the legitimacy of an election on foreign soil won under these conditions? I think they would.

(Imagine if just one time the Electoral Commission had the power and the guts to say "The rules set out for this election were clearly and deliberately breached, therefore the result is null and void". They would only have to do so once to change the game forever.)

Secondly, Labour's six tests, and Jeremy Corbyn's "not a single job lost to Brexit"pledge already mean that if Labour were to live up to their slogans they would support a vote on the deal, as the deal with absolute certainty won't meet our tests, and jobs have already gone.

Over 100,000 people marched in London asking for a People’s vote, and at the time of writing 140,000+ have signed a petition in support. The movement is clearly cross-party, as demonstrated by those who spoke at the event, but a significant proportion would likely be Labour supporters whose views are currently being ignored. That in itself should make a democratic organisation thoughtful.

As reported this week, some in the Parliamentary Labour Party are pushing for a vote in conference over the issue. This is bound to be reported in the news as "more Labour splits", and as "another attack on Corbyn", instead of being what it is - an attempt to have the party listen to the voices of many of its members on this.

The arguments Owen puts contain a couple false assertions in my opinion - firstly that the People's Vote campaign is for a second referendum (to be fair, he says this will be how it will be framed by Leavers, and I certainly agree). But it should specifically be something else. If the question was "We asked before if we should leave - should we really?" then clearly the vote would likely follow the dividing lines of the original. But as the People's Vote question, assuming we could get it framed as we’d like, which we know is far from certain, would be along the lines of "Does the deal that government has agreed make it worth our while leaving?" Then the result could be quite different, given that many prominent Leavers are now telling everyone that the deal we are likely to get will be rubbish.

Owen also mentions the need to win over the hearts and minds of “Remain voters resigned to the result”. But those voters are resigned to it precisely because both main parties say it will happen. What else could they be except resigned to it? In a recent poll 72% of Labour supporters were unhappy with Brexit, but if Leadership says it’s going to happen anyway, the choice is reduce to “like it or lump it”. If the party offered a vote on the final deal with an option to remain in the EU, that demographic disappears instantly.

A regular argument is raised using anecdotal evidence that Labour MPs in Leave areas are being asked why we haven't left - well I'd think the answer to that is clear. We haven't left because the agreement we signed doesn't allow us to leave until March 2019, and we'll be tied to the EU for many years after that. But it always strikes me as odd that MPs in Leave-supporting constituencies should take their orders from their constituents, yet MPs in Remain-supporting ones, such as Kate Hoey and one Jacob Rees Mogg no less, get to ignore theirs. There seems to be a bit of a double standard at play.

I also don’t buy the idea that “We have to go for Soft Brexit because we won’t win anything else in Parliament”. To their credit Labour, with only the usual exceptions, voted to give Parliament a say in the event of No Deal. Tory rebels who vowed to stand firm in support of that idea, didn’t. There is little to suggest they won’t be bullied, cajoled or conned in the same way over any Labour ideas of Soft Brexit. In fact moreso, because the Lords amendments were cross-bench, whereas the Soft Brexit amendments would be Labour’s children. Would Tory rebels defy the Will of the People, and their own party, to support a Labour amendment? I won’t put money on it.

It’s possible that Labour resistance to a People’s Vote could be based on actually hoping that government will crash into a bad deal, or even No Deal Brexit, bringing the downfall of May, a General Election and Labour sweeping into power (Clearly this is a plan they could never admit to).

But Tory Brexiters could actually be hoping for the same. Once they are over the Brexit Day deadline they have no further use for Theresa May and will want her gone. The government that comes next will be seen to be managing the worst economic situation for decades, possibly in living memory, and Tory Brexiters may be ready to stand back from that mess for a couple of years. A Labour government would have no capacity in the economy to implement any noble plans they may have. Tories have established skills in blaming Labour mismanagement for the country’s ills. Plus they can point to Labour's 2017 manifesto commitments & say "They wanted Brexit too". A government presiding over an economic crisis would be unlikely to last a full term, and Hard Right Tories could walk back into power for a generation.

It's certainly true that the anger from the right in parliament and press would erupt if there was a People's vote, and would continue if the deal was voted down. But how angry are they now, when they won? They haven't exactly taken their foot off the gas, have they? As before, they will have heated emotion on their side, and Remainers will have facts. But those facts aren't the dull nuanced predictions of the Referendum - jobs leaving in their tens of thousands daily paints a very sharp image. And some of those who will lose their jobs to Brexit will have voted Leave believing it would help them. They may not believe the emotional message a second time.

No-one thinks for a minute that a People's Vote wouldn't be a tough fight, very divisive and could lead to a Leave vote. But how is that much worse than where we are now?