The repeated
defeats for the government over the Brexit bill in the House of Lords are
certainly a problem for the Prime Minister.
Much of the so-called ‘progress’ in negotiations with the EU27 has been
achieved by simply kicking the can further and further down the road, whilst
phase 1 of the real negotiations – those internal to the Conservative Party –
continues, not only with no sign of resolution, but with every indication of
hardening attitudes and increasing bitterness.
And until the successful conclusion of that phase 1, something looking
less likely on a daily basis, substantive discussions with the EU27 will remain
where they have been since day 1, namely making limited progress in private
meetings on some of the technical details, but getting absolutely nowhere on
the key issues.
But their
lordships have caused an even bigger problem for the Labour Party – and more
specifically, for its leader. With the
requirement to negotiate continued membership of the single market, via the
European Economic Area, now included in the Bill, the House of Commons will
have to vote very explicitly to either retain that amendment or to overturn
it. It seems highly probable that, on an
entirely free vote, the Commons would vote to retain the amendment, whilst on a
whipped vote, sufficient Labour and Tory MPs would be prepared to follow their respective leaders to
kill the amendment. It’s a crunch point
for Corbyn, even more so than for May. Corbyn has an open goal in front of him; a chance to lead his party into a
vote which would almost certainly see the downfall of the current Prime
Minister and government, and possible even a catastrophic split opening up
inside the Tory Party, yet all the indications are that he will opt to throw
May a lifeline and support her determination to leave the single market, and
her entirely debunked argument that it is somehow possible to have the ‘exact
same benefits’ without membership.
There is, of
course, something to be said for a political leader who decides that sticking
to his core beliefs is more important than seizing party political advantage;
principles are still important to some of us at least. The problem, in this case, is in identifying
exactly what those principles are.
Replying to the five Labour MPs from North-East England, who have broken
ranks to call for a referendum on the terms of Brexit, a spokesperson for
Corbyn was reported
as saying that ‘staying in the EEA could undermine a future Labour government’s
ability “to intervene” in UK industries with particular issues around state aid
and reversing privatisation’. The
problem with this is that the argument that membership of the EU somehow
prevents a government from nationalising industries or providing state aid has
been thoroughly debunked
many times, including by people
within Labour itself. What
membership of the EU prevents is not state aid or nationalisation per se, only
forms of state aid or nationalisation which give unfair competitive advantage
to a business. And that’s something also
banned by WTO rules, and something to which I suspect Labour itself would
strongly object if done elsewhere with the aim of undercutting UK industries.
That leaves us
with the rather vague objection that membership of the single market whilst
being outside the EU would leave the UK as a rule-taker rather than a
rule-maker; obliged to follow the rules whilst having so say in their
preparation and agreement. It’s entirely
true, of course. But it’s going to be
equally true of any arrangement which comes anywhere near providing the ‘exact
same benefits’, and Labour are being utterly dishonest in continuing to argue
otherwise. It is clear by now, even if
it wasn’t before, that there are only three options open to the UK: the
complete break favoured by the ideological Brexiteers; continued membership of
the single market through the EEA whilst being outside the structures of the EU
itself; and remaining a full member of the EU.
Outside the
hard-core Brexiteers of the Tory Party (a comparatively small group in reality),
parliamentary opinion looks to be divided between the second and third option,
largely as a result of differing opinions on whether the referendum result was
absolute and final or whether in the light of evidence and shifting opinions there
is value in asking the people to confirm or change the decision taken by
referendum. The tragedy is that it is
the first option which is looking increasingly likely as the Brexit tail wags
the dog, ably aided and abetted by an opposition party whose leader seems
determined to support the hard-core Brexiteers for reasons which even he
himself seems unable to articulate clearly to anyone.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment