Anyone still barking ‘Brexit means Brexit’ should be ashamed of themselves

PUBLISHED: 17:29 16 June 2017

Young anti-Brexit protesters demonstrate at the gates of Downing Street in central London after the UK voted to leave the European Union.

Young anti-Brexit protesters demonstrate at the gates of Downing Street in central London after the UK voted to leave the European Union.

PA Archive/PA Images

The election taught us the importance of nuance which was missing amid the misplaced certainties of last year’s referendum. Now, we desperately need to hang on to it

There is a hard core of commentators – ok, one or two – so wedded to a conservative victory that they still insist it happened. Most, however, concede that Jeremy Corbyn did much better than anyone imagined…. I was going to leave that there for modesty, but sod it: I did imagine it.

I knew a progressive alliance, or anti-Tory alliance, was happening on the ground, and I knew that something would come of it. Back in May, a colleague put his hands to his temples, cast his eyes to the ceiling as if beseeching the gods for patience, and said: “There’s going to be a Tory landslide, unless the unicorns ride in to save us.” I’m just laying out terms – every time I say, “unexpected”, I mean, “by other people”. Anyway, many reasons, all of them valid, have been given for the unforeseen results: a great campaign by Labour, leading to a high youth turn-out, especially in university towns; and a woeful campaign by the Conservatives, leading the nation to finally find its gag reflex.

Brexit naturally features in these analyses, but so far in typically binary and unfalsifiable ways; the result was either a rejection of Hard Brexit (the broad progressive view) or an endorsement of Brexit generally (the Conservative view, marshalling results like Richmond Park, in which the freak anti-Brexit Lib Dem victory in the by-election was narrowly overturned).

The true picture is more complicated: I had never heard the phrase “strategic ambiguity” until this election, and now I find myself using it all the time. Labour’s position on Brexit was ambiguous – I was never close enough to the campaign to know whether or not this was strategic, but it worked out too well for them to write off the possibility. Broadly, their framing and rhetoric allowed people in Leave areas to believe they meant Leave, while people in Remain areas believed they would, at the very least, oppose the Tories’ belligerent stance. The vagueness is especially salient in the youth vote: there is an astonishing graph of voting by age, in which the proportion of voters for Remain / Labour track each other precisely among the young, while the same is true for Leave / Conservative among the old.

The hive mind decided, effectively, that voting for a blank Remain – turn back the clocks, start again – would have meant voting Lib Dem, and wouldn’t work. Meanwhile, a vote for Labour would at least be a vote for the values of openness, modernity and international cooperation and cross-pollination that Remain holds dear.

As for those Leavers who voted Labour anyway, they tended to the view – so far this is anecdotal, from reporters on the ground – that Brexit was a done deal which didn’t need to inform their decision, leaving them free to choose a party on other grounds, like the NHS and social care.

May’s “strong and stable” mantra backfired spectacularly, in any case: it was tacitly underpinned by the idea that we were entering very choppy waters, and needed to uphold the status quo above all. Yet the Brexit narrative was very gung-ho, typified by Boris Johnson’s asinine assertions that everything was going perfectly well in the best of all possible worlds. It turns out that people will believe what a government says, for a period, unless they’re predisposed not to: but what they won’t do is believe both what a government says (Brexit is brilliant) and what a government implies (Brexit is very risky) when those things contradict one another.

UKIP voters, meanwhile, rebutted the assumption that their votes would automatically migrate to May, once UKIP were seen as a busted flush. Some voted Conservative, some stayed at home, some went Labour. However mixed the picture, it was enough to hold a lot of Labour seats, particularly in Wales and the North East, which the Conservatives had thought were in the bag. In hindsight, this is all pretty obvious: what isn’t obvious is how Labour managed to walk that tightrope – to be seen as ready to enact Brexit, while recognising the depths of its complication and jeopardy – without taking a hit to its support.

It is partly the clear conflict within Corbyn himself. A man seemingly incapable of telling a lie, and certainly incapable of that assured political dissemblance, answering and not answering, committing yet evading, he was always, plainly, vexed on the EU, never more than a “seven out of 10” (at a push, as he memorably corrected, “a seven and a half”).

This did for him in the referendum itself and enraged many Remainers, myself included, with its painful inadequacy, in the face of the Leave side’s trenchant certainty. Yet things have changed: as the picture has unfolded, we’ve all realised that certainties were unfounded and misplaced, that a bit of nuance was essential but missing in the original debate, and remains vital in the execution of its result. Politicians have to be able to recognise the faults inherent in any gigantic set of institutions, while celebrating the cooperation they foster when they work. What could be more reasonable? It is only a shame that it took the cartoonish intransigence of the Hard Brexit Conservatives, each fresh complexity eliciting more of their bullish simplicity, before the benefits of a subtler view could be appreciated.

Paradoxically, the divisions within the party, held by received wisdom to be the death of any electoral prospects, helped as well. Those within Labour who were implacably opposed to Corbyn’s leadership kept pretty quiet on the large issues.

But there was a large element of the PLP who were broadly on the “left” of the party but managed to make their own distinct points. Keir Starmer, while he supported Corbyn and had his support, nevertheless carved out a discrete place for himself: he was an authentic, unapologetic Remainer but was ready to enact Brexit; and he had a positive vision.

He wasn’t asking “Hard or Soft?”, but “how do we get a better Brexit?” Can we think bigger than protecting worker and environmental rights? Can we expand and strengthen them? Can we look beyond panicky trade and tariff deals, and ask how to support our own industries while cooperating with others? Can we have a constructive conversation with one another about immigration numbers, workers talking to employers, universities talking to local authorities, devolved, respectful, generative debates that are a bit more sophisticated than a cat fight between “none” and “all”?

Clive Lewis, meanwhile, had set out his stall by voting against triggering Article 50 – which, by the way, was the right thing to do. It was an act of the most appalling hubris to trigger a time-limited, nation-changing process and then call a general election. Lewis managed, in a way that embodies the new politics and wouldn’t have been possible when loyalty was an MP’s only quality, to give voice to what must still be a significant element of the Labour party.

The MPs who will not, in conscience, cast a vote that they know to be against the national interest; those who are pro-business yet simultaneously pro-society, and will not swallow any narrative which relies on one against the other. Taken altogether – with Emily Thornberry and her often over-looked career in human rights law – the Labour team provided more than just nuance and pluralism. They managed, in their disagreements as much as in their moments of unity, to look like plausible people with expertise, patriotism, courage, intelligence and humility, which threw the Conservative Brexit team into the most dramatic relief.

Obviously, the question now is how to turn that strategic ambiguity into meaningful opposition to May’s government, constructive participation in the Brexit talks and consolidated support from voters come the next election.

There are so many variables it’s like playing a game of chess in which all the pieces might at any time decide to move on their own; and, also, are cats. We do not know how long May will last as leader, nor how long the party will last with its ramshackle ‘confidence and supply’ deal. We do not know how serious a threat is posed to the ‘governing’ party by its own high-profile Remain wing, featuring its only extant former prime ministers. It is important for Labour not to get mired in its own stance on the single market – John McDonnell seems ready to scotch it before many other members of the party, but fighting to unify is less of a priority than allowing detailed and open debate about a complicated question. Pluralism has never been more important. Nobody voted in the referendum with any clear idea of what would happen to the single market or the customs union. To allow their destruction on rhetorical grounds would be an unforced error.

Labour should push a few principles, which would align with the election 
they just fought: the Conservatives have neither the mandate nor the talent to negotiate this alone; the country has never voted to make itself permanently poorer, and mature, actionable parliamentary debates must be held on every fundamental; anyone barking “Brexit means Brexit” while serious people are trying to pick their way through serious territory should be ashamed of themselves.

Support The New European's vital role as a voice for the 48%

The New European is proud of its journalism and we hope you are proud of it too. We believe our voice is important - both in representing the pro-EU perspective and also to help rebalance the right wing extremes of much of the UK national press. If you value what we are doing, you can help us by making a contribution to the cost of our journalism.

  • Become a friend of The New European for a contribution of £48. You will qualify for a mention in our newspaper (should you wish)
  • Become a partner of The New European for a contribution of £240. You will qualify for a mention in our newspaper (should you wish) and receive a New European Branded Pen and Notebook
  • Become a patron of The New European for a contribution of £480. You will qualify for a mention in our newspaper (should you wish) and receive a New European Branded Pen and Notebook and an A3 print of The New European front cover of your choice, signed by Editor Matt Kelly

By proceeding, you agree to the New Europeans supporters club Terms & Conditions which can be found here.



Supporter Options

Mention Me in The New European



If Yes, Name to appear in The New European



Latest Articles

Wednesday, October 18, 2017

New Ukip leader Henry Bolton named the party's new 'shadow cabinet' today - and what a bunch they are

Tuesday, October 17, 2017

Catalonians against self-rule came out in their thousands the weekend before last.

Tuesday, October 17, 2017

It might seem quixotic, at a time when Spain looks like it is falling apart, but could the country’s future lie in a union with neighbour Portugal? DAVID BARKER investigates ‘Iberism’

Tuesday, October 17, 2017

ALEXANDRA HADDOW on the Nordic trendsetters who have style sussed

Tuesday, October 17, 2017

A second referendum that reverses Brexit would have a "positive" and "significant" impact on the UK economy, which is on track to be crippled by its EU divorce, an influential think tank claimed today.

Tuesday, October 17, 2017

Making money is no longer enough for firms, say ANGELA JAMESON

Tuesday, October 17, 2017

The question, in a quiet voice, came from a woman in the audience at the Henley Festival’s Brexit debate, in a quiet voice: “So what do I tell my children now? They planned to live and work for a time in Europe. What now?”

Tuesday, October 17, 2017

Millions of families already struggling with soaring prices could end up being another £500 worse off if Britain crashes out of the European Union without a deal, according to a report.

Monday, October 16, 2017

A day of action across the UK saw thousands of people take to the streets to demand Brexit is stopped.

Friday, October 13, 2017

People have been asking me if I know Simon Brodkin, the character-comedian/prankster who interrupted the Prime Minister’s conference speech to hand her a mock redundancy notice.

Friday, October 13, 2017

Angela Merkel’s power has taken a blow in the wake of the German election. Here Tony Paterson reports from Berlin on the new shape of German politics.

Tuesday, October 10, 2017

Roland Garros had every intention of pursuing a career as a concert pianist. An air show outside Reims during the late summer of 1909 changed all that.

Wednesday, October 11, 2017

The Chancellor has admitted no Brexit deal could leave planes grounded in March 2019.

Tuesday, October 10, 2017

The Catalonian crisis has put Europe, as well as Spain, in jeopardy, says PAUL KNOTT.

Tuesday, October 10, 2017

It’s not a stretch to say that the economics of digital advertising are to blame for disasters like Brexit and Trump.

Tuesday, October 10, 2017

Boris Johnson is desperate to get into Number 10 – but it seems the Prime Minister has other ideas.

Tuesday, October 10, 2017

We’re living in the Age of Cool Dad, with politicians obsessed with burnishing their pop culture credentials, says SAMIRA AHMED.

Monday, October 9, 2017

Theresa May has claimed “the ball is in their court” in a statement to the House of Commons updating MPs on the Brexit negotiations. Brussels, however, disagree.

Monday, October 9, 2017

By attempting to quash the result before it was even known, Madrid has made the case for Catalan independence all but unanswerable.

Monday, October 9, 2017

Lawyers have told the Government that Article 50 is not binding and can be scrapped at any time before the March 2019 deadline, it has been claimed.

Monday, October 9, 2017

The deluded fantasies of Leavers must have been inspired by the big screen says Have I Got News For You writer NATHANIEL TAPLEY. Here, he brings you the most Brexity films of all time.

Monday, October 9, 2017

France might be home of its most famous race, but Italy is the country with cycling in its DNA. To find out why, Patrick Sawer makes a tearful pilgrimage to its shrine to the sport.

Sunday, October 8, 2017

Trieste, the city which has survived centuries of seductive illusions.

Sunday, October 8, 2017

As ambitions go, Lee Humphries’ is an unusual, if lofty, one – to ascend the highest points of 100 different countries. As he crests the halfway mark in his quest, he explains all to Julian Shea.

Friday, October 6, 2017

PETER TRUDGILL traces the clockwork progress of the word ‘orange’ from southern India to northern Europe, and finds the odd detour.

Friday, October 6, 2017

JUSTIN REYNOLDS on the Thomas Mann novel which tried to make sense of the descent of Europe’s most cultured nation into Nazism.

Thursday, October 5, 2017

In the days before Stephen Paddock reignited America’s gun control debate by raining down rapid fire carnage on the Las Vegas strip, a familiar voice was again calling the shots inside Donald Trump’s head.

Friday, October 6, 2017

Ahead of the return to London of arguably his greatest work, Glengarry Glen Ross, Charlie Connelly considers the craft of polymath and playwright David Mamet.

Thursday, October 5, 2017

As with other such tragedies, the Las Vegas massacre quickly brought out the worst of the internet, says JONO READ.

Thursday, October 5, 2017

They have a new leader, but do they have a new purpose? RICHARD PORRITT went behind enemy lines at the UKIP conference and found a party on the brink.

Thursday, October 5, 2017

Spain is facing an existential threat, says JASON WALSH, with the country’s fragile compromise – which has held since the end of Franco’s dictatorship – now in tatters.

Thursday, October 5, 2017

What does it say about the Conservative government that Boris Johnson, a man whose record for lying, cheating and disgracing himself on the national stage stands alone in our political history, is not only tolerated in government, but actually holds one of the great offices of state?

Wednesday, October 4, 2017

Steve Anglesey rounds up the losers and losers (because there are no winners) of another crazy seven days on Planet Brexit.

Wednesday, October 4, 2017

RICHARD PORRITT with this week's big stories.

Wednesday, October 4, 2017

Now the hype is over, what can we expect next from the king of hygge? As our culture correspondent Viv Groskop reports, it’s time to like lykke.

Wednesday, October 4, 2017

Gin has undergone a remarkable resurgence in popularity in recent years, with many new brands and flavours emerging. There are some older producers, though, with a heritage even stronger than the gin they create.

Wednesday, October 4, 2017

There's good news and bad news for online news publishers: The good is that people are increasingly willing to pay for digital news subscriptions. The bad is that news often takes a back seat to entertainment services like Netflix and Spotify.

Tuesday, October 3, 2017

Peter Trudgill on a remarkable discovery which transformed the way we think about languages.

Tuesday, October 3, 2017

Jack Lang meets the football coach who has eschewed the English game to carve out a career in the dugouts of Latvia.

Tuesday, October 3, 2017

How the 'Flying Finn' dominated distance running during the 1920s through sheer dogged determination more than natural talent.

Podcast

Trending

Newsletter Sign Up

Sign up to receive our regular email newsletter