The arguments used to justify that position are pathetically weak and superficial, indicating that these are not the real reasons. The obnoxious Wes Streeting, who has been seen as the current epitome of Blairism, for example, has been as dogmatic as Starmer in his recent refusal to countenance any re-joining of the EU.
His argument, as with that put forward by Starmer is that the referendum voted for Brexit, and there have been two elections since the referendum (there have, of course, been three, but Blue Labour like to ignore the 2017 election, as it destroys their criticism of Corbynism). So, what? The referendum was seriously flawed. It disenfranchised not only the 16-18 year-old, section of society who had most to lose, but also tens of thousands of EU citizens who have been living in Britain for years, as well as tens of thousands of British ex-pats, living in the EU. Moreover, it was shown to have suffered from not only interference from Putin's Russia, but also, from election fraud, that, had it been a parliamentary election, would have voided the result! Even with all of that, it secured only a tiny majority of the vote, and only 37% of the electorate.
But, also, the 2016 referendum is no more sacrosanct, or final, than any other such vote, such as the 1975, referendum that resulted in a 2:1 majority to stay in the EEC/EU. Indeed, it was less sacrosanct than a parliamentary election, because the legislation for it, made clear that it was only an advisory referendum, not a binding referendum. Given that, when the Tories, who were the party that had called it, and who were attempting to legislate for Brexit, called an election in 2017, they lost their parliamentary majority, and Corbyn's Labour that had pulled in all of these pro-EU young voters saw the biggest increase in its vote, and seats since 1945, the weak case for supporting Brexit on that basis is manifest. The fact that May's government repeatedly failed to be able to get a parliamentary majority for her Brexit proposals again shows how weak this argument is.
It is rather understandable that the likes of Streeting et al, should want to gloss over all of this, because, had they not put all their efforts, after 2015, and particularly after 2017, into trying to remove Corbyn, and undermine Labour's electoral success – as well as the role of the likes of Umunna and co., and their alliance with the delusional Swinson, in 2019 – the replacement of May by Johnson, could have been avoided. It may even have been avoided in 2017, but could certainly have been avoided in 2019. The actions of Corbyn in trying to appease the Labour Right, during all of that period, and his failure to adopt a principled opposition to Brexit in 2019, certainly facilitated his demise, but the major responsibility for the election of Boris Johnson, and all of the Brexit chaos that ensued, lies primarily with the Labour Right, and their campaign to remove Corbyn, and undermine Labour's electoral hopes. Indeed, when challenged, Margaret Hodge made clear that for the Labour Right, and the funders of Labour Together, in all of those tax havens, even Boris Johnson was preferable to Corbyn.
But, even taking all of that into consideration, the argument that the Labour Right are just being good democrats in accepting the referendum, and subsequent elections is untenable. Starmer and co. led the charge for a second referendum, after 2016, so upholding that 2016 decision does not hold. Moreover, its now, nearly a decade since that vote, a quarter of the time that elapsed between the 1975 referendum, and the 2016 referendum. What is different there is that, support for the EU remained solid after 1975, whereas there was only a slender, and fraudulent majority for Brexit on the day of the Brexit referendum, which has disappeared in every subsequent poll. Current polls show, not only around 80% of Labour voters opposing Brexit, and supporting rejoining the EU, but also, around two-thirds of the electorate, as a whole, holding that same position.
No comments:
Post a Comment