Why Owen Jones Is Incorrect Close Brexit

Owen has written a really clear account of why he supports the plebiscite result, fifty-fifty though he campaigned against it. He is, to role i terminology, a ‘re-leaver’, in addition to every bit he points out at that topographic point are many similar him. He is quite correct that those advocating overturning the plebiscite resultant receive got devoted insufficient attending to this group. However I intend inward fundamental respects his declaration is wrong.

I intend it is helpful, every bit I receive got done before, to prepare this debate inward the context of futurity decisions that may realistically aspect upwards MPs. I tin strength out run into four:

1. Having left inward 2019, nosotros are probable to remain inward the Single Market in addition to customs wedding ceremony piece nosotros negotiate about form of merchandise understanding to allow us to leave of absence i or both. The showtime decision, which could aspect upwards an incoming Labour government, is should those negotiations proceed or live on abandoned.
   

Owen does non explicitly address the Single Market, which is surprising. In my stance leaving the European Union but staying inward the Single Market (the ‘Norway option’) is what Labour should select to practise if it gains power. That is fully consistent alongside respecting the plebiscite result. Those who enjoin that the plebiscite was nearly immigration in addition to thence nosotros receive got to halt liberty of movement commit a unproblematic logical error. H5N1 bulk (those who voted Leave because of immigration) of a bulk (52%) is non necessarily a majority. There is no mandate of whatever form for leaving the Single Market.

2. During the vote on whether to leave of absence inward 2019, at that topographic point is a vote to deal a 2nd plebiscite where the choice is to receive got the bargain or remain inward the EU.

Again he does non lead address a 2nd referendum, but about of his arguments are relevant to it.  You could debate that belongings a 2nd plebiscite would disrespect the first. If the Brexit determination was changed every bit a result, so Owen’s arguments nearly a large department of the population losing faith inward republic would mayhap nevertheless apply. However it seems to me the rationale for belongings a 2nd plebiscite is overwhelming. In the showtime referendum, what leaving would entail was really unclear. In particular, nosotros did non know what the divorce mouth would be, in addition to what the economical implications would be. Information is here. But this is non the example that Owen makes. Barry Gardiner has too departed radically from this script. As I said inward that post I did non know if Labour's Brexit seat was strategic or simply confused in addition to conflicted, in addition to Owen's slice together alongside these recent developments reinforce such doubts.  

4. The regime fails to negotiate a bargain but wants us to leave of absence despite this. There is a vote inward parliament to revoke Article 50 in addition to non leave of absence the EU.

If y'all remain unconvinced past times the above, consider this outcome. No bargain would live on a disaster, in addition to convey immediate chaos. But all of Owen’s arguments for respecting the plebiscite would nevertheless apply! Would Owen actually debate that Labour should non back upwards such a vote for the sake of Leave voters’ faith inward democracy? If it did that it would live on complicit inward the chaos that followed. 

Owen keeps coming dorsum to the affect of whatever determination on how those who voted Brexit would feel. In this sense he is inward the same spirit every bit John Harris’s article that I discussed here. It is an utterly defeatist argument: nosotros must allow people impairment themselves because alone so might they acquire that they were false inward what they wanted. H5N1 much to a greater extent than progressive policy is to persuade people they are wrong.

If Labour did course of written report the adjacent government, every bit I really much promise it would, the consequences of leaving the Single Market would live on on its watch. Would those who voted Leave forgive dull increase inward their living standards every bit their ain fault for wanting Brexit? Would they receive got the implications of depression immigration for earth finances every bit a cost worth paying to command immigration. Of course of written report not. Much of the media would debate that these problems were all downwardly to the Labour government, non Brexit. H5N1 Labour regime that presides over leaving the Single Market could live on a i term government.

In an before post I talked nearly the logic of a triangulation strategy for Labour, but I said at the outset that I did non know if this what they were doing. As a result, at that topographic point is currently a serious danger that Labour would squelch whatever effort from the Tory backbenches to deal a 2nd referendum, or if they won the adjacent election that they would leave of absence the Single Market. Although everyone focuses on Corbyn, this is every bit much a work alongside many Labour MPs inward Leave voting areas. It is an expanse where nosotros need the membership to influence Labour policy, every bit both Jeremy Corbyn in addition to Owen Jones receive got ever suggested they should.