Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Labour Leave chief: Brexit will be “political small fry” if voters feel betrayed

Brendan Chilton warns there could be a “fundamental realignment” in British politics. 

Voters will wreak political havoc at the next election if Brexit promises are not fulfilled, a leading “Lexiteer” has warned. 

Brendan Chilton, the general secretary of Labour Leave, which campaigned for an EU exit, said “a general feeling that Brexit as people voted for is being undermined” could lead to a realignment of politics.

He told the New Statesman: “I do think if there is a fudge in what people voted for, there will be a political change to come that hasn’t been seen yet. Brexit will be small fry.”

He said history demonstrated that feelings of betrayal were very powerful forces for change: “I don’t think anything angry would happen here, but you could see a fundamental realignment of British politics if people feel betrayed.”

Chilton defined Brexit as control over territorial waters and borders, an end to freedom of movement, no more contributions to the EU budget and an end to the jurisdiction of EU institutions.

“We need to be out of the transitional arrangement by next election,” he said. 

He criticised Tory Brexiteers who believed the vote to leave the EU was an endorsement of free market liberalism: "It wasn't. It was a vote in some respects for protectionism and economic patriotism."

Alluding to one of the main Tory voices on free market Brexit, he added: "I spoke to half a million people and they were not Daniel Hannans."

Environment Secretary Michael Gove, a leading Tory Brexiteer, hooked the attention of fishermen in recent weeks after he indicated that other countries would still access EU waters after Brexit.

Meanwhile, the Chancellor Philip Hammond, a Remainer, confirmed rumours that the UK would seek a transitional deal which could last up to three years. 

According to a July YouGov poll, 61 per cent of Leave voters said they felt “significant damage to the British economy” was a “price worth paying”, and 39 per cent maintained this even if one of their family members lost a job because of it. 

Julia Rampen is the digital news editor of the New Statesman (previously editor of The Staggers, The New Statesman's online rolling politics blog). She has also been deputy editor at Mirror Money Online and has worked as a financial journalist for several trade magazines. 

Picture: ANDRÉ CARRILHO
Show Hide image

Leader: Boris Johnson, a liar and a charlatan

The Foreign Secretary demeans a great office of state with his carelessness and posturing. 

Boris Johnson is a liar, a charlatan and a narcissist. In 1988, when he was a reporter at the Times, he fabricated a quotation from his godfather, an eminent historian, which duly appeared in a news story on the front page. He was sacked. (We might pause here to acknowledge the advantage to a young journalist of having a godfather whose opinions were deemed worthy of appearing in a national newspaper.) Three decades later, his character has not improved.

On 17 September, Mr Johnson wrote a lengthy, hyperbolic article for the Daily Telegraph laying out his “vision” for Brexit – in terms calculated to provoke and undermine the Prime Minister (who was scheduled to give a speech on Brexit in Florence, Italy, as we went to press). Extracts of his “article”, which reads more like a speech, appeared while a terror suspect was on the loose and the country’s threat level was at “critical”, leading the Scottish Conservative leader, Ruth Davidson, to remark: “On the day of a terror attack where Britons were maimed, just hours after the threat level is raised, our only thoughts should be on service.”

Three other facets of this story are noteworthy. First, the article was published alongside other pieces echoing and praising its conclusions, indicating that the Telegraph is now operating as a subsidiary of the Johnson for PM campaign. Second, Theresa May did not respond by immediately sacking her disloyal Foreign Secretary – a measure of how much the botched election campaign has weakened her authority. Finally, it is remarkable that Mr Johnson’s article repeated the most egregious – and most effective – lie of the EU referendum campaign. “Once we have settled our accounts, we will take back control of roughly £350m per week,” the Foreign Secretary claimed. “It would be a fine thing, as many of us have pointed out, if a lot of that money went on the NHS.”

This was the promise of Brexit laid out by the official Vote Leave team: we send £350m to Brussels, and after leaving the EU, that money can be spent on public services. Yet the £350m figure includes the rebate secured by Margaret Thatcher – so just under a third of the sum never leaves the country. Also, any plausible deal will involve paying significant amounts to the EU budget in return for continued participation in science and security agreements. To continue to invoke this figure is shameless. That is not a partisan sentiment: the head of the UK Statistics Authority, Sir David Norgrove, denounced Mr Johnson’s “clear misuse of official statistics”.

In the days that followed, the chief strategist of Vote Leave, Dominic Cummings – who, as Simon Heffer writes in this week's New Statesman, is widely suspected of involvement in Mr Johnson’s article – added his voice. Brexit was a “shambles” so far, he claimed, because of the ineptitude of the civil service and the government’s decision to invoke Article 50 before outlining its own detailed demands.

There is a fine Yiddish word to describe this – chutzpah. Mr Johnson, like all the other senior members of Vote Leave in parliament, voted to trigger Article 50 in March. If he and his allies had concerns about this process, the time to speak up was then.

It has been clear for some time that Mr Johnson has no ideological attachment to Brexit. (During the referendum campaign, he wrote articles arguing both the Leave and Remain case, before deciding which one to publish – in the Telegraph, naturally.) However, every day brings fresh evidence that he and his allies are not interested in the tough, detailed negotiations required for such an epic undertaking. They will brush aside any concerns about our readiness for such a huge challenge by insisting that Brexit would be a success if only they were in charge of it.

This is unlikely. Constant reports emerge of how lightly Mr Johnson treats his current role. At a summit aiming to tackle the grotesque humanitarian crisis in Yemen, he is said to have astounded diplomats by joking: “With friends like these, who needs Yemenis?” The Foreign Secretary demeans a great office of state with his carelessness and posturing. By extension, he demeans our politics. 

This article first appeared in the 21 September 2017 issue of the New Statesman, The revenge of the left