Getty Images
Show Hide image

Labour is keeping all Brexit options open - including no Brexit

Faced with a divided country and party, Jeremy Corbyn has avoided binding his hands. 

Labour, it sometimes feels, has had more positions than the Kama Sutra on Brexit. During today's Urgent Question to David Davis, Keir Starmer was said by Labour MPs and journalists to have unveiled another. "Will the Prime Minister now rethink her reckless red lines and put options such as the Customs Union and Single Market back on the table for negotiations?" the shadow Brexit Secretary asked. 

Labour is usually described as having ruled out membership of the Single Market and the Customs Union in its 2017 election manifesto (though it has since supported remaining in both for a two-year transition period). In reality, it did no such thing. The party promised a "strong emphasis" on retaining "the benefits" of the Single Market and the Customs Union, and stated that "freedom of movement will end when we leave the European Union". This was an ambiguous position designed to satisfy Remain and Leave voters and unite the Parliamentary Labour Party - and it worked rather well. 

As the Brexit negotiations have become ever more fraught, Corbyn has followed Napoleon's advice: "Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake". He has rarely raised the subject at PMQs and has rejected calls for a cross-party commission. But, largely unnoticed, the Labour leader has simultaneously kept all options open. 

Corbyn, a lifelong Eurosceptic, has sometimes suggested that Brexit inevitably entails withdrawal from the Single Market (after all, he voted against its creation). But he has never definitely ruled out membership of the Single Market and the Customs Union (or at least something close it). As I recently reported, in his meeting with EU chief negotiator Michel Barnier in October, Corbyn "came across as being in favour, broadly, of staying in the Single Market and the Customs Union". Though Labour has stated that Free Movement will formally end (a position that satisfies Labour MPs in Leave constituencies), this does not mean that "free movement" will. 

In a febrile political climate, Corbyn's priority has been to avoided binding his hands. Where the public lead, he may follow. As a Labour MP recently told me: "If the leadership think that without a more anti-Brexit position they won't get into No.10, they’ll move." Though Labour has not backed a second referendum, it has notably not ruled one out. As Corbyn remarked at a European Socialist Conference last weekend: "We’ve not made any decision on a second referendum. What we’ve said is that we would respect the result of the first referendum."

At present, Labour's stance aligns with that of the public. Though a majority of voters now believe the Brexit vote was "wrong" (according to YouGov polling), they also believe the government has a duty to respect it. Like Labour, the public similarly want to end free movement while maintaining the benefits of Single Market and the Customs Union (as Labour does). Oppositions have often profited from demanding the impossible and then complaining when the government fails to deliver. 

Hard Brexit, soft Brexit or no Brexit - Labour has not ruled any of these out. To do so now, would risk falling foul of public opinion later. In truth, Labour only has one Brexit position: to keep all options open. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

PHOTO: GETTY
Show Hide image

Four key thinkers more deserving of a revival than “Trump’s philosopher” Ayn Rand

If thinkers have enduring value, it is because their ideas are timeless, not timely.

A recent story in theTimes carried the headline, “Trump’s philosopher is heading for your local pub”. The philosopher in question was Ayn Rand, whose works The Fountainhead (1943) and Atlas Shrugged (1957) have been a profound influence on the American right since they were published, and are apparently enjoying a resurgence.

The story went on: the previous week, “about 15 people packed into a room above the Plumbers Arms in Victoria, central London” to discuss Rand. You read that right: 15! Three more than a dozen! Their cups runneth over indeed. We later discovered that Britain’s first Ayn Rand Centre is being set up. Moreover, new groups dedicated to Rand have popped up in Reading and Milton Keynes.

Everything about this story was designed to make me angry. For one thing, Rand was above all a novelist, not a philosopher. For another, it’s generous to suggest that the star of America’s Celebrity Apprentice, who is also the current occupant of the White House, is deeply familiar with her overall body of work. He said he enjoyed The Fountainhead; that’s some way short of her being a favourite philosopher.

But the thing that really riles me is this fashion for stories about intellectual fashions. Last year, apparently, there was an upsurge of interest in, and sales of, George Orwell’s novel Nineteen Eighty-Four. During the financial crisis, displaying knowledge of Hyman Minsky’s oeuvre became the columnist’s trope du jour – just as, in the recession that followed, flaunting one’s knowledge of John Maynard Keynes’s The General Theory was a mark of cool and learning.

If thinkers have enduring value, it is because their ideas are timeless, not timely. So here, apropos of nothing in particular, are four other key thinkers that are being unfairly neglected.

1. Polonius The true hero of Elsinore, who manages to distil in one speech more wisdom than the self-indulgent prince manages over five acts. Where Hamlet’s meandering vanities take him hither and thither to no great end, Polonius speaks the language of uncommon common sense to which this column aspires. And how prescient is he? His “neither a borrower nor a lender be” anticipated the post-monetary policy era four centuries before Mark Carney took the reins in Threadneedle Street. And his advice to “Give every man thine ear but few thy voice” is the perfect coping mechanism for social media. 

2. Judith Kerr If you have young children, chances are you are more than familiar with Kerr’s seminal work, The Tiger Who Came to Tea. In it, Sophie is having tea with her mother in the kitchen when a big, furry, stripy tiger knocks on the door. It joins them and promptly eats and drinks everything in the house, forcing the family to go out for a special dinner when Sophie’s father comes home from work. Naturally, I don’t approve of the stereotypical gender roles in this plot; but the message of instinctive generosity and openness to unfamiliar outsiders, with unforeseen benefits for family life, undoubtedly carries lessons for our age of mass migration and rapid demographic upheaval.

3. Meryl Streep Less neglected than my other candidates for your attention, I’ll grant; but I really think Meryl Streep’s assertion, when asked in 2015 by Time Out if she was a feminist, is crucial. She said: “I’m a humanist.” In doing this she proclaimed the connection between feminism and universal ideals, placed feminism within a broader philosophical tradition, and revived interest in humanism at a time when religiosity is again on the march. Given the current conniptions over gender in our public domain, this was an important contribution, don’t you think?

4. Humphrey Appleby Have you noticed that, amid the toxic warfare over Brexit, the once unimpeachable integrity of Britain’s civil servants is now being traduced? Jacob Rees-Mogg criticised them only the other week. I recommend he revisit Yes, Minister, in which the peerless Nigel Hawthorne played the ultimate British bureaucrat. His dictum that “a cynic is what an idealist calls a realist” is both plausible and the perfect coolant for our
overheated democracy.

Back to the Ayn Rand philosophy club: I don’t believe I’ve tried the Plumbers Arms in Victoria. But I’ll make an exception if some New Statesman reader is prepared to start the first UK society dedicated to the propagation of these thinkers’ ideas. Anyone fancy a pint? 

This article first appeared in the 15 February 2018 issue of the New Statesman, The polite extremist