First there was the vote she lost. Theresa May denied MPs a vote on her Brexit deal in December for fear she’d lose by upward of 100 votes. Then in January she held it and lost by upward of 200.
Then there was the no confidence vote in the government. Jeremy Corbyn wouldn’t propose it in December for fear he’d lose. Then he put it down in January and duly lost it.
Now there’s the vote neither of them wants us to have. Another referendum to ask the people whether they still want to go ahead with Brexit, after all this mess it’s landed us in. And May and Corbyn don’t want that, for fear they might lose it too.
They both denounce a new referendum as an affront to democracy. An interesting position. I mean, if it confirmed the result of the previous one, in favour of Brexit, I think us remainers would just have to bite our tongues. We might think the decision wrongheaded, boneheaded even, but with two popular votes going that way, we’d just have to put up with it.
 |
| Fun following the debates from Italy A cartoon by Giannelli in the Corrriere de la Sera Theresa May is asking 'Redo-rendum?' |
Actually, not that deep down. May keeps talking about her goal being to deliver Brexit. As for Corbyn, he told the Guardian on 21 December that Brexit would go ahead if he were elected. So they offer different flavours of Brexit, but no relief from Brexit in either case.
So, they don’t want a referendum for fear they’d be denied their Brexit.
In other words, in declaring it anti-democratic they’re using a special but not unusual definition of democracy. To them, democracy is obeying the will of the people when it gives them what they want in the first place.
You may feel that’s not terribly honest. And you’d be right. But spare a thought for Corbyn. His own dishonesty is particularly difficult.
See, his fans point out that his is a fresh take on politics since he wants, insists even, on policy being made by members. Unfortunately, he heads a party in which three out of four members want a new referendum, and four out of five want to stay in the EU.
How do you handle that situation if you’re a Brexiter and the party leader?
A conundrum. But Corbyn, such a traditional politician however much his zealots say he’s an innovator, has simply adopted the ‘listen and ignore’ stance.
In line with party policy, he wants a general election and only if he can’t get one will he consider other possibilities. At that point, all options including a second referendum, would still be on the table.
That’s listening.
Here’s where the ignore bit comes in.
His reaction to defeat in the no confidence motion, his only route to forcing an early general election, wasn’t to say, ‘ah, well, we’d better consider another approach’. It was to say ‘we’ll keep bringing in no-confidence votes’.
Brilliant, isn’t it? Of course, it makes you wonder why he bottled proposing a no-confidence vote in December, given he’s happy to keep bringing them in. And you might think it odd that he’s OK with holding repeated no-confidence votes until he gets the result he wants, but won’t countenance repeating a referendum.
That, though, is to miss the cunning of his stance. While he keeps proposing no confidence motions, he doesn’t have to consider any alternative. A second referendum is an option on the table, but that’s just where he chooses to leave it: on a table he won’t go near.
Again, not necessarily all that honest a way of following party policy, you might feel. A bit Jesuitical. Like crossing your fingers when you make a promise. But it allows him to say he’s doing what he’s been told, while being able to keep his Brexit.
Trouble is, it may not be that safe. For the rest of us, of course. But even for him
Because, as the saying has it, if you’re not at the table, you’re on the menu.
No comments:
Post a Comment