Because it’s easy and you don’t have to think about actually fixing Brexit or convincing Tory rebels to not vote Tory if you can just pin the blame on somebody you already dislike anyway. And boy does Continuity Remain hate Jeremy Corbyn. Unsurprisingly, as the most visible remainers tend to be the sort of people who think everything would be all right if the UK just got back to how it was on 22 June 2016. The crux of the matter is that Brexit is the result of internal Tory politics and can never be turned back or even done properly with them in power. Yet Continuity Remain remains fixated on Labour and Corbyn. Case in point:
To be fair, Sunny Singh isn’t anywhere near as bad as Jo Maugham, who is basically a Tory who uses Brexit as an excuse to put the boot into Labour, but she comes closes. And I thought it would be interesting to look at how she uses Corbyn imposing a three line whip on the Article 50 notification vote to justify her focus on Labour/Corbyn. It’s the clearest Continuity Remain has come to articulating why Corbyn could’ve stopped Brexit, or is to blame for it. The idea that Corbyn, if only he opposed properly and had instructed his MPs to vote no on any Brexit vote would’ve prevented it is of course a fallacy, but it’s a good idea to investigate why this is. Other than that the Tories are in power and hence it’s on them, but that’s apparantly not enough for Sigh and other remainers.
So let’s go back to that vote, in January 2017 and what the context is when it tooks place. As you know, Bob, the EU membership referendum took place on 23 June 2016, with all major political parties campaigning for Remain, but various prominent Tories campaigning for Leave, which narrowly won. Prime minister Cameron immediately said “not it” and Theresa May won the subsequent leadership election. At the time of the referendum and the subsequent Article 50 vote in January 2017, the Tories had an absolute majority in Parliament. Jeremy Corbyn had to face a leadership challenge in September 2016 which he won handily, increasing his share of the vote even, but with a substantial part of the parliamentary Labour Party disloyal to his leadership. Both before and after the referendum, all political parties said they would accept the results of the referendum.
So could Labour have stopped the withdrawal from the EU?
No.
Even of Corbyn had whipped his party to vote against Brexit, everybody had followed the whip and the other opposition parties in Parliament had done the same –ignoring the fact that Sinn Féin doesn’t even sit– the Tories still would’ve won the vote because the Tories had an absolute majority in Parliament. No escape looking for Tory rebels either; in the actual vote only Kenneth Clarke voted against his party. So it wouldn’t have stopped Brexit, but what would be the consequences had Corbyn voted against?
So Corbyn had won re-election as Laboru leader, but was still in a weak position; perhaps there would be another challenge? Even without this, Theresa May was confident enough to call for a new election after the withdrawal notification had been sent to the EU. Polls looked good for the Tories, with Labour looking in disarray and the LibDems having been obliterated in the previous elections. In the end this proved to be a rare mistake on the part of Theresa May, as Labour bounced back thanks to Corbyn and Momentum, gained thirty seats and destroyed the Tory majority, leaving them dependent on the DUP. But you can imagine what would’ve happened if Labour had voted against Brexit.
Because of course a fair chunk of Labour voters were also Leave voters and had Labour “betrayed” them by rejecting the result of the referendum and voted against leaving the EU, they would not vote for them again. Consider also the hostile media environment for Labour and how much worse it would’ve been. Labour would lose the election, the Tories would’ve won an unassailable majority, Corbyn would be gone as leader and we would’ve had to depend on Owen bloody Smith to lead the opposition. That surely would’ve made everything better, regurgitated Blairism to inspire the kids.
Corbyn and Labour were right to respect the outcome of the referendum, just on basic democratic grounds. Nothing erodes trust in democracy more than calling and then ignoring a referendum. You can argue the wisdom of calling for one — and it’s clear this was something Cameron only did to placate Euroskeptic Tory MPs–, but once it’s there you need to respect the outcome.
But Corbyn also realises that the more important problem is to get the Tories out of power, because without doing so nothing can improve and you certainly can’t stop Brexit. Furthermore, just getting back to 22 June 2016 isn’t good enough: everything that Brexit is supposed to cause was already happening because the Tories are in power. Hollowing out of the NHS and social security to the tune of a 100,000 people with disabilities having died as a result, selling of the country to the Americans and dodgy Middle Eastern or Russian business men, all of this was going on before Brexit too.
But for those Remainers more worried about not being able to take the Eurostar to Paris anymore this sort of consideration is foreign. They want to stop Brexit but don’t want Labour in power either, hence the pretence that Corbyn alone is to blame for Brexit and the ritual condemnation of him everything something new and awful about Brexit is revealed. Because doing anything constructive might drive the Tories out of power and we can’t have that.