Skip to content 
Search

Latest Stories

Leave EU result alone

by Barry Gardiner

Labour MP for Brent North and shadow secretary of state for international trade


FOR many months, we have been confronted with a series of choices and a series of false choices.

The country had to choose whether to leave or remain. Those in the cabinet had to choose whether to leave or remain in the cabinet. For many government members, the choice has become whether to leave with or without a deal. For many opposition members, the choice has been whether to call for a second referendum or to accept the first.

It is our choices that define who we are, both as individuals and as a country. For all the heart searching and the division these questions have caused, I am convinced more than ever that the real divide in our country is not between those who voted to remain and those who voted to leave but between the many who do the work, create the wealth and pay the taxes, and the few who set the rules, reap the rewards and so often dodge paying the taxes.

The real choice is choosing whose side we are on when we see injustice, unfairness and inequality.

In answer to that question, the Labour party has always, throughout its history, had one and only one answer. As the party of the many, we seek to heal the appalling divide that we now see in our society.

My constituents tell me they are fed up hearing about processes and amendments. They want to know how they will feed their children, pay their rent, how will they make ends meet if they have to move from their current benefit on to universal credit?

For millions of people in our country, the vote to leave expressed a feeling that the powers that be in Westminster no longer know, let alone care, what it feels like to walk in their shoes. At every level, there was a direct correlation between household income and the likelihood to vote for Leave.

The social divide in our country is real. I agree with my colleagues who say, “That was not caused by the European Union.” That is true, but nor did the EU provide a shield against it. It will not be solved if we become poorer by leaving the EU, but while we have been in the EU, the experience of those millions of people has been the loss of secure jobs, the hollowing out of their communities, and years of Tory austerity and harsh social policy. That

is why remaining in the EU does not appear to them to be a solution to the inequality we face.

Those people will feel nothing but anger and disgust for us as politicians if we turn around now and patronise them by ignoring and reversing the decision they gave us in the referendum.

The right to be heard is a key battleground in the history of our country, and it is at the heart of the age-old division between those who labour in silence and those who speak from a gilded platform.

When the referendum result came in, those who voted to leave finally felt that their voices had been heard. Parliament has to understand that despite the social chapter and the goodwill of our MEPs, the EU did not present itself as a champion of the voiceless.

It was against that backdrop that the prime minister had an opportunity to put together a future that met the aspirations of those voters. She could and should have recognised that when our fellow citizens are divided 52 per cent to 48, it is the time not to go back into the political bunker, but to reach out. She should have tried to build a consensus across parliament that would have united our country. That would have been leadership, but, instead, she doubled down, put her party interests before the country and tried to appease the rightwing European Research Group.

After becoming the first government ever to be held in contempt of its own parliament and after her deal was defeated by the largest majority in parliamentary history, she now claims to be reaching out. But it is one thing to reach out in a genuine willingness to change her red lines. It is quite another to do so saying she just wants MPs to help get

her failed red lines accepted.

I do not deny that the prime minister has shown steel and determination, but there is a point at which steel and determination become obstinacy and recklessness, and she has gone far beyond it. From the CBI to the TUC, from the ferry operators at Dover to the farmers and factory workers of Aberdeen, “no deal” is universally recognised as a disaster. It is right that the government should rule this out instead of keeping it as a gun to MPs’ heads.

This week the government will make a new proposal to parliament and MPs will respond with various amendments. Ken Clark, the Conservative father of the House, in a telling intervention, has set out what is perhaps the clear common ground that could command a majority in parliament. He said, “If we are maintaining an open border where there is a land border, it can only be done in a modern economy by having some form of customs union applying to both sides of the border.”

Happily, that also happens to be Labour policy.

More For You

The real challenge isn’t having more parties, but governing a divided nation

Zarah Sultana and Jeremy Corbyn

Getty Images

The real challenge isn’t having more parties, but governing a divided nation

It is a truth universally acknowledged that voters are dissatisfied with the political choices on offer - so must they be in want of new parties too? A proliferation of start-ups showed how tricky political match-making can be. Zarah Sultana took Jeremy Corbyn by surprise by announcing they will co-lead a new left party. Two of Nigel Farage’s exes announced separate political initiatives to challenge Reform from its right, with the leader of London’s Conservatives lending her voice to Rupert Lowe’s revival of the politics of repatriation.

Corbyn and Sultana are from different generations. He had been an MP for a decade by the time she was born. For Sultana’s allies, this intergenerational element is a core case for the joint leadership. But the communications clash suggests friction ahead. After his allies could not persuade Sultana to retract her announcement, Corbyn welcomed her decision to leave Labour, saying ‘negotiations continue’ over the structure and leadership of a new party. It will seek to link MPs elected as pro-Gaza independents with other strands of the left outside Labour.

Keep ReadingShow less
Amol Rajan confronts loss along the Ganges

Amol Rajan at Prayagraj

Amol Rajan confronts loss along the Ganges

ONE reason I watched the BBC documentary Amol Rajan Goes to the Ganges with particular interest was because I have been wondering what to do with the ashes of my uncle, who died in August last year. His funeral, like that of his wife, was half Christian and half Hindu, as he had wished. But he left no instructions about his ashes.

Sooner or later, this is a question that every Hindu family in the UK will have to face, since it has been more than half a century since the first generation of Indian immigrants began arriving in this country. Amol admits he found it difficult to cope with the loss of his father, who died aged 76 three years ago. His ashes were scattered in the Thames.

Keep ReadingShow less
One year on, Starmer still has no story — but plenty of regrets

Sir Keir Starmer

Getty Images

One year on, Starmer still has no story — but plenty of regrets

Do not expect any parties in Downing Street to celebrate the government’s first birthday on Friday (4). After a rocky year, prime minister Sir Keir Starmer had more than a few regrets when giving interviews about his first year in office.

He explained that he chose the wrong chief of staff. That his opening economic narrative was too gloomy. That choosing the winter fuel allowance as a symbol of fiscal responsibility backfired. Starmer ‘deeply regretted’ the speech he gave to launch his immigration white paper, from which only the phrase ‘island of strangers’ cut through. Can any previous political leader have been quite so self-critical of their own record in real time?

Keep ReadingShow less
starmer-bangladesh-migration
Sir Keir Starmer
Getty Images

Comment: Can Starmer turn Windrush promises into policy?

Anniversaries can catalyse action. The government appointed the first Windrush Commissioner last week, shortly before Windrush Day, this year marking the 77th anniversary of the ship’s arrival in Britain.

The Windrush generation came to Britain believing what the law said – that they were British subjects, with equal rights in the mother country. But they were to discover a different reality – not just in the 1950s, but in this century too. It is five years since Wendy Williams proposed this external oversight in her review of the lessons of the Windrush scandal. The delay has damaged confidence in the compensation scheme. Williams’ proposal had been for a broader Migrants Commissioner role, since the change needed in Home Office culture went beyond the treatment of the Windrush generation itself.

Keep ReadingShow less
Eye Spy: Top stories from the world of entertainment

Ed Sheeran and Arijit Singh

Eye Spy: Top stories from the world of entertainment

Ed Sheeran and Arijit Singh’s ‘Sapphire’ collaboration misses the mark

The song everyone is talking about this month is Sapphire – Ed Sheeran’s collaboration with Arijit Singh. But instead of a true duet, Arijit takes more of a backing role to the British pop superstar, which is a shame, considering he is the most followed artist on Spotify. The Indian superstar deserved a stronger presence on the otherwise catchy track. On the positive side, Sapphire may inspire more international artists to incorporate Indian elements into their music. But going forward, any major Indian names involved in global collaborations should insist on equal billing, rather than letting western stars ride on their popularity.

  Ed Sheeran and Arijit Singh

Keep ReadingShow less