London mayor Sadiq Khan has questioned Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn’s plan to stay neutral if there was a second referendum.
Writing in the Guardian, Corbyn had said that he will stay neutral and let the people decide on Brexit.
“A Labour government would secure a sensible deal based on the terms we have long advocated, including a new customs union with the EU; a close single market relationship; and guarantees of workers’ rights and environmental protections,” he said.
“We would then put that to a public vote alongside remain. I pledge to carry out whatever the people decide, as a Labour prime minister.”
Asked on Thursday (19) whether he supported Corbyn’s position, Khan said Labour was “a remain party.”
“I’m quite clear the Labour party that I belong to, the Labour party I’m proud to be a Labour mayor of, we should be a Remain party,” he told Sky News.
“What we should be doing is giving the British public a final say, do you accept the terms of exit from the EU that’s been negotiated by the Government or do you want to remain in the European Union.
“I can’t think of anything more democratic that giving the British public a say, and I think we should if there’s a referendum, a public vote, campaign to remain.”
A number of frontbenchers such as Tom Watson and John McDonnell have said they would campaign to Remain if the event of a second referendum.
On Thursday, Khan also warned Corbyn not to take the Labour party “backwards” by re-introducing an ‘out-of-date’ party policy advocating widespread nationalisation.
Corbyn has been more open to nationalisation, and party activists want to reintroduce a section of the Labour party’s constitution that promotes taking over businesses and utilities. Clause 4 was updated in 1995 by Tony Blair as part of his move to rebrand the Labour party.
Party workers have tabled a motion that will be debated at the annual Labour Party conference in Brighton this weekend.
Slamming the move, Khan told Sky News: “I have nothing against us going forward and evolving our constitution to adapt to modern society.
“What I would be against is going back 100 years to try and put in our constitution something that was out of date 25 years ago, let alone in 2019.”