Corbyn’s table talk is risky gamble
WHAT does it mean to keep something “on the table”? This is Labour's current policy on whether to support a second referendum on Brexit.
I thought it meant that no decision has been made – but it will be eventually.
Either Labour will come out and support a second referendum or it will conclude that, having considered the matter carefully, holding another vote is probably a bad idea.
But it's increasingly clear I got it wrong. There's fewer than eight weeks until we leave the EU, unless it's delayed, and no sign of the party making its mind up about a second referendum, or so-called People's Vote.
For Labour, or at least the current leadership, simply putting something “on the table” is the end of the matter. It's not a process that leads to an outcome – putting it on the table is the only outcome you're going to get.
Jeremy Corbyn's supporters say this is in line with the motion agreed at the party conference last year.
But Labour activists seem to want something more concrete.
A motion submitted to the conference by a number of constituency Labour party (CLP) branches called on Labour to “campaign for a public vote and call for an election following a government defeat in that vote”.
Branches submitting this motion included Kenilworth and Southam CLP, Warwick and Leamington CLP and Stourbridge CLP.
Mid-Worcestershire CLP urged the leadership to “reaffirm the 2016 conference support for a public vote on the final deal”.
Their motion went on to specify that the vote should have “the option of remaining in the EU”.
The Wrekin CLP and Dudley South CLP called on Labour to “support a people's vote on the Withdrawal Agreement and to campaign to remain in the EU in that referendum.”
Coventry North West CLP called on the leadership to state “boldly and publicly that the Labour Party will call for a referendum on the Brexit terms and conditions”.
But it is clear now that Mr Corbyn is never going to come out in favour of a second referendum, whatever activists in Kenilworth and Southam may have hoped.
And that means it won't happen. It's perfectly possible that there would be no “People's Vote” even if Labour did back the idea.
But I think we can be certain that without support from the Labour front bench there's zero chance of a People's Vote taking place.
This raises a question. What are Brexit-sceptic MPs hoping to achieve if they continue to vote down Theresa May's Brexit Withdrawal Agreement?
Mrs May's agreement establishes a
For Labour, or at least the current leadership, simply putting something ‘on the table’ is the end of the matter
transition period in which the UK remains part of the single market and the EU's customs union until the end of 2020.
So it deals with the concerns of major employers such as Jaguar Land Rover and Nissan – at least for 21 months. They'll be able to import parts and sell cars to Europe, just like they do now.
The plan is that during the transition, the EU and the UK will negotiate a permanent deal which allows free and frictionless trade to continue.
Given that the Government wants the UK to leave the single market and the customs union, nobody is quite sure how that's going to happen.
But at least there would be time to try to work something out.
What happens if there is no deal? Well, assuming we leave the EU on March 29 as planned, all our trading arrangements with the EU simply end. That means factories closing and job losses. Not to mention a potential shortage of food and medicine.
The health service has been stockpiling drugs, just in case.
Most MPs oppose a no-deal Brexit, with good reason.
Of course, there's a bit more to the withdrawal agreement than this. But the transition period is a key part.
Some opponents of Mrs May's deal relish the prospect of a no-deal Brexit. To them, people like me are part of Project Fear.
But many others, including many Labour and some Tory MPs, think rejecting May's deal will lead to something better.
Some appear still to believe there will be a People's Vote, and Brexit will be cancelled.
Others seem to think it could lead to the collapse of Mrs May's government, allowing Labour to take power and deliver a better Brexit.
And some might hope that rejecting the deal will persuade Mrs May to back a much softer Brexit, perhaps including permanent membership of a customs union (although that wouldn't be guaranteed in any withdrawal agreement, as it's the type of thing that gets worked out during the transition).
In theory, if the withdrawal agreement is rejected by the House of Commons again then Brexit could perhaps be delayed to allow one of these things to happen.
But will it be? I don't know, and neither do any of the MPs.
They're taking a hell of a gamble. And they're gambling with our jobs.