Henry McLeish: Corbyn must act amid the Tories' Brexit chaos

Addressing the civil war within her own party has always been the priority, and has been for a generation in which three other Tory prime ministers have paid the ultimate price. The national interest is being trashed and indeed ground into the dust as more lies and obfuscation aid her cover-up of how the worst post-war adventure in national self-harm has resulted in the dawning realisation of a dystopian future of unimaginable consequences.

Gordon Brown and Tony Blair warned last week about patronising those Leave voters whose concerns stretch well beyond the imaginary woes of the EU and which have been so ruthlessly and cynically exploited by the delusional, the ideological, that fanatical group of the Tory right, willing to pay any price to create a different kind of free market United Kingdom.

This is the sad truth behind a Tory Brexit. Blair summed it up: “The Prime Minister has presented the country with two options – a pointless one and a painful one. In the course of taking back control, we lose the control we had.”

So far, the EU has won the first round, thank goodness. So many doors, at least at this stage, have been left open to the customs union and the single market and helped by what looks increasingly like a “permanent” transition. Barring an unlikely coup by extreme Brexiteers, no referendum, no change of Tory leader or a new election, there are real possibilities of renegotiating major changes or renewing EU membership sometime in the future. A small but credible crumb of comfort in an insane outcome. This is more about the EU pitying the UK rather than being respectful. Or were EU negotiators just passionate about the Eagles hit Hotel California, where the lyrics say: “You can check out any time you like. But you can never leave”?

Brown and Blair have argued that the Labour Party must now rise to the occasion. They are right. Jeremy Corbyn continues to confuse voters and distort the clear message of Labour’s conference that “all options are still on the table”. Despite Keir Starmer’s heroic efforts, Labour’s leader is not responding. His ambivalence is tangible but increasingly worrying. Corbyn must sets aside his own views on the EU and accept that this is a crucial moment in the history of the party and the country which demands firm, spirited and unequivocal leadership. Labour is by instinct, experience and history an internationalist party. The EU is where our interests lie. The long-term future of the UK is now in the hands of the Labour Party and Corbyn must seize the opportunity. A People’s Vote, now, not in the future, is the more important priority.

There is no clear-cut direction in which this Brexit mess will evolve. Looking at the bigger picture, one thing is clear. Brexit is a spectacular reminder of the chaos and decline of our politics, our governance, our democracy and our lack of a written constitution. Britain today is bitterly divided. This calls for a rethink of how we arrive at decisions which have seismic implications for the future of families and country. The state of UK politics is key – broken, immature, tribal, poisonous at times and subject to binary decisions: this yes/no, right/wrong, in/out and good/bad mentality is a reminder of how much further we must evolve before we achieve a more civilised and rational society.

Other Western European democracies in the 21st century have sensible voting systems, consensual approaches, coalition governments, co-operation on issues and a much greater sense of what their political mission is. They are also team players who see sovereignty as something to be shared and expanded and not something to be used to build isolationism, nationalism and self-delusion.

Brexit has significant implications for the constitutional future of Scotland and the holding of a second referendum, of whatever kind.

First, the Tory government and Westminster have been totally contemptuous of Scotland during the negotiations, indeed insulting. The remain vote in Scotland has been ignored. The spirit and substance of devolution has been trashed. Devolved power has proved to be limited at a time when shared power has never been on offer. Scotland has received significant “policy powers” but never any “real power” over international affairs, Europe, politics or the constitution. Put simply the devolved status of Scotland, the integrity of the Scottish Parliament and any recognition of Scotland as a nation have had little or no bearing on how Westminster, still a highly centralised and contrived nation state, operates in the 21st century. Approaching the 20th anniversary of the Scottish Parliament, this is a shocking indictment of how delusion, sovereignty and exceptionalism continue to dominate Westminster thinking.

The second major lesson to be learned from Brexit is that referendums are potentially dangerous, divisive and, in weak democracies like the UK, are likely to lead to chaos not consensus, with no sense of unifying purpose. They are used at the whim of prime ministers, unchecked by any constitutional constraints on their use, are merely consultative in nature but accepted as binding instructions by government, and can be conducted in fact-free zones backed up by lying on an industrial scale. Corruption and out-of-country interference, is another problem. The fact Nigel Farage is a person of interest for the Mueller Inquiry in the US raises questions as to his behaviour in the EU referendum.

While a strong supporter of a People’s Vote, I am constantly challenged by the idea of what would happen if Remain wins by 52% to 48% in the same poisonous atmosphere as the referendum in 2016. Do we need to rewrite the rules of referendums or is one vote still a majority? Or more to the point do we need to reinvent our politics?

Thirdly, the way in which we decide complex and divisive political issues is not served by the lack of political awareness, civic engagement, poor levels of institutional knowledge and the constant undermining of politics and politicians by much of the popular right-wing press. Add in to this mix the distortions of social media and you readily see the weaknesses of what passes for democracy in the post-UK. Scotland needs to work harder at improving political communication and citizens’ knowledge. A new article in the RSA Journal, Democracy Endangered by Henry Tam, lays down the challenge: “No democratic country allows the freedom of speech to become a license to lie.” This is where the US is today and maybe the UK tomorrow.

So, what are the immediate consequences for Scotland? There was intense speculation that a Brexit vote, after Scotland voted to remain, would boost the cause of independence. This hasn’t happened. There is evidence to suggest, though, that Brexit will have a slow burn, reminding voters that the inclusive offer of 2014 – vote one, get one free – no longer applies.

Scotland is entering a more challenging, and unsettling period. Opinion polls – nearly 90 of them since 2014 – have shown little significant change in the support for independence. There is no clear majority for leaving the Union and certainly not the overwhelming majority the First Minister says she needs before pushing for a new referendum. Timing is a crucial calculation. Her party may be pressing for an early vote, but Scots are not convinced. What is conspicuous, post the Brexit vote, is the question of what majority would be large enough to justify any form of major constitutional change in a future referendum? When is a matter settled beyond reasonable doubt and further dispute? What is the “settled will of the Scottish people”, in terms of the unfinished business embraced by John Smith before his untimely death and carried forward by Donald Dewar, again taken early, in his description of change as “a journey not a destination”. Brexit may be influencing hearts and minds in ways that were never envisaged when Scotland voted to remain. Will any new referendum in Scotland merely be a re-run of the Brexit debacle, with its unsettling outcome and troubling uncertainty?

THE constitutional question shouldn’t be the sole preserve of one party. Labour has to drop the idea of this being a taboo subject. Cross-party alliances and dialogue are both needed. The Brexit campaign has shown that a referendum producing a small and insignificant majority, relative to the scale of the issue and population, could have disastrous consequences. Scotland must learn lessons.

Whatever our long-term destination is, we need a much greater degree of consensus and an understanding of the likely consequences. Rushing to a second referendum vote, about any possible options, makes little sense unless a greater proportion of Scots are convinced that they are clear about what is best for Scotland. This requires a much wider, more mature, informed and inclusive ongoing debate than just another binary vote on yes or no to independence.

There are those who argue for Scotland to be independent at any price, who need no further persuasion, but the majority of Scots – passionate, patriotic but pragmatic – are unconvinced. There is a much wider debate to be had about Scotland’s future, the kind of change Scots want and not just about independence, although at the conclusion of our search for different futures, it may still prevail. A new approach rules nothing in or out but seeks instead to define the “settled will” as a unifying force. The politics of extremes must be carefully handled. Politics, people and parliament must be more assertive, acquisitive and ambitious. It is up to Scotland, not Westminster, to move the debate forward. Brexit has shown that the UK is bitterly divided and a slim majority to leave has done nothing to settle the issue or promote any sense of national unity. A bitter legacy now haunts the defeated and the discontented, which can be enduringly destructive.

There must be a better way.