Brexit – to compromise or make hard choices?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/may/30/brexit-to-compromise-or-make-hard-choices

Version 0 of 1.

Paul Mason is right (Corbynism is in crisis. Labour will have to oppose Brexit, 28 May) and Gloria De Piero is wrong (Switching to remain would wreck Labour, 28 May). The idea that Labour can be restored as one big, happy family that will produce social justice once Brexit is “got over with” is a hopeless delusion. Ms De Piero admits that the problems of people in run-down constituencies such as hers “were not created by being in the EU and won’t be solved by leaving it”, and she can hardly be unaware that most economists consider that places like Ashfield will be the most adversely impacted by the economic downturn that leaving will produce. She rightly says that Labour has a moral duty to represent the interests of working-class people but does not explain how this justifies tacitly endorsing the self-harm that Brexit represents for all except the wealthy rightwingers who have led the project.

It may be true that Labour cannot win outright without winning in constituencies such as Ashfield, but even less can Labour win by alienating the vast majority of its members and supporters. We have just seen what happens when it tries to face both ways at once. Unfortunately for Jeremy Corbyn, the time has come to stop dithering like a latter-day George Lansbury and make some hard choices. Brexit isn’t going to go away but, at this rate, Labour might well vanish as a significant force in British politics, and serve it right, too.Michael PykeShenstone, Staffordshire

• I would like to pose a rhetorical question to Gloria De Piero. If a future Tory government offered the country a referendum on capital punishment – not too far-fetched when looking at some of the members of the ERG – and the country, along with her own constituency, voted narrowly in favour, would she want a Labour party to back the majority vote?Irene WaddellHarrogate, North Yorkshire

• Lisa Nandy’s concerns exemplify Labour’s difficulties in adopting the necessary new direction signalled by the European election results (We abandon loyalists at our peril, warns Nandy, 29 May). However, even in Wigan, the figures suggest the increase in the combined Brexit party/Ukip vote derived much more from Tory than Labour defectors, the bulk of whom are likely to have supported remain parties and might well return to Labour with a change of policy.

In addition to clear analysis of the likely electoral consequences in each constituency of such a change, a method is required to resolve the competing pressures within the party. Formal consultation or a special conference would take considerable time to organise, but an indicative online membership ballot, of the type proposed by Jeremy Corbyn to democratise policymaking, but never implemented, could be relatively quick. A Brexit ballot could re-energise the party and in the event, for example, of substantial backing for Labour’s pre-referendum policy of “remain and reform”, could be a real game changer, which the leadership would ignore at its peril.Dr Anthony IsaacsLondon

• I thought Martha Gill (Journal, 28 May) summed up the situation around Brexit remarkably accurately: the Tories are landed with the harsh reality of delivering an extremely complex, possibly impossible, task rooted in an ideal which is “purist, anti-institution and scornful of compromise”.

What she and other commentators neglect to examine is the degree to which those calling for another referendum, or the annulment of article 50, are also purist and scornful of compromise. That side assumes, without any real evidence, that another vote would deliver them the “right” answer. All it requires is to campaign sufficiently vigorously for the population to come to its senses Alas, this is unlikely to happen. Given all the indicators, the best one could hope for is a small majority for remain. But the anger released by overturning the referendum result would be frightening indeed, and its consequences for trust in democracy terrifying. I don’t know the answer to this conundrum, but I think that Corbyn will eventually be proved right in searching for compromise.Hazel DaviesNewton-le-Willows, Merseyside

• It’s encouraging to hear Rory Stewart (Report, 28 May) supporting the idea of a citizens’ assembly, as a way to both cut the Gordian knot of Brexit and start bringing the country together. Few people seem to know that there was a citizens’ assembly on options for Brexit in late 2017 in Manchester. The main findings were:

• The thing that members wanted to value most about their country was “quality of public services”.

• On migration most people wanted the UK to maintain free movement of labour with the EU, but make greater use of controls that are available within the single market. They wanted improved training for UK citizens, possible benefit reforms and investment in public services in areas of high immigration.

• On trade with the EU, most members preferred a close relationship with the EU, either through a comprehensive trade deal or ongoing membership of the single market. The latter was preferred to leaving without a deal.

• On trade beyond the EU most people preferred an arrangement allowing an independent trade policy while maintaining a frictionless UK/EU border. But if unattainable they would prefer staying in the customs union over no deal.

Two observations: first, when people are well informed, there is little support for leaving with no deal. So it seems reckless for the Tory leadership contenders, and media, to focus on this. Second, there are strong proponents of a citizens’ assembly on the opposition side as well, for example Stella Creasy and Caroline Lucas.

Is it impossible to imagine that Theresa May’s parting gift would be to facilitate a cross-party agreement for an independently managed citizens’ assembly to provide the way forward on Brexit? Because there doesn’t seem to be any other option that gets us moving forward without deepening the existing divisions.Carolyn HaymanLondon

• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com

• Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters

• Do you have a photo you’d like to share with Guardian readers? Click here to upload it and we’ll publish the best submissions in the letters spread of our print edition