Labour’s search for a purpose after Brexit vote

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb/02/labours-search-for-a-purpose-after-brexit-vote

Version 0 of 1.

As Labour facilitates the passage of the Brexit bill giving the government a free hand to negotiate the exit from the EU on its terms (A fifth of Labour MPs defy Corbyn as Brexit bill passes, 2 February), I feel, as a lifelong Labour voter, betrayed by the party. Rather than ease the passage of the bill through the Commons, the party could have used its powers of opposition to gain concessions. Certainly a strong Labour opposition may have persuaded Conservative remainers to rebel, ensuring that the government prioritises retaining membership of the single market.

The reason given for supporting the bill is that many Labour MPs represent seats in the north of England where the majority of the electorate voted leave. Yet many of those leave voters were not Labour voters, but were Tories or voters for other parties, or those with no particular political allegiance. The party leadership prefers to listen to them rather than the 62% of Labour voters who voted remain. Labour now faces an existential crisis, as it is now a party without a distinct, coherent message or purpose. Do such people as myself stay with the party hoping that it reforms itself and regains its former political vigour; or do I switch to the Greens who share my political principles?Derrick JoadLeeds

• Membership of the EU is not a matter of principle, it’s a strategy calculation: does being in the EU or being out of the EU give the people the better opportunities? The only principle here is that of democracy, which trumps (I use the word advisedly) the others. The electorate voted to leave. That democratic decision must be upheld, whatever one thinks of it strategically.

Consider the case of Owen Smith, who ignored the democratic decision of the Labour party membership in order to run for the leadership last summer. Smith feels the need neither to respect the national vote nor to represent his constituents, who voted strongly to leave. I don’t actually think he’s obliged to represent his constituents on a strategy matter, but I have more respect for those MPs who (misguidedly in my view) think they are and hence are conflicted over democracy versus strategy. Thank goodness a principled man, rather than Smith, is leader of the party.W Stephen Gilbert Author, Jeremy Corbyn – Accidental Hero, Corsham, Wiltshire

• Keir Starmer, representing a London constituency that voted overwhelmingly to remain in the EU, has shown character traits that are in depressingly short supply among many of his colleagues. Not for him the parading around TV studios displaying his high-minded morals, for he has recognised that there was a national referendum last year that provided a result that is at odds with the views he campaigned for and the result his electors wanted.

I voted to remain, in a constituency that backed that opinion. However, unlike my MP, I am prepared to accept the national decision – even though I consider it to be flawed. Starmer’s solid, thoughtful brand of realism marks him out as someone who should be considered as the next leader of the Labour party.Les BrightExeter

• David Parker (Letters, 1 February) refers to “Corbyn’s principled acceptance of the referendum result”. Labour party policy for decades has been for the UK to be a member of the EU. I am not aware that the policy process in the Labour party has changed that position. It may have happened since I resigned in November over the John McDonnell “Brexit opportunities” speech , but I don’t think so. So, less principled and more opportunistic.Bob NicholsonFrodsham, Cheshire

• I was surprised to see so many Labour Co-op MPs vote against the Brexit bill. As reported in this paper (9 September 2016), the Co-operative party is in the process of developing distinct policies to Labour. Indeed, at its economic conference in London at the weekend, it published its pamphlet In Our Interests – Building an Economy for All. Parts of this paper are more akin to your article by Colin Hines on progressive protectionism (theguardian.com, 12 January) and also on the letters page (1 February).Geoff NaylorWinchester, Hampshire

• Why this concentration on Labour MPs disobeying the party whip? The mantra of the day seems to be that the people have spoken and must be obeyed. About 80 Tory MPs voted to trigger article 50 against the express wishes of their constituents, surely a much greater crime than ignoring the party whips. These 80 would include May, Hammond, Duncan-Smith, Grayling etc.Richard BarrettMilton Keynes, Buckinghamshire

• Now parliament has agreed that we should leave the EU, the real debate is just about to begin. Democracy is allowing the British to do what they do best – muddling their way towards a compromise which is the best that could be expected in such a complex situation. Although we will leave in one sense, we will almost certainly continue to follow most of the rules and pay just as much for the privilege in the end. The pity is that all this is deflecting attention from the real problems the world faces, such as war, climate change and managing the proper introduction of automation to the workplace.Dr Richard TurnerHarrogate, North Yorkshire

• You say Britain is leaving (Editorial, 2 February). I say Britain is not leaving. There will be rancourous, interminable talks. The rest of the EU has little enthusiasm for Brexit and will be at best passively unhelpful, and at worst actively obstructive. Years down the line the newly sovereign British people will be offered a second referendum: “Here’s the best we could get. It’s rubbish. A halfway house of complex trading arrangements and only slightly qualified free movement of labour. What do you think?” (The actual wording on the ballot paper might be slightly different.) We’ll stay.Martin GibbonsLiverpool

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

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