This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/apr/03/britain-brexit-compromise-making-corbyns-labour
The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
Previous version
1
Next version
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Britain needs a Brexit compromise. Forging one could be the making of Corbyn’s Labour | Britain needs a Brexit compromise. Forging one could be the making of Corbyn’s Labour |
| (about 20 hours later) | |
| The national tragedy of Brexit sweeps on. In the end, Theresa May’s opening to Jeremy Corbyn to help solve it may prove to have been just another brief episode in its awful unfolding. But even the greatest tragedies occasionally have space for epic moments of boldness and inspiration, when a moment can be seized and an outcome reshaped. This could – perhaps – be one of them. | The national tragedy of Brexit sweeps on. In the end, Theresa May’s opening to Jeremy Corbyn to help solve it may prove to have been just another brief episode in its awful unfolding. But even the greatest tragedies occasionally have space for epic moments of boldness and inspiration, when a moment can be seized and an outcome reshaped. This could – perhaps – be one of them. |
| The appeal to Labour may soon prove to be little more than another of the tactical feints that May sometimes attempts in search of a Brexit solution. Through thick and thin, the prime minister has doggedly tried to get her deal through with Conservative and DUP votes. Occasionally, though, she has tacked a little towards the centre. When she does, her main motive seems to be to frighten her rebel rightwingers back into her hard-Brexit pen, rather than to reveal any lurking centrist convictions or because she accepts she has no alternative. | The appeal to Labour may soon prove to be little more than another of the tactical feints that May sometimes attempts in search of a Brexit solution. Through thick and thin, the prime minister has doggedly tried to get her deal through with Conservative and DUP votes. Occasionally, though, she has tacked a little towards the centre. When she does, her main motive seems to be to frighten her rebel rightwingers back into her hard-Brexit pen, rather than to reveal any lurking centrist convictions or because she accepts she has no alternative. |
| Brexit is a crisis created wholly by the Tory party, but which the Tory party has proved incapable of solving | |
| If this is such a feint, though, it was not having the desired effect today. Rightwing Tories were very angry at the opening up to Corbyn, and showed it at prime minister’s questions. But May did not back off. There was no real hint that it was shocking the hard Brexiteers into line behind May’s deal. On the contrary, their anger was against May herself. If anything, her move will have hardened the bitterness of her enemies. | If this is such a feint, though, it was not having the desired effect today. Rightwing Tories were very angry at the opening up to Corbyn, and showed it at prime minister’s questions. But May did not back off. There was no real hint that it was shocking the hard Brexiteers into line behind May’s deal. On the contrary, their anger was against May herself. If anything, her move will have hardened the bitterness of her enemies. |
| Labour nevertheless has a case for being initially suspicious about May’s intentions. May is a stubborn partisan. Nicola Sturgeon’s crocodile tears about hoping Labour were not being tricked into assisting a Tory Brexit will have fed the caution. But there is also a case for Corbyn to be bold, a case for him not to miss this opportunity by failing to grasp the national importance of the moment, the political weakness of the prime minister and the opportunities for Labour that her offer opens up. | Labour nevertheless has a case for being initially suspicious about May’s intentions. May is a stubborn partisan. Nicola Sturgeon’s crocodile tears about hoping Labour were not being tricked into assisting a Tory Brexit will have fed the caution. But there is also a case for Corbyn to be bold, a case for him not to miss this opportunity by failing to grasp the national importance of the moment, the political weakness of the prime minister and the opportunities for Labour that her offer opens up. |
| Brexit is as extensive a national crisis as Britain has faced since 1945. After the Commons votes of recent days, both parliament and government are gridlocked. Meanwhile, the clock is ticking towards a no-deal outcome on 12 April that only the fanatics desire. Few should therefore argue that it is not worth trying very seriously – albeit at this recklessly late stage – to see if Britain’s two great governing parties can fashion a compromise that can save the country in its genuine hour of need. | Brexit is as extensive a national crisis as Britain has faced since 1945. After the Commons votes of recent days, both parliament and government are gridlocked. Meanwhile, the clock is ticking towards a no-deal outcome on 12 April that only the fanatics desire. Few should therefore argue that it is not worth trying very seriously – albeit at this recklessly late stage – to see if Britain’s two great governing parties can fashion a compromise that can save the country in its genuine hour of need. |
| Of course, some will disagree with that. Both parties are dogmatically tribal. Both are deeply split. Both have leaders who are not rated by the public. Social media amplifies all this. Toughest of all, Brexit is an intensely polarising issue. Against that, however, Britain still remains in many ways the pragmatic place it likes to imagine itself as being, in which finding a compromise, avoiding doctrinaire solutions and striking a fair bargain are all still widespread and respected cultural instincts. | Of course, some will disagree with that. Both parties are dogmatically tribal. Both are deeply split. Both have leaders who are not rated by the public. Social media amplifies all this. Toughest of all, Brexit is an intensely polarising issue. Against that, however, Britain still remains in many ways the pragmatic place it likes to imagine itself as being, in which finding a compromise, avoiding doctrinaire solutions and striking a fair bargain are all still widespread and respected cultural instincts. |
| Labour also has a very strong patriotic tradition in its DNA. Its sense of itself as a great national party is emotionally rooted more in its record of doing the right thing when it matters than it is rooted in socialist doctrines. Its foundation myth is the wartime “speak for England, Arthur” moment in which, with Hitler’s armies pouring into Belgium and Holland, Clem Attlee’s party joined the wartime coalition and, in so doing, began to lay the practical and moral foundations of Labour’s right to govern a “never again” postwar nation. | Labour also has a very strong patriotic tradition in its DNA. Its sense of itself as a great national party is emotionally rooted more in its record of doing the right thing when it matters than it is rooted in socialist doctrines. Its foundation myth is the wartime “speak for England, Arthur” moment in which, with Hitler’s armies pouring into Belgium and Holland, Clem Attlee’s party joined the wartime coalition and, in so doing, began to lay the practical and moral foundations of Labour’s right to govern a “never again” postwar nation. |
| This is in some ways a “speak for Britain” moment too. Moreover, it is one that Corbyn needs. Both his patriotism and his practicality are constantly assailed, from within his own party as well as by its enemies. Many natural Labour voters won’t vote for him. What better way to rebut those serious charges than by trying to make himself and his team the co-authors of a principled, reliable and workable compromise solution to the nation’s Brexit agony? Of course that would be a difficult task, involving many political dangers. But not on the scale of the dangers of 1940, you might think. | This is in some ways a “speak for Britain” moment too. Moreover, it is one that Corbyn needs. Both his patriotism and his practicality are constantly assailed, from within his own party as well as by its enemies. Many natural Labour voters won’t vote for him. What better way to rebut those serious charges than by trying to make himself and his team the co-authors of a principled, reliable and workable compromise solution to the nation’s Brexit agony? Of course that would be a difficult task, involving many political dangers. But not on the scale of the dangers of 1940, you might think. |
| The state of the Conservative party provides even more temptation. Brexit is a crisis created wholly by the Tory party, but which the Tory party has proved incapable of solving. The issue is now destroying the party. If Corbyn faces a 1940 moment, May faces one that bears comparison with 1931, when Ramsay MacDonald’s Labour government was overwhelmed by its inability to control the impact of the great financial crash and MacDonald was forced to turn to the Conservatives to support his cuts, splitting his party in the process, and going down in Labour mythology as the great traitor to the cause. | The state of the Conservative party provides even more temptation. Brexit is a crisis created wholly by the Tory party, but which the Tory party has proved incapable of solving. The issue is now destroying the party. If Corbyn faces a 1940 moment, May faces one that bears comparison with 1931, when Ramsay MacDonald’s Labour government was overwhelmed by its inability to control the impact of the great financial crash and MacDonald was forced to turn to the Conservatives to support his cuts, splitting his party in the process, and going down in Labour mythology as the great traitor to the cause. |
| No ifs, no buts: Jeremy Corbyn must insist a Brexit deal is put to voters | Polly Toynbee | |
| Again, there are many differences. There will be no national government this time. But Theresa May’s fate could yet be as the MacDonald of the Tory party. David Marquand’s compelling account of 1931 is full of 2019 echoes. At the height of the crisis, he wrote, MacDonald was “torn by conflicting emotions – burning resentment against his opponents in the Cabinet pulling against loyalty to the party in which he had spent his life; fear of political and personal isolation against fear of national bankruptcy and a gnawing sense that it was his responsibility to avert it”. He could be describing May. | Again, there are many differences. There will be no national government this time. But Theresa May’s fate could yet be as the MacDonald of the Tory party. David Marquand’s compelling account of 1931 is full of 2019 echoes. At the height of the crisis, he wrote, MacDonald was “torn by conflicting emotions – burning resentment against his opponents in the Cabinet pulling against loyalty to the party in which he had spent his life; fear of political and personal isolation against fear of national bankruptcy and a gnawing sense that it was his responsibility to avert it”. He could be describing May. |
| Today, on Brexit, May and Corbyn face the opposite sides of the same dilemma – of whether and how to compromise. On the one side, there is May, who leads a party that is split over whether to compromise at all and who does not herselfcompromise easily or with grace. On the other, there is Corbyn, whose party is deeply split between soft Brexit and no Brexit, and who has made a career out of not giving ground on anything much. | Today, on Brexit, May and Corbyn face the opposite sides of the same dilemma – of whether and how to compromise. On the one side, there is May, who leads a party that is split over whether to compromise at all and who does not herselfcompromise easily or with grace. On the other, there is Corbyn, whose party is deeply split between soft Brexit and no Brexit, and who has made a career out of not giving ground on anything much. |
| The process seems likely to fail. Yet the situation cries out for compromise. Compromise is an ineradicable element of politics. Knowing how, when and why to offer or accept a compromise is a vital art of government. It would be even more vital under a fairer voting system. Yet the key protagonists at this hour are almost uniquely unsuited to the task. Can they work together? Stranger things have happened in politics. But not many. | The process seems likely to fail. Yet the situation cries out for compromise. Compromise is an ineradicable element of politics. Knowing how, when and why to offer or accept a compromise is a vital art of government. It would be even more vital under a fairer voting system. Yet the key protagonists at this hour are almost uniquely unsuited to the task. Can they work together? Stranger things have happened in politics. But not many. |
| • Martin Kettle is a Guardian columnist | • Martin Kettle is a Guardian columnist |
| Labour | Labour |
| Opinion | Opinion |
| Jeremy Corbyn | Jeremy Corbyn |
| Brexit | Brexit |
| Article 50 | Article 50 |
| Second world war | Second world war |
| European Union | European Union |
| Foreign policy | Foreign policy |
| comment | comment |
| Share on Facebook | Share on Facebook |
| Share on Twitter | Share on Twitter |
| Share via Email | Share via Email |
| Share on LinkedIn | Share on LinkedIn |
| Share on Pinterest | Share on Pinterest |
| Share on WhatsApp | Share on WhatsApp |
| Share on Messenger | Share on Messenger |
| Reuse this content | Reuse this content |
Previous version
1
Next version