At the end of the day it’s a no-deal Brexit or Jeremy Corbyn

Jeremy Corbyn addresses the Commons. He will never accept an alternative government led by someone else. Picture: AFP

Here’s the choice that faces us now: the fundamental one that remains after the latest Commons drama. Some of you will be completely comfortable with it. But for many of you, I warn you, it’s quite grisly.

Let’s start with this. People who are comfortable with a no-deal Brexit, and realise that I am not, often get in touch to make what they regard as the prince of points. The referendum just asked if we wanted to leave or remain — there wasn’t anything else on the ballot paper. I can tell from their tone that they think they’ve landed a great clunking fist of an argument.

My reaction is one of bemusement. Can’t they see that the force of their argument is precisely the opposite? Yes, the referendum was a straight choice between leaving and remaining and so the result means we should leave. But it was silent beyond that. The referendum had nothing to say on how we should leave or when we should do so. We live in a parliamentary democracy and these are questions for parliament.

So if an MP argues we should leave but only with a deal, they are not defying the “will of the people”. The will of the people, as established by the referendum, did not get into the question of having or not having a deal. And it didn’t say anything about October 31 or any other date. What about the last general election then? Well, both parties said we would leave but they also said we would do it with a deal. The Tories, it is true, said no deal was better than a bad deal. But in so far as anyone is bound by the manifesto of a party that didn’t win a majority, the question of what constitutes a bad deal is, again, one for parliamentary judgment, exercised by each MP.

In other words, it’s a legitimate and democratic position to argue that we should leave only when we have an acceptable deal, and that we should delay leaving to avoid the consequences of a no-deal.

Along with many others, I believe no-deal would be irresponsible and reckless. It would expose us to great short-term economic risks but even if it comes out all right, it’s a hopeless long-term position. All the questions that made reaching a deal so difficult would still be with us and would need to be settled if we were to avoid a permanently impaired political and economic relationship with our closest neighbours on the Continent.

Far from bringing a swift end to the Brexit struggle, no-deal will mean it stretches out into the future, dominating domestic and foreign policy until it is settled on broadly the terms available to us now. There is, of course, the argument that we need to prepare for leaving without a deal in order to avoid having to do so. It sounds reasonable: hold firm and the EU will eventually cave. But I think it’s highly unlikely that the EU will make big enough changes to the withdrawal agreement for Boris Johnson to be able to accept them or to get them past his more hardline backbenchers.

While some will be relaxed, even enthusiastic, about this, for many of us it means accepting a no-deal exit that we think is damaging, unnecessary and, crucially, well within parliament’s rights to prevent. So it should be opposed as vigorously as it can be. It’s all very clear. If only things were that simple. Let’s have a look at where all that clarity leads.

The Liberal Democrats have made it plain they would not support a temporary government of national unity if it was led by Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn.

It’s consistent with the views of their leader, Jo Swinson.

During her recent leadership campaign, she was asked whether she would support Corbyn after an election in which Labour became the largest party in parliament but fell short of an overall Commons majority. Here’s what she said: “Jeremy Corbyn? Absolutely not.”

Corbyn was really a Brexiteer and, she added, “a danger to our country”.

Perhaps, thought the Lib Dems, someone else could lead a government of national unity. But former Tory chancellor Ken Clarke, who was being canvassed as an alternative prime minister, had a different view. He said he was willing to support a temporary Corbyn premiership provided it dealt with Brexit and nothing else.

Neither of these positions reflects reality. And the reality is that Corbyn is the leader of the opposition. He is never, while he remains Labour leader, going to accept an alternative government led by someone else. Which means that what might look like a temporary hitch — the difficulty of stitching together quickly a government of national unity to delay Brexit and call an election — is in fact a permanent hitch.

If you can’t form a government led by Corbyn because you think he’s a danger to the country, you can’t form an alternative to the current Tory government.

That alternative will be led by him or it won’t exist.

Labour will be the largest non-Conservative party. You put Corbyn and his far-left advisers Seumas Milne and Andrew Murray in No 10 and proud Marxist John McDonnell as chancellor in No 11 or you don’t. But if you don’t, you have Johnson and his no-deal.

This is the awkward fact. That is what we are left with after Theresa May’s resignation. Any government of the right comes complete with the irresponsible idea of no-deal and any government of the left comes complete with Corbyn. And the other option? There isn’t one.

Theoretically, the Lib Dems could overtake Labour as the larger party or Labour could dump its leader with his assent. But, really, how likely is that?

Don’t get me wrong. This doesn’t mean it’s impossible to come up with another option and to make a case for it. It just means that, in practice, this is now the choice we’re left with. And to be left with it is something of a disaster. But failing to face up to the facts doesn’t help anyone.

I could never make peace with no-deal or pretend that I think it’s a good idea. But when it comes to the crunch, I could never choose a Corbyn government. Never.

For many others, when the time comes, the choice is going to prove very hard indeed.

The Times