Former Tory chancellor George Osborne and Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn agree on few things – but both believe the odds of a general election in 2019 are shortening. This is because the prime minister’s Brexit deal looks unlikely to get through the Commons, despite being talked up by ministers. That leaves three options for MPs: to leave the European Union without a withdrawal agreement; to delay the decision to leave; or to return to the public on the question of Brexit, via either a referendum or a general election. Mr Corbyn chose in an interview with the Guardian this weekend to say Labour would prefer to bring down the government, force an election and then campaign to deliver a better Brexit than the one Theresa May negotiated. Although the Labour leader is restating party policy, he is doing so at a time when calls for a second referendum as a way out of the parliamentary gridlock are getting louder.

Labour’s Brexit strategy has been undoubtedly smart politically but it seems unlikely to survive an impact with reality. The policy has differentiated the opposition from the government with calls for a permanent UK-EU customs union, exploiting divisions within the Tory party. But it is hard to see how Mr Corbyn could convince the EU to accept less binding commitments on state aid, which he raised in his interview, especially if Labour is seeking a permanent customs union. It would not be in the EU’s interest to grant the UK access to its markets without tariffs or rules of origin, while allowing it to undercut EU companies by relaxing rules on government subsidies. Perhaps Brussels would be more amenable if Labour swept the country in a snap landslide election. Surely that is more hope than expectation. If Labour accepts the costs of leaving as a price worth paying, it should say so. There ought to be little equivocation about whether there will be any cost associated with Brexit. Mr Corbyn’s reliance on “Lexit” arguments reinforce the view that he remains wedded to the creed of Euroscepticism which posits Brexit as an opportunity rather than an exercise in damage limitation. Yet the Labour leader’s radicalism can be accommodated within the EU.

Labour’s 2017 manifesto offered policies that would not be out of place in many continental nations which abide by the EU’s state aid and competition laws. The reason such a programme has not been previously implemented in the UK is not because of the EU. It is because UK governments, including Labour ones, have been ideologically opposed to them. The party’s ambiguity in last year’s general election did not affect the opinions of many of Labour’s supporters in the country. True, Labour made headway in remain areas, notably capturing seats that hitherto were beyond their grasp. But it is also true that the party made ground with leave voters, though with less high-profile success.

Last year leaving the EU was on the minds of Labour voters, but it was one issue among several. That surely has changed as the UK sails towards disaster like the Titanic. Brexit is an iceberg, merely the visible portion of a much larger mass below the surface that needs to be properly understood. The struggle between the winners and losers of globalisation, of which the EU is a proxy rather than a cause, is something Mr Corbyn comprehends. The concern is that he thinks he can win votes by using sophistry to convince the public of rather tall claims. But this approach is akin to a captain saying there are better ways to sink a boat. Brexit’s glacial mass looms. To avoid a damaging crash, Labour needs soon to launch a lifeboat the country can get into.