Paul Mason and Chuka Umunna would normally be expected to come up with radically different proposals with regard to Labour’s policies, yet they are putting forward more or less the same solutions to the most pressing problem underlying Brexit, that of Free Movement of Labour (FML), Mason in an article in the New Statesman, Umunna in a speech to a conference on ‘Progressive Capitalism’.

Essentially they are both concerned that the UK remains with access to the single market, and have both indicated that a position which regulates labour movement to some degree might be negotiable and therefore consistent with and acceptable to the Brexit vote. Leanne Wood, the Plaid Cymru leader, has indicated that a Norway type EEA position might fulfil the same objective.

Whether this would be negotiable is doubtful, although at best it would be tweaking which would be unlikely to satisfy the majority of brexiteers, unless there was a major change in outlook by the EU, of which there is no sign, or growing concern about the effects of Brexit, which there is some evidence of.

The debate is basically about whether there should be a ‘hard’ or a ‘soft’ Brexit. It is unfortunate that the media have been allowed to get away with these characterisations, which must be confusing to many, but the ‘soft’ version is that of remaining with access to the single market, and largely still subject to EU rules, either through the EEA, as with Norway or through a series of bilateral treaties as with Switzerland. (It is interesting to note that the 2014 Swiss referendum which voted against free movement has not been accepted, and the issue remains unresolved, although that cannot continue indefinitely. Worth keeping an eye on). The ‘hard’ version is of withdrawal from the single market, at least on the same terms as existing members, with exports facing tariffs and, crucially the huge export of financial services to the EU threatened, but with no further subjection to EU rules, including FML.

In the run up to the referendum, while the claims of the brexiteers were far more fictitious than those of the remain camp, given the context it was not unreasonable for many people to dismiss all the claims, on a ‘cry wolf’ basis. However, the recent question marks over continued investment at the Nissan plant at Sunderland (80% of production exported) and the plans of banks to relocate to the EU are bound to have had a sobering effect on public opinion which is likely to grow.

Politically the Tories are deeply divided on the issue. The ‘hard’ line is either a cunning device to discredit the brexiteers, including May’s only real rival, Boris, by proving that it would be an economic disaster, or of preventing a split and winning back the vote that decamped to UKIP. This last objective, however, is unlikely to be realised against the substantial opposition to a ‘hard’ policy by many Tory moderates, as indicated by the results of the recent Witney by-election, where a section of the Tory vote went to the Lib-Dems, overwhelmingly it can be assumed on this issue.

Indeed this undoubtedly represents the biggest opportunity for the Lib-Dems since the 2015 election, and they will seek to put themselves at the head of, or integral to, a movement opposed to a ‘hard’ Brexit which is likely to attract large numbers of Tory and and Labour ‘moderates, ’ although short of a general election it is difficult to see their influence being decisive, which is why one will almost certainly not be held, but there is certainly scope for a strong campaign.

So where does Labour fit into all of this? Labour’s official policy is for a ‘soft’ Brexit, with continued access to the single maket, including the City, protection of residency rights here and in the EU, maintenance of rights at work, and ultimately a parliamentary vote before article 50 is triggered, although not a second referendum as called for by Owen Smith. There are differences over FML, with Keir Starmer, the new Brexit shadow, and other MPs backing curbs, with Corbyn continuing to fully support FML, wrongly in my view. There is nothing particularly socialist about FML (see K. Marx on the “reserve army of the unemployed”).

How this all plays out remains to be seen. If it becomes more apparent that a ‘hard’ Brexit will have extremely adverse economic consequences there is less likelihood of it happening, and some Norway type/ EEA arrangement is the likely outcome. This would not be wholly disadvantageous. It would mean greater control over agriculture, fisheries and regional policy, for instance. There would be no role in decision making, but much of this is related to the Euro anyway, which all members, apart from the UK and Denmark, are either members of or are obliged to join.

I believe that Labour should fight for such an outcome, and to seek to lead a campaign for it rather than follow a Lib-Dem led campaign. We must avoid a situation which boosts them at our expense, but at the same time we should not seek to overturn a democratic decision which could alienate us from many of our traditional supporters who we must aim to win back.

Some may ask what is particularly leftwing about what I am advocating. I would say that this is probably the best way to oppose the rabid nationalism of the right and the dire consequences of a ‘hard’ Brexit in terms of employment, rights at work and living standards for many people. Beyond that we should continue to stand for a reformed and ultimately socialist EU and continue to oppose the populist nationalism of the Tory right and UKIP which will never advance the interests of the majority.