In the discussion about Brexit, inflamed once again by the supreme court process, too much has been made of article 50’s alleged irrevocability as well as of the two-year timetable which it lays out for completing negotiations with the rest of the European Union. Even ardent remainers are guilty of this. In fact, neither of these points is set in stone. Now there is a real opportunity to shape and to change the terms of the debate.

Article 50: Labour to push for closer scrutiny of Brexit process Read more

Few people appear to appreciate that, contrary to widespread assumption, paragraph three of the Lisbon treaty’s article 50 says that the two-year timetable can be extended by the European council. There is no inflexibility here. Similarly, paragraph five of the same article raises the option of a member state that has left the EU deciding to rejoin. In other words, Brexit does not slam the door. Britain can come back in again provided the political circumstances are right.

That might seem over-optimistic now, but it could be relevant were the Labour party to declare itself for remaining in the EU or rejoining it if the Tories take us out. A sizeable group of Labour MPs is already thinking of voting against the triggering of article 50 when the issue comes to parliament. In the House of Lords Peter Hain is advocating a similar line. That line ought to be taken up by the Labour leadership. If this is considered too radical at this stage, Jeremy Corbyn and the shadow cabinet should at least abstain on the Brexit vote so as to put themselves at a clear distance from the government’s negotiating bandwagon.

For, though it now seems almost heresy to say so, there is nothing sacrosanct about a referendum result. When Labour loses an election, it is normal democratic practice to seek to reverse the result at the next election. Why should a referendum result have more democratic weight than a general election? It is possible to respect the electorate’s decision while at the same time, between now and 2020, use all the political tools of campaigning and argument to change it in due time.

Labour is on a slippery slope if it falls for the Brexiteers’ claim that last year’s referendum result is untouchable. On the contrary, the party should campaign to reverse the result if it takes power again. Public support for Brexit is more likely to diminish than increase as Brexit’s costs and job losses become clearer. Labour should be ready to crest this wave and prepare to put reversing the process into its 2020 manifesto.

This need not mean another referendum. There are two other ways, depending on the stage the negotiations have reached by 2020. If they have not yet come to fruition by the time of the general election, an incoming Labour government could simply terminate them. If Brexit is complete, Labour could apply to rejoin the EU.

One benefit of this adoption of a clear anti-Brexit strategy is that it might encourage the EU’s negotiators to spin out the talks well beyond two years in the hope that a Labour government would be elected. Some Europeans are understandably fed up with Britain’s long history of Euroscepticism and may well see Brexit as good riddance. But the majority still prefers Britain in rather than out. If delaying Brexit meant defeating it, they may choose this as a negotiating strategy.

Another benefit of an uncompromising Brexit stance is that it gives Labour an unambiguous campaigning platform on which to approach the European issue at the next election, rather than picking over individual items in the package the Tories will have been negotiating. The latter risks leaving huge doubts in voters’ minds over what Labour really wants. Voters prefer clarity.

How I went from soggy Tory to leader of the hard Brexit resistance | Tim Skeet Read more

As for the idea of Britain applying to rejoin the EU under article 50’s paragraph five, in theory all new applicants to the EU have to accept the euro as their country’s currency and must become members of the Schengen no-passport zone. This is unacceptable to most British citizens so that, even though there is a legal way to rejoin, there seems no politically desirable way back once Britain leaves the EU.

But article 49 of the Lisbon treaty which deals with the process of joining the EU says nothing about the euro or Schengen. By law the UK government would not be prevented from asking to rejoin on the same terms and with the same opt-outs that it had when it left. If EU leaders want Britain to rejoin, as seems likely most would, there is no basis for assuming they would insist on Britain adopting the euro and Schengen.

The conclusion is clear. When it comes to the parliamentary vote on whether Britain should trigger article 50, Labour should abstain or vote no. The government will no doubt win this immediate battle, but Labour will have more credibility in the long war when it comes to the task of constantly and rigorously raising questions about the government’s negotiating positions as the talks with the EU proceed.

Meanwhile, the party should use its opposition role to point to Brexit’s damaging economic impact and send a clear message here and abroad that Labour will reverse Brexit if it returns to power. Our democracy has checks and balances. Make use of them.