Last week’s by-election in Richmond was the second resounding success for the Lib-Dems, after Witney, in using a by-election to demonstrate the breadth of opposition to Brexit, and it places them in a strong position to lead and promote such a campaign, despite having few MPs, and limited resources, certainly compared to Labour.

I don’t particularly wish to discuss whether Labour should have stood or not. I was personally opposed, but there was an argument for doing so, and it fortunately did not prevent a Goldsmith defeat, which it might well have done. What is clear is that there was a large Labour tactical vote for the Lib-Dem candidate, including quite a few members.

But if Richmond consolidates the growth of voices for Remain (or even a Second referendum campaign) then that poses acute problems for Labour. In my view such a campaign is politically unprincipled anyway. It is not the same, as some have suggested, of losing an election and immediately campaigning to win the next one. It is effectively saying that although parliament voted to have a referendum, (and there is no point in having one if it is not binding), the wrong result was obtained because of some ignorant and racist people in the north and therefore we will have to re-run it to get the right result. Yes, I exaggerate, but there is a clear implication here of the metropolitan elite spurning the will of the people, and nothing could be better designed to drive Labour Brexit voters into the ranks of UKIP or the Tories.

Labour must stick to the line it has correctly taken, that the result of the referendum must be respected, that Brexit should therefore happen, that we should retain the employment rights that we had as an EU member and that we should avoid an economic downturn by remaining part of the single market. What that means, as I argued in the last article I wrote on this, is a Norwegian or Swiss solution, which surrenders any control over the determination of policy, extends autonomy in certain areas, but crucially not over free movement, in return for remaining part of the single market. This is the only possible solution that both respects the referendum result but avoids the likely economic downturn that a hard Brexit would mean, and about which there is little doubt among informed opinion.

The danger for Labour is that the Lib-Dems will now put themselves at the head of an anti-Brexit movement for which considerable support has already been demonstrated, and about which it is possible to become much more passionate than supporting Labour’s policy which although principled and unifying is hardly likely to fire the emotions. This could result in growing Lib-Dem support at Labour’s expense, although it also potentially threatens the Tories. They have to seek to maintain unity through ambiguity about their real intentions which they seek to justify on the grounds of not giving away their negotiating stance, probably hoping, at least from May and Hammond’s point of view, that the initial hard Brexit stance can be moderated over time as its consequences become apparent, and all can be blamed on the three stooges, particularly Johnson. Whether this works remains to be seen. There is unlikely to be a parliamentary challenge of any size next spring, which would require a significant Labour and Tory vote to succeed, and that would be the only reason to call an election which would only be likely to help the Lib-Dems. So there will be no second referendum, at least not next spring, but this could happen in two year’s time, when a poor deal or a hard Brexit were both seen by a majority as unattractive solutions, and there was an overwhelming vote to stay in! This assumes of course that the EU was still a viable entity, and not, as it may well be, in a state of disintegration which would render the notion of Brexit, hard or soft, as somewhat academic.

The debate will continue. My own view remains that it is only a reformed, social democratic, EU that can challenge the domination of capital in Europe and enable movement towards socialismhere. The break up of the EU would mean a great advance for the nationalist/populist right behind which capital would continue to dominate, more easily than before by playing countries off against each other. This is why the prospect of an independent left wing UK is a fantasy, and why Labour should continue to have a close, and hopefully closer, relationship with the parties of the left in the EU, including the PEL as well as the PES. The proposed conference of European left parties next year is very welcome in this regard.

The Starmer/McDonnell line is being refined, and is, I believe, right. It is, however, unfortunately at variance with the Corbyn/Abbott line on free movement. Can this please be sorted out. I’m sure we would all agree on the importance of all singing from the same hymn sheet.