The first thing to say about this week’s talks between Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn over Brexit is that they are a sign of realism on both sides. The second is that they should have taken place months ago. Both leaders must bear a share of responsibility for the long avoidance of cross-party dialogue about a decision that is so fundamental to the British people’s future. But it is Mrs May, as the head of government and the person in charge of Brexit policy, who must bear the larger share by far.
The prime minister has come to these talks at the eleventh hour, whereas she should have begun them before she triggered the article 50 withdrawal process 22 months ago. The danger now is that, although welcome in principle, the talks will have little practical effect. This is in part because there is little established basis for trust between the two sides, in part because time is now so limited before 29 March to achieve anything major, and in part because Mrs May – and perhaps Mr Corbyn too – prefers to see them as a tactical expedient, rather than as a serious national opportunity, even at this late stage.
The fact remains that, ever since the 2017 election resulted in a hung parliament, it has always been clear to those who can count that Mrs May would struggle to get a Commons majority for anything approaching a pragmatic Brexit agreement with Conservative and DUP votes alone. Her party contains too many deregulatory and anti-European ideologues for that. She already knew this when she became leader in 2016. Two and a half years on, she still knows it. She is more aware than anyone that the 16-vote majority to reopen talks with the EU on the Northern Ireland backstop may not withstand contact with the real world. If that happens, the pressure for serious dialogue will therefore return with full force.
Some people may hope that Mrs May could then pivot decisively towards the kind of soft Brexit that would get Labour backing. This would be a spectacular about-face. It would certainly be less bad than no deal or Mrs May’s November 2018 deal. But all this is the triumph of hope over experience. Mrs May shows no sign of contemplating any such thing. It is not in her character. She has done no groundwork. She seems to be using the talks with Labour for narrow and tactical reasons. In other words she is talking to Mr Corbyn in order to frighten her own party into line behind a reworked version of her existing deal. She is not rolling the pitch for a new and softer Brexit approach that she intends to adopt after her new approach to Brussels goes wrong.
Reports on Thursday confirm that there is nothing visionary or heroic about Mrs May’s approach. They suggest she is hoping to pick off individual Labour MPs with offers of constituency funding and investment rather than look for a larger leader-to-leader agreement on Brexit. There are undoubtedly places in Britain where Labour MPs sit for leave-voting constituencies which are crying out for investment amid industrial and community decline. But the same problems exist in remain-voting constituencies too, and in other places across the UK whose MPs choose, for honourable reasons, not to back Mrs May’s Brexit approach. Politics always has a local dimension and MPs have every reason to press for local investment. But local wounds like hospital or college closures are ultimately national issues. They should be addressed strategically, not through a grubby divide-and-rule auction of the minimum number of votes that Mrs May requires to win a majority for her inadequate and dangerous deal.
Yet that does not justify not talking, and Labour should not hide behind it. The task of healing divisions and bringing people back together is noble and difficult. Party politics is very imperfectly wired for it. This week has reminded us how politicians tend to put their own tribe above the needs of the nation. But Brexit is too big for this. It cuts across everything. In all the hours of debate very few MPs have risen to the full seriousness of what is at stake economically, socially, politically and constitutionally in the harm this process risks inflicting on our people. Everyone is tired and stressed by Brexit. But if it requires more time and more talking to mitigate that harm in an effective and strategic manner, then so be it.
