Disclaimer: The views expressed within this article are entirely the author’s own and are not attributable to Wessex Scene as a whole.
It is well known that Jeremy Corbyn is a very weak leader of his party. The lack of position and stance regarding anything other than the nationalisation of the railways and utility services is a big bugbear for many people, Labour Party supporters and otherwise.
I hope to take a look into some of the hypotheses that people have come up with as to explain his support of Theresa May’s Brexit despite many of Labour’s membership detesting the stance.
Firstly, one of the more credible and fact-based hypotheses comes from Nick Cohen, a journalist who often writes for The Observer and Spectator, as well as being nominated for the Orwell prize in journalism. He points out that many of Corbyn’s top advisers come from the hard or radical left, with some being ex-Communist Party members. Some are even from organisations that campaigned for a one-party communist state to be the governance system in the UK. Cohen argues that they believe that if they allow enough chaos to be created with regards to Brexit that it will break Britain and make a people’s hard or far left rising achievable.
Another theory, which developed during the 2016 EU referendum, is that Corbyn has always wanted Brexit. His very weak performance playing minimum lip service to the Remain campaign during the referendum would seem to support this argument. This is also further evidenced in his opposition to the UK joining the EEC, the Maastricht Treaty, the Lisbon Treaty and the fact he also supported the referendum being held in the first place. He has been quoted before, during, and after the referendum saying that the EU position on no state aid was a reason for this. This is despite forms of state aid and state ownership of companies and services being legal within the EU, as seen in the nationalisation of the banks and proposed government bailouts of Tata Steel and Carillion in recent years.
A third hypothesis is that he is trying to cover up deep divisions in his own party. By not having a stance on Brexit, he can completely paper over the disagreements in his own party. With arch Brexiters such as Kate Hoey (pictured above), John Mann and Frank Field opposing vocal Remain and people’s vote supporters such as Alex Sobel, Alison McGovern and Rupa Huq, to name just a few from both sides. By hiding the deep divisions, he is avoiding the very public displays of disagreements over Brexit seen in the Conservative Party, despite the same arguments and disagreements occurring.
I have shown three common hypotheses but there are many more. The reason for his weak leadership in his role as his majesty’s leader of the opposition in relation to Brexit may be due to one, all, or none of the hypotheses stated here.
For my part, I believe it is due in part to all three, and if my beliefs are true it shows that he is willing to put party and himself above the well-being of the British people for his own political and ideological gain. Something I would be unable to forgive him and the Labour Party for.