Corbyn has spent his life fighting for democracy and our fundamental rights – so why is he so quiet on Brexit?

Where’s Jeremy Corbyn? This was the chant, along with “bollocks to Brexit”, at the March for a People’s Vote last Saturday. And indeed it did feel odd that Corbyn was not there. He has always been present for all the important causes – the war in Iraq, nuclear disarmament and the rights of Palestinians and Kurds. His very appeal is the way in which he stands up for what is right. So, why is he absent when Brexit threatens our fundamental rights, will devastate our economy, end freedom to travel, work and study and close off opportunity for future generations?

The Labour right argues that he has always been a eurosceptic. But this simply is not true. He has clearly said that he still thinks Remain was the right position. He has always been an internationalist, an anti-fascist campaigner and an upholder of human rights. During the referendum campaign he argued powerfully for remain and reform, saying: “There is a strong socialist case for staying in the European Union, just as there is also a powerful socialist case for reform and progressive change in Europe”.

Corbyn added: “By working together across our continent, we can develop our economies, protect social and human rights, tackle climate change and clamp down on tax dodgers. You cannot build a better world unless you engage with the world, build allies and deliver change.”

The official explanation for the current position on Brexit is democracy. The people voted for Brexit and we have to respect the will of the people. But actually this is an anti-democratic argument, democracy is about continuous deliberation and debate. Does a referendum close down discussion? If the recent Irish referendum had gone the other way, would we have stopped campaigning for abortion rights? What’s more, the referendum was not about a Conservative Brexit. We did not know what Brexit would mean when we voted in the referendum. A people’s vote is not a rerun of the original referendum. Is it not democratic to have a different vote when the contents of the final deal are known? When such a momentous change to our country is taking place, surely we should be able to participate in the way that it unfolds.

Whatever the content of the final deal, it is unlikely to be conducive to socialist policies. A hard Brexit – leaving the single market and the customs union – will devastate jobs, hugely reduce tax revenue and create a deregulatory free-for-all, in which the possibilities for implementing the economic policies of John McDonnell and addressing the real abandoned problems of the left-behind areas will be greatly reduced.

Politically, a hard Brexit will greatly strengthen the hard right making it much more difficult to mobilise political support. But a soft Brexit will leave us subject to EU regulations with no possibility of influencing those regulations.

The degree to which current EU rules constrain state aid, or nationalisation, has been greatly exaggerated – France and Germany nationalised rail and other sectors, with much higher state aid than the UK. On the other hand, we will have little chance of influencing those neoliberal arrangements to which we object. What we are likely to get is a soft brexit without freedom of movement –the most progressive aspect of the single market.

So, whether the final deal is hard or soft, ought we not to have the opportunity to discuss, debate, object and vote on its contents?

A more convincing explanation for Corbyn’s absence is political tactics. His team believe that getting him into power is more important than Brexit. They argue that by agreeing to Brexit, the Labour Party was able to focus on economic and social issues during the election and that was why Labour did so well. And they fear that they might lose the old deindustrialised Labour constituencies that voted Leave. While there is something in both arguments, they are overstated.

A very important reason for Labour’s success in the last election was tactical voting. Brexit was an important factor for those Liberal Democrats and Greens who voted Labour. It was not social policy or the charisma of Corbyn that won Kensington and Chelsea. And that is unlikely to happen again as we have already seen in Lewisham East, unless Labour’s Brexit policy shifts. As for the Labour Leave constituencies, the overwhelming majority of Labour voted Remain and according to recent polling evidence, of those who did vote to Leave, only 9 per cent think it is the most important issue. It is Labour Remainers and Tory Leave voters who feel very strongly about Brexit. Far from losing votes, it is much more likely that a change in Labour policy on Brexit, such as supporting a people’s vote on the final deal, would lead to a surge of support.

But above all, what this argument fails to take into account is what will happen when we actually experience the disastrous effects of Brexit – we have just had a foretaste in the warnings of airbus and BMW that they will have to relocate. Both the main parties are likely to implode. In the case of Labour, Corbyn will be blamed for failing to stop Brexit and his reputation as a politician who puts principles, especially in relation to freedom of movement and immigration, before triangulation and who favours democratic debate within the party, will be hugely dented.

Is it disloyal to Corbyn to make this argument? On the contrary, those who desperately want a Corbyn-led Labour to come to power have a responsibility to debate these issues publicly. At the very least, for democratic reasons, it should be discussed within Momentum, within constituency Labour parties and at the party conference in the autumn. And the final deal, if it ever becomes known has to be put to a people’s vote.

Mary Kaldor is a professor of global governance at the London School of Economics (LSE) and a supporter of Another Europe Is Possible