Has Corbyn's attitude towards Brexit been successful?

Okay, so I admit that today, this blog post is a bit more impromptu than normal and particularly fuelled with emotion despite my desire otherwise not to fill my blog posts with incessant opinions that stem from an emotional nature, but today signifies a one-off post of that nature. I read yesterday morning about Jeremy Corbyn coming out to say that if Labour members backed a second referendum at the Party Conference then he would be obliged to make it Party Policy - this particular news feed infuriated me especially - but I want to also discuss why this feeling has built up long-term as well.


By now I'm sure most of my readership know of my standing on the political spectrum and, in particular, my position towards Brexit but I want you to ignore that fact as I will try to write without that ideology in mind. So whilst I recognise the seismic shift towards the left of the Labour Party, I want to criticise the position of the Labour Party, it's attitudes towards Brexit and how the party believes this statement restores any kind of confidence in the leadership of the party.


For nigh on two years now, I have felt significantly frustrated with the Labour Party's attempts to marginalise Brexit and fail to address seriously what is the most significant part of post-war British history. From the infamous Brexit referendum of 2016 to today, the Labour Party's position on Brexit has always been unclear. Their fanciful desires to remain part of EU member organisations whilst being a non-member state have been ridiculed by many who appreciate the key philosophy of the EU that states a non-member state cannot be trusted with EU resources. Even during the referendum and GE2017, Corbyn and his team failed to clearly address the party's position on Brexit and produce a reasonable negotiating strategy when even the Tories had failed to do so. Had the party produced a negotiating tactic, they would be observed as providing an alternative Brexit. This would be heralded, in my opinion, as a huge platform for the Labour Party should another General Election to be called as, unlike the ERG, the Labour Party would be clear and direct in what their strategies, should they be in government, might be.


Unfortunately, however, the party's inability to take Brexit seriously enough has caused me great concern, as whilst I appreciate the notion that Brexit should not consume every single newsfeed up and down the country, I am keen to impart the idea that Brexit is a big deal. Period. So when I hear John McDonnell calling for the re-nationalisation of railways I think to myself, 'Great, but so what?'. As a young individual, I am personally more concerned with the deal that the government will strike with the EU by November than a potential re-nationalisation of railways should the Labour Party come into government. I understand that may seem harsh and whilst I appreciate how bad the railways are, where strikes are almost a regular occurrence, I dispute the relevance and respective importance of these manifesto pledges when compared to guaranteed events.


However, none of this is neither here nor there, I think reading Corbyn's comments on Sunday really pushed me to write this blog post. Corbyn stated that he would be 'bound by the democracy of [the] party' should members desire a second referendum and whilst I respect the influence of the members in the Labour Party, it saddens me that power has to be diluted so much for change to occur. I strongly believe that an elected official should be given freedom to fulfil their role and mandate and that these individuals should be held accountable to each member, but that's not the case here, as one of my teachers once put it, it's an inverted triangle of specificity. Corbyn has sat aimlessly for the past three years on the topic of Brexit being as vague and *naïve* as possible to the point where members have to force a specific idea through the party structure for it to become policy. Now whilst you could argue that members power throughout the party has increased, the role of the elected leader has increasingly diminished and for that, I lose sympathy for Corbyn as his role becomes predominantly ceremonial within the party. It frustrates that a party can be so deeply controlled by members whereby elected leaders lose all power and control, where is the value and importance of having a leader if their role is to be as undetermined as Corbyn and force members to directly lead the party; that's not any kind of leadership and Corbyn is not providing the party with direction, he is pushing the Labour Party to breaking point and since the deselection process has just been made easier, I can only see one path for the Labour Party in the future - to be clear, that's not leading the Brexit negotiations as government. Should a general election be held tomorrow, I fear the Labour Party would suffer a sobering reminder about how the electorate, in general, feel about the (lack of) direction of the Party.


My opinion on this matter is particularly superposed with the Tory Party and the direction of that party - whether it continues moving towards the right or promotes the centralism and pro-EU members of the party but at least there is a clear and defined leader who is trying to show leadership and direction to the country and Brexit negotiations.


If you have managed to read this far well good for you, I hope you enjoyed what you read and if you like this sort of content, please let me know and I can make more :)