Another referendum may be divisive, but to press on with Brexit would be even more so

Ian Lavery, chair of the Labour Party, says a Final Say referendum would further split the country and damage the relationship between citizens and politicians. Phil Wilson, a fellow Labour MP, disagrees

Brexit has sliced through our politics like a warm knife through butter. The consequences of the 2016 referendum have been divisive beyond measure. The Brexit challenge has consumed the country’s ability to focus on anything else. And believe me, politicians want to focus their time on issues other than Brexit.

So I can understand Ian Lavery, the chair of the Labour Party and fellow northeast MP for Wansbeck, when he says the country needs a radical Labour government to transform our country. Investment does need to be found for our public services, infrastructure and the skills we require for our economy to flourish. To restore faith in politics, if we say we are going to do all these things we should do them. There is only one problem: Brexit. You see, everything always comes back to Brexit.

To do all the things Labour wants to do in government will take money. The party will not be able to deliver and end the divisive nature of Brexit when the UK is outside the EU with the economy contracting and companies leaving our shores. Therefore, we should not make promises we cannot keep. That is the lesson of Brexit. Don’t let us repeat the same mistake.

Of course, a Labour government would negotiate the best deal possible, but all the studies show the UK will be worse off whatever the Brexit deal. Just like Theresa May’s deal, Labour’s won’t be as good as the one we have now. You can’t leave the club and still expect to enjoy the same benefits and privileges. It doesn’t work like that and we need to be honest with people.

That is why I disagree fundamentally with Ian’s view of a final vote on a Brexit deal. I don’t see it as divisive but necessary. A final say by the people on Theresa May’s deal is necessary because the content of the deal looks nothing like what was promised during the referendum. What was divisive about the original vote was a Leave campaign bloated by the unobtainable. Her deal is Brexit laid bare. It’s how it is. With that in mind it’s only right the people are asked for their informed consent on whether they want to continue down the Brexit road.

Maybe the majority will vote to Leave again, a decision Remain voters will need to accept. But at least this time the decision will be based on the facts. The people will be leaving the EU with their eyes wide open. They will know the day we leave will not be the end of Brexit, but only the beginning. The logjam in government will continue to the exclusion of most everything else for years to come.

Like Ian, I grew up in the constituency I represent, in a former colliery village. My dad was a miner, and I watched him suffer in his final years as a consequence of the ailments he acquired down the pit. So yes, I can see how grievances in these proud villages played out in the EU referendum. The closure of the pits during the 1980s was devastating for many of the communities in the northeast such as those in Wansbeck and Sedgefield. But our membership of the EU single market has helped to prevent even worse excesses of industrial decline. Sixty per cent of the northeast’s trade is with the EU; 150,000 jobs are secured by that trade. I believe the people of the northeast have the right to the final say on whether they really do want to close the door on all of that, something Labour Party conference agrees with too.

As a Labour MP, I sincerely believe I have a duty to warn about the consequences if Brexit goes ahead. If the facts of Theresa May’s deal, or any Brexit deal, are not put to the British people, the divisiveness both Ian and I want to see end will only continue.

Phil Wilson is Labour MP for Sedgefield