The most persuasive case for Remain has never even been made

The efforts of Remainers to reverse, stifle or nullify Brexit, without seeming to deny the turnout of millions of leave voters is what all the months of sound and fury have been about. 

So far, we have been threatened with an outbreak of super-gonorrhoea by leaving the EU, while, last week, Caroline Lucas aroused much laughter and derision by suggesting that an emergency cabinet composed only of white women could keep us in the EU. When the ethnicity of her selections was pointed out to her, she blamed the various political parties for only selecting white women to positions of responsibility. Yet, there is one issue that has never been used in any Remain campaign either before or since the referendum. It is the issue of the EU’s protection of human rights.

With so much attention focused on Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty,  Article 7, which covers the rule of law and respect for human rights, is somewhat overlooked. A breach this piece of legislation requires unanimity for the EU to respond, meaning any action could be vetoed by a country friendly to the transgressing state. Indeed, Hungary and Poland have both moved towards authoritarianism, but have an informal reinsurance deal to prevent EU action under Article 7 by promising to use their veto to protect each other.

This leaves the blanket Article 258 which states that any treaty breach by a member country can result in the Commission initiating a case at the European Court of Justice. Article 260 authorises guilty countries to be fined.

The current leadership of the Labour Party, which is likely to form the next non-Conservative government, has for years associated itself with revolutionary parties, dictatorships, and terrorist groups across the world. Jeremy Corbyn and his retinue may have not have held public office, but they may have acquired, through association, knowledge of how to destabilise institutions, seize power through force or an abuse of process, or use bureaucracy, violence, and terror to hold on to power. Might it be that this is all they know about governance? It is difficult to find any Western democratic government that has had Corbyn and Co as honoured guests.

Labour’s failure to address anti-Semitism in the Labour Party could easily become a failure to do so in the country, especially if political elements are given entry into the security forces. The socio-economic groups vaguely identified as the ‘Few’ would also appear under threat – if a newly-politicised police turn a blind eye to crimes against those judged, by an ideologically-motivated ‘people’s militia’, not to be entitled to their wealth.

It is under these circumstances that the EU could step in to protect life, liberty, and property. Given the public displays of fealty to the EU on the streets of London, a sharp word from the EU could have a disastrous effect on any Corbyn-inspired pogrom or purge. If it came to Corbyn versus the EU, Corbyn would lose, just as numerous Conservative Prime Ministers have, when facing off against Brussels over more trivial issues.

“Vote Remain because of Corbyn” would have been a compelling argument back in 2016, making wavering Conservatives switch their vote. The Leave campaign would have had no response to this. Remain should have ditched Corbyn and campaigned against him, as much as they did against Nigel Farage, Boris Johnson, and Michael Gove. Corbyn’s true believers always supported Leave anyway.

Remainers should now be demanding that the UK  incorporates Articles 7, 258 and 260 into British law. But to do so would be to acknowledge the imminent risk of despotism under Corbyn. Corbyn’s lack of enthusiasm for the EU was obvious during the 2016 campaign, and is the reason behind Labour’s ‘calculated ambiguity’. Continued membership could stifle his ambitions for the establishment of a socialist one-party republic in the UK, whether the voters want one or not.