Recently it seems like it’s the age of nostalgia: Disney are steadily remaking all of their classic cartoons; Men in Black is getting another sequel; and The Guardian have revisited that age-old classic of ‘misquote something mild and uncontroversial that Corbyn said as the headline and then watch as everyone shrieks and flails about in mortal terror’.
What this seems to show is that there is a basic lack of understanding, for some I’m sure a deliberate lack of understanding, but for most a genuine confusion, of what Labour’s Brexit policy is. So, idiot that I am, I’m going to lay it out.
The first key to understanding this is to ditch one of the cherished beliefs among the hard-core Remainers and pundits: that Corbyn is a committed Brexiter. He isn’t. The mistake made is that they are imaging that Corbyn cares as much about the EU as they do, which, for better or worse, he doesn’t. Corbyn has other priorities, namely halting austerity, reawakening the welfare state and lowering inequality, and he likely doesn’t care if he’s doing this inside the EU or outside of it. His calculation is, correctly, that a Labour government outside of the EU will better achieve these aims than a Conservative government inside the EU.  ‘But he’s Eurosceptic’ I hear you cry, and so he is but that doesn’t automatically equal leave: all it means is that he’s sceptical about aspects of the EU’s policies and governing philosophy, not that he wants to ditch the thing rather than reform it.
The second key point is that the person who has more or less free reign  to decide Labour Brexit policy is Sir Keir Starmer, a Remainer. Given that this is the case, the question becomes: why has Starmer hit on this as being the best strategy for Labour to follow? Now I don’t know Starmer’s mind, so what follows are my own suppositions. I however, think this has a logical consistency with the way Labour have set out their stall and is helpful for explaining the way they’ve approached unveiling their policy. At any rate, it has a greater connection to reality than the version pontificated by many of our leading public figures.
The plan is this: to nominally exit the EU, on an EEA, EFTA style arrangement, but stay as close to the EU as possible so that, some years down the line, a referendum can be held, or a policy can be initiated, on re-joining the EU that can be won decisively and transitioned back into with as little difficulty as possible. That’s it. If you look at it from this angle, the various bits and pieces of why they’ve chosen to follow a particular policy and in the way they have makes sense .
Obviously, a component part of this is that a Labour government will have introduced Leveson II and thus brought a greater degree of accountability and responsibility to our dear press, thus hobbling a lot of the right-wing anti-EU outlets. You can see why there is a necessity to having a Labour government as a priority .
Is this a case of ‘disaster socialism’, of using a crisis to advance a political aim?  I’d argue no. Yes, it’s probably the case that growth would be slower and, as a country, we might be poorer overall. On the other hand, Norway and Switzerland are hardly disaster zones and there’s no reason to think the UK would be an exception. As well as which, remember, austerity is a choice, not a necessity, and its perfectly conceivable that a Labour government committed to redistributive policies, outside the EU in EEA/EFTA style arrangement, would improve the lives of the vast majority of the people in the country.
 One need only note that austerity, the rising use of foodbanks, rising homelessness, 120,00 people dying because of austerity, and the United Nations saying the government is 'inhuman' have all happened under a Conservative government inside the EU to see the truth of this.
 Following from key point one, Corbyn wants a Labour government, the constraints are likely: 1) Labour’s Brexit policy must break Labour’s coalition of interest groups; 2) Must not damage Labour’s wider support; 3) Must not help out the Conservatives.
 ‘But Corby--!’ But nothing. Remember: he doesn’t give a shit one way or the other.
 This is also why all of the press, The Guardian included, are shitting their legs off in terror at the prospect of a Corbyn led Labour government.
 Nick Cohen, the author of hits argument here, it’s worth noting was a big backer of the Iraq War – a conflict that saw hundreds of thousands of people killed to pursue the abstract project of democracy, and it failed to achieve that. He can, quite frankly, fuck off.