The government may soon strike an EU deal. Labour must abstain on it

Parliament today votes on an issue of national importance. The matter has become bitterly contested, with thousands of lives and livelihoods at stake. Labour has chosen to abstain. The issue, of course, is the tiered coronavirus restrictions, and the party has an excellent case. It cannot vote against restrictions, which would simply let the virus rip; but, given the government's woeful mishandling of recent measures, it does not want to actively endorse the new regime either. In a parliamentary system, abstention is a blunt instrument to register nuance.

So it should be with the other great national issue of the day. At the end of this month the reality of Brexit will finally be upon us, and consequences that for five years were only discussed will now take effect.

As things stand, there will probably be a deal. But even if there is not, no deal is unsustainable in the longer term. If we crash out at the end of the transition, the government will quickly return to the negotiating table in the new year and there will be an agreement. And that means there will be a vote in parliament, most likely one enabling the government to put the deal into legislation. Consequently, Labour needs to decide its position. Abstaining is not glamorous, but it is the least worst option.

Before we proceed further, we should take care to lower the temperature of the conversation. Contrary to some of the feverish analysis on social media, none of the three options available to Labour constitutes a “betrayal’ of either Remainers or Leavers. Brexit has occurred and cannot be undone. Anything that happens now is making the best of a bad situation. The second thing to note is that any deal will almost certainly involve a zero-tariff, zero-quota goods arrangement. Even if there are some limited tariffs, it will be better than no deal at all.

And yet the deal will still be bad. It takes us out of the single market and customs union and leaves us with a deluge of new red tape, border checks and non-tariff trade barriers. Integrated supply chains, and the businesses which depend on them, may yet collapse. The deal will also barely touch services, where the UK currently enjoys a trade surplus with the EU. We have talked a lot about fish, and rather less about finance.

Why, then, should Labour not vote against the deal? Because a vote against a deal is a vote for no deal. No deal will always be the worst outcome. This would not be a vote of protest but of destruction. It is, quite simply, out of the question.

We then turn to the two valid options: voting for, or abstaining. There are good reasons to vote for a deal. Not only does it avoid no deal, it may also convince Leavers in Red Wall seats that Labour is no longer an “anti-Brexit” party. And yet this course of action is also short-sighted.

The first problem is political. It will not take long for people to experience the consequences of leaving with this deal. When they do, they will look for someone to blame. The government will of course point to the EU and Covid-19, but the economic kneecapping will belong to Labour by association. Any question by Keir Starmer about its effects will be met with the retort: “but you voted for it.” It will not only take the sting out of legitimate attacks: if the Tories are going down, they will do everything they can to bring Labour along with them.

But in fact you can ask the political question without even thinking about the Conservatives. This deal will never be met with long-term public fondness. Why would you vote for something which is likely to prove so unpopular?

An even bigger, simpler issue concerns principle. Labour knows this deal hammers our closest economic relationship, and thousands of livelihoods will be lost as a result. Defending workers is the party’s founding principle. Why would it vote for something it knows will bring hardship?

Of course abstention looks weak, and yes, it could make the party look divided. But Labour needs to avoid re-litigating the battle that almost tore it apart. It also needs to try to express the balance of the argument, and that is hard to do when explicitly voting for something. Abstaining is Labour’s best means to explain that it will not stand in the way of a Brexit deal but does not support this particular version. That is entirely in line with established party policy, which from February 2018 included a permanent customs union.

Naturally, the Conservatives will seek to weaponise an abstention, accusing Labour of “not accepting Brexit” or “wanting to rejoin.” So Labour must emphasise at every turn that this was a poor deal for Leavers and Remainers: a million miles from the outcomes promised in 2016.

Ultimately, voting for the deal risks alienating both the Brexit tribes. Remainers know Brexit has happened and there is no imminent prospect of rejoining. They know the party cannot back no deal. But many will be unhappy with the outright endorsement of a bad deal. Approving the agreement will, moreover, not bring back the disillusioned Scottish voters Labour so badly needs to court—particularly if, as expected, the SNP itself abstains.

Meanwhile, many Leavers in the Red Wall are hard Brexiters. Those voters will resent any kind of deal—and no doubt Nigel Farage will attempt to capitalise on the grievance. It may not help Labour’s chances to be seen as voting for something that they, too, will dislike, even if the party wants to build on our EU relationship rather than cut it back.

The problem here is that a nuanced conversation should have been taking place for the last ten months, but has not been. It is a pity that Labour has barely discussed Brexit. It is disappointing that Starmer has proven so incurious about the content of the negotiations. Staggeringly, we still don’t know what our closest trade relationship will look like in 30 days’ time, and it is legitimate to ask why.

And yet Labour needs to find a way to move on. It is quite likely that by the next election in 2024, Brexit will not be the issue it is now—but in the meantime it is going to hurt. Labour has to show it wanted something better but wanted to avoid something worse. Abstaining is the only way it can.