Labour should abstain on the Brexit vote
By: James Mills
Tags: Brexit, Abstain, No Deal, Labour, Eu

There was much confusion over Labour’s recent abstention on the Covid tiers. As the Labour supporter, former Manchester United player and current Sky Sports pundit Garry Neville put it: “You take a position, you don’t abstain.”

And I agree, we shouldn’t have abstained as the majority of the public has a settled opinion on public health measures to tackle the pandemic. If anything, those polled want them to go further. Instead, Labour should have pursued a campaign in advance of the vote to extract something for our vote, for example on statutory sick pay, to explain it’s objections if it couldn’t vote for them.

But it is in this light that I think the best position Labour could take on the looming Brexit deal should be abstention. This might sound contradictory, but unlike the Covid regulations, Brexit is more divisive an issue. All the arguments for voting for a deal seem terrible.

The argument that voting for any deal that emerges is based on an assumption of winning back “Red Wall” voters worries me that our electoral strategy is not well focused. Although we need to of course win back voters in the North, we also need to win back voters in Scotland.

The minor gains made with Brexit supporting voters in the north of England could be nullified by the impact of SNP messaging that Labour has “voted with the Tories” on a deal that hurts Scotland. And they would be armed with an array of information to support their attacks.

Although I’m not opposed to a free vote for Labour MPs there is an obvious risk to a “New Leadership” looking like the old one by using this tactic. I am also not opposed to Labour voting against this terrible deal. But I accept that it would be politically difficult to navigate through a Shadow Cabinet that has MPs who want to vote for it as they represent areas that voted to leave the EU.

As voting down any deal that comes out of this deal does risk alienating some Brexit supporting voters it wishes to appeal to. However, I would worry more about alienating those people who will be hit hardest by either outcome of these negotiations.

Furthermore, why would we assume that those who lived in the North and Midlands in 2016 (or even 2019) and voted for Brexit will be exactly the same in 2024? Why would we further assume that those living in these locations and who risk seeing their jobs and local economies impacted by any deal thank Labour for voting for one?

Some of the youngest voters at the next election will have only been 10 years old in 2016. In fact, Polling suggests that there is no huge desire for Labour to show some act of geneflection on it’s previous Brexit position.

The next argument tends to be around framing this vote as a binary choice between Johnson’s Deal or No Deal. It’s how it’ll likely be framed by the government. However, that is not how parliament works. Abstention means you are not in support for or against a motion.

Abstaining therefore doesn’t mean we are by default voting for Johnson’s deal no more than we are voting for No Deal. Otherwise abstaining these past few months on certain votes would imply Labour is in support of no Covid restrictions at all and doesn’t want to “protect British troops”.

The alternative outcome to voting for this deal is for the 80 seat majority government to decide, not the Opposition. Starmer would be right today as he was in 2018 to say: “no government has the right to plunge this country into chaos because of its own failure”.

The government can go cap in hand back to the EU for a humiliating extension or amend it’s deal and drop it’s self imposed red lines, just as much as it can ignore them and go for a No Deal. They are the government.

Forgetting this just let’s them off the hook and if it is carried with Labour votes then it allows Tory Brexiteers voting against to permeate a “Liberal establishment stitch up” myth afterwards.

Ignoring the obvious risk of Labour just looking disingenuous. As you can’t position yourself on one side being in favour of a remain/”soft Brexit” outcome, and then reverse ferret just 12 months later being in favour of a “hard Brexit”. We could end up being the guarantor of the maintenance of Johnson’s deal if the likes of the ERG look to destabilise any compromises struck on dynamic alignment.

It doesn’t take much to imagine the likes of Farage and the ERG claiming BINO as the reason for the economic fallout from any deal. Therefore, by accepting this binary framing, Labour falls into the far greater trap, that we rubber stamp the economic consequences of whatever is brought back from Brussels. Plus continuing a constitutional debate over sovereignty. As we’ve seen in Scotland, this isn’t politically fertile ground for Labour.

In contrast, the case for abstaining is clear and honest. The government has a mandate for delivering some form of Brexit. But it doesn’t have a mandate for any form of Brexit. It lost that right when it failed to set out clearly what that future trading relationship would be prior to the election and saying there was “absolutely zero” chance of No Deal.

Labour may be opposed to a No Deal, but it hasn’t ever been in favour of a bad deal. Especially if as Keir Starmer has pointed out it’s a “very, very bad” deal and would be “terrible for working people”. And if there is a deal it’ll likely to be due to a huge u-turn dressed up as success as we saw with the Withdrawal Agreement — and Labour support just helps let the Tories off the hook again.

Whatever the outcome of these negotiations it should be clear that this is a Tory Brexit. Labour should be making the case for a Labour Brexit and how a closer relationship with the EU is better than the new status quo.

If Labour wins the next election it is unimaginable that any deal agreed this week will not be renegotiated by a future Labour government. Labour’s Brexit will be one at least closer to an EFTA position given Keir Starmer’s support for Freedom of Movement.

The benefit is that it will be a more economically credible manifesto than anything the Tories offer. Yes, there is a risk by not voting for a deal that Labour appears to still have been opposed to any Brexit outcome. However, that’s why Labour should start to frame its future narrative about an inclusive recovery and going for growth. Something that’ll be harder to do if it’s endorsed this deal.

Better to reframe this debate than accept Johnson’s likely frame of his deal versus no deal. Instead, frame it as an incompetent deal that makes Britain far more weaker, poorer and exposed than ever before. Contrasted with Labour’s priorities that any trade deal should be based on prosperity, security and strength.

Yes, some voters may view abstention on this vote as Gary Neville did. But on such a divisive issue “taking a position” on either side, like Labour did in 2019, is the worst position to be in. As sometimes, it’s better to annoy everyone a little, than just one side a lot. That way Labour can keep a wider audience to hear our offer.