I have to admit that I am completely bemused by the debate on how Labour should vote on an EU trade deal (assuming we get one), for two reasons.

The first is the politics. Voting against is a trap. It’s a vote against Brexit (at least that’s how the Conservatives will portray it).

It is also a vote for no-deal, which wld go against every position Labour has taken on Brexit since 2016.

So why not abstain? Because, as @stephenkb has pointed out, abstaining shows that Labour is unable to reach agreement on one of (if not the) critical issues of the day...

...and that it shldn't be considered a govt. in waiting. So, to me, this is a no-brainier. Labour backs the deal. What am I missing?

And I should say it probably backs the deal grudgingly, and it certainly argues that it could do better, but it backs it, “for the good of the country”, nonetheless.

The second reason relates to the ratification process itself.

The whole debate on Labour’s position seems to be predicated on their votes having a sway, just like they did last year with the Withdrawal Agreement.

But the process is v. diff now, & Parl. has no power to block the deal from coming into force if the govt. want it to.

While primary legislation will likely be required to put on the UK statute various elements of the deal, this is not how the deal will be ratified.

Instead, the deal will be ratified under the procedures in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 (CRAG). https://www.hansardsociety.org.uk/blog/parliamentary-consent-to-treaty-ratifications-another-procedure-strained-by#:~:text=The%20procedure%20by%20which%20Parliament%20consents%20to%20UK,it%20will%20apply%20to%20the%20Withdrawal%20Agreement.%20%281%29

(I’ll defer to experts at the @HansardSociety, inc. @Brigid_Fowler, and others if I’m getting this element of ratification wrong).

Under the procedures in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, all the power sits with the govt.

Yes, Parliament can lay motions and delay, but govt. has the power to override Parl., accelerate the process and ratify in-spite of MPs opposition. We are not in “meaningful vote” territory anymore.

So all MPs, Labour’s included, are powerless to oppose any deal that govt. brings back, once govt. has decided that it wants it ratified.

It didn’t have to be this way, but in an extraordinary abdication of responsibility, MPs gave away their role in ratify trade deals earlier in the year. https://twitter.com/NashSGC/status/1321411636796792833?s=20

So what Lab does is, as far as I can tell, only of political significance. It has no significance at all with regard to a deal being ratified or not.

That’s my view at least, but I will turn to others to point out what obvious thing I'm missing. ( @DavidHenigUK @anandMenon1 @DomWalsh13 @GeorginaEWright @jonworth )

PS - I think the ERG are increasingly agitated and vocal about govt. walking away from talks now, because they know they have no power to stop a deal once govt. agrees it.