Read on Twitter
1/ As always I enjoyed Rafael Behr's Politics on the Couch podcast... but (sorry) I take issue with the arguments he presented for why Labour backed the government's Brexit deal. I don't think they stack up at all except for one which may be true but unpalatable and depressing...
2/ This was Labour's core argument, and it was a lie. Labour said they had to support the gov to avoid no deal, but this is not true.
It's not true because no deal would not occur even if the bill had not passed...
It's not true because no deal would not occur even if the bill had not passed...
3/ "under CRAG, a minister can declare that “exceptionally” the treaty should be ratified without the 21 sitting days requirement being met." https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/future-relationship-uk-ratification
4/ These would clearly be exceptional circumstances, so the deal would have passed without ratification by parliament.
But even if it were the case that legislation was required, the bill would have passed anyway, even if Labour had voted against -
But even if it were the case that legislation was required, the bill would have passed anyway, even if Labour had voted against -
5/ because the ERG announced there were backing the deal.
If Labour had abstained, 130 Tory rebels would be required to vote against ( @JonWorth 's analysis see below) assuming all other parties voted against. In the end Eventually only Redwood and Paterson abstained.
If Labour had abstained, 130 Tory rebels would be required to vote against ( @JonWorth 's analysis see below) assuming all other parties voted against. In the end Eventually only Redwood and Paterson abstained.
6/ So there was no risk of no deal whatsoever. This makes the following arguments mostly moot - but let's go on
7/ [no because see above re: CRAG]
8/ I think it is a signal- but not the "statesmanship" signal (see later) or a signal to Leave voters that's he's one of them. I think it's mainly a signal to pro-EU voices to go quiet, stop banging on his door.
9/ It's a signal to tell them to give up because they are politically inconvenient to the Ainsley/Starmer Blue Labour pivot. To me it's the crystallisation of the pivot. There's barely any triangulation now to keep remainers onside.
10/ It's now "take-it-or-leave-it but of course you won't leave us because you have nowhere else to go under FPTP."
But despite my horror, this is probably the strongest argument: that leavers can't be persuaded they were ever wrong,
But despite my horror, this is probably the strongest argument: that leavers can't be persuaded they were ever wrong,
11/ ..but that remainers will suck it up and back Labour because they have no choice under FPTP. It's the trapped remainer, free-leaver voter argument. Remainers aren't going to switch to the Tories, but Leavers can vote for EITHER social conservative Leave party - Tory, Labour.
12/ So now, only Leave voters matter. Labour sees itself entitled to remain voters and doesn't have to do anything to retain them, whereas it has to fight for Leave votes
13/ Well - yes - Labour looks to be completely abandoning its principles - not just as an internationalist party but in its role of being in opposition and of holding the government to account.
Therefore this is also a strong argument for either Abstain or Vote against.
Therefore this is also a strong argument for either Abstain or Vote against.
14/ Since CRAG means the vote didn't have to succeed, then Labour could have held onto its principles and voted against, or tried to communicate why it was abstaining in advance.
15/ But imagine the Labour party had been whipped to abstain saying they hadn't been given enough time to review, discuss the bill or add amendments, that ratification had been rushed, abstention wouldn't look "terrible" - the government instead would look terrible.
16/ Also even if you think abstention is a "bad look", voting for the deal looks WAY worse. But who cares how it looks to anyone but leavers....
17/ The ERG are literally planning to ditch the deal...
https://twitter.com/danielmgmoylan/status/1344966353934032896
https://twitter.com/danielmgmoylan/status/1344966353934032896
18/
19/ Whilst Starmer's ruled out materially changing it
20/ Starmer won't be talking about the deal at all. He wants to brush Brexit under the carpet because under FPTP it plays havoc with getting a Labour coalition together to win a majority.
Also: he has clearly decided that he won't form a progressive alliance pushing for PR.
Also: he has clearly decided that he won't form a progressive alliance pushing for PR.
21/ This is a weak argument: it's arguing that should Starmer become PM in 4 years, the EU will note whether or not he voted for Johnson's deal (under duress), in the compressed timetable forced upon him, whilst having had no say in the bill's contents.
22/ And that if he had abstained or voted against, the future EU would treat him and the UK differently on the basis of how that vote had gone years earlier.
23/ I find this impossible to swallow: the Starmer-playing-at-being "international statesman"-argument, worried about current leaders now being upset with him for not voting for this deal. It's really tenuous.
24/ If I were Kier Starmer, there's absolutely no way I would have whipped to support this deal and I hope the arguments I've presented explain why clearly.
There are some further counter arguments worth going over not mentioned in the podcast...
There are some further counter arguments worth going over not mentioned in the podcast...
25/ Link here BTW - should have posted it at the top: https://www.stitcher.com/show/politics-on-the-couch/episode/goodbye-2020-hello-2021-what-happens-next-80559527
26/ Starmer claimed that "Labour can't stand on the side-lines" - But Labour did stand silent on the side-lines for a whole year on Brexit: the commentariat said it had to because Johnson had laid an enormous bear trap,..
27/ ...whereby if even a whisper of the word Brexit from Starmer and the Tories would launch an enormous culture war which would er... damage Labour in the polls, resulting in er... nothing happening for 4 years until the next GE.
28/ But now - when there was an opportunity to back the government to the hill, the opposition trotted through the Aye lobby giving Johnson a massive pat on the back for demolishing the country's prospects.
29/ By voting for the deal Labour loses the right to criticise the deal in the future and its consequences.
You might think this is a pretty major flaw, but I would argue that it's only a flaw if you plan to criticise Brexit and you are worried about losing ex-remain votes.
You might think this is a pretty major flaw, but I would argue that it's only a flaw if you plan to criticise Brexit and you are worried about losing ex-remain votes.
30/ It's not a downside for Labour because Labour never planned to criticise Brexit anyway. Labour will not draw attention to any downsides, will not appeal to ex-remainers.
31/ The whole subject will be the elephant in the room for the next 4 years with Starmer going silent whenever pro-EU voices raise the topic.
It's a hard leave pivot and even if they win the GE I don't see what there would be to celebrate.
It's a hard leave pivot and even if they win the GE I don't see what there would be to celebrate.
32/ There's another argument: "that nobody will remember how Labour voted".
This is weak because:
a) The Tories will remember how Labour voted and will use the "you voted for it" defence should Labour criticise them on anything Brexit related (not that they will).
This is weak because:
a) The Tories will remember how Labour voted and will use the "you voted for it" defence should Labour criticise them on anything Brexit related (not that they will).
33/ If it's the case that nobody will remember how Labour voted, then Labour shouldn't feel any pressure to vote a particular way. They could have a free vote, or abstain and nobody would notice that either (on that basis).
34/ Later on (I just listened to the rest), Behr is asked if liberals will find it hard to reconcile their EU position with Starmer's. Behr says (paraphrasing) that in the voting booth, their "acid" hatred of Johnson will override their position on Brexit...
35/ Here's a thought experiment: Imagine the impossible: that Johnson, Gove etc. were just as awful as they are now but they are hard remain+extremely pro-EU, that Brexit hadn't happened but they were in power. Now imagine Starmer was hard leave(like now). Who would you vote for?
36/ Which cognitive dissonance can you handle least? I'm finding this experiment pretty tough - I hate both options. It's like a trolley problem were virtually the same number of people die on either track. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem
