It’s easy to see why MPs would oppose Theresa May’s Brexit deal. For many, EU membership is a cornerstone of our politics – most MPs fought hard in the referendum, and believe it is in the best interests of their constituents and the country. They are appalled at the costs of Brexit when schools, hospitals and housing in their constituencies badly need investment.
The Labour leadership is against the deal, most members hate it, and MPs are being inundated with emails from both hardline Brexiteers and passionate remainers urging them to vote it down. The strength of the Tory response has made it even more difficult. Why take a risk? But the party should still think long and hard.
Labour area after Labour area voted decisively to leave the EU. Some 60% of Labour constituencies backed Brexit. Remember the very first result? Sunderland, a city run by Labour since the council was created, with three Labour MPs, voted leave by 61% to 39%. On and on it went. Hartlepool: Labour for half a century and Dennis Skinner’s Bolsover both 70% for Brexit. Wakefield, Labour since 1932, was 66% for Brexit; Doncaster, with three Labour MPs, 69%. My region, the West Midlands, registered among the highest votes to leave of all English regions.
Last year’s manifesto promised categorically to uphold the referendum, with no further vote. Most Labour MPs voted to trigger article 50, setting the timetable for our exit. Keeping our commitments to our constituents, and protecting their jobs, employment rights, environmental standards and public services would always mean agreeing a deal with the EU.
The leadership of my party, for understandable reasons, wants to make things as difficult as possible for the prime minister. Most of the senior leadership also represent seats that voted heavily for remain. But it is very unlikely that voting the deal down would bring about the general election Labour members desperately want to see. John McDonnell is right to say it would be “very difficult to do”. It is much more likely that Theresa May would be replaced by a harder-line Tory leader who could win round the DUP with an even harder Brexit or leaving with no deal at all.
And I don’t think another referendum is the answer either. I listen to lots of people in Dudley but hear very little evidence people have changed their minds. Even if the UK voted narrowly to remain, who would think that would settle it? At our party conference, there were disagreements on how many questions there would be or what they would ask. Worse of all, it would make the problems that led to Brexit even worse. Austerity and the financial crisis hit poorer areas hard. Many have had no pay rise for a decade or seen real wages fall. Areas such as the Black Country, the Coalfields or Potteries have lost industrial jobs and struggled to find new ones to replace them. The referendum was their chance to have their voice heard. They would be furious if the result was overturned. Why would they accept it?
Any campaign would not be a polite debate about the merits of the deal. It would undermine confidence in our democracy, fuel much more serious discontent and take our politics in a very dangerous direction. Defeating the deal would only make a chaotic no-deal Brexit more likely. That would be catastrophic for our country and Labour communities would suffer badly. Industries such as aerospace and automotive provide thousands of well-paid and highly skilled jobs in the West Midlands, but are warning that thousands of jobs and millions of pounds of investment are at risk if we crash out with no deal. So that leaves us with the deal that the prime minister has agreed with the EU.
Keir Starmer was right to set tests that would have to be met to win Labour support. As far as these tests could ever be met by a deal that could be achieved, they provide a helpful guide. Looking objectively at the deal, it looks to deliver on the substance behind most, if not all, of them.
Does it ensure a strong and collaborative future relationship with the EU? That is what the EU wants too, and it has signed up to this deal.
Does it deliver the “exact same benefits” we currently have as members of the single market and customs union? In as far as this is not a test designed to be failed, the answer seems to be a qualified yes. It delivers an implementation period and a commitment to negotiate a new relationship with tariff- and quota-free trade.
Does it ensure the fair management of migration in the interests of the economy and communities? On this the answer is an unqualified yes.
Does it defend rights and protections and prevent a race to the bottom? The joint commitment in the political declaration to maintain “high standards of free and fair trade and workers’ rights, consumer and environmental protection”, and the withdrawal agreement’s provisions on maintaining a level playing field, should provide reassurance here. It looks like a yes.
Does it protect national security and our capacity to tackle cross-border crime? The deal represents the closest security cooperation the EU has ever agreed to with a non-member state – it is hard to see how it could be improved on. So yes.
Does it deliver for all regions and nations of the UK? You can look at this from different points of view, but May has certainly not taken the easy option when it comes to Northern Ireland. She has gone out of her way to ensure that there is no hard border and, yes, that is an achievement.
It is clearly not a perfect deal, but there was never going to be a perfect deal. My constituents voted to leave. They expect us to sort this out and we in the Labour party need to think carefully before rejecting it.