Thread by @rcolvile

An awful lot of attention paid (understandably!) to Tory splits ahead of tonight's big vote. But far too little to other side of the coin - the remarkable unity within Labour, and what's driving it (1/?)

You might say this doesn't need much explanation. Labour MPs think it's a bad deal. They don't want to vote for it. The end. But it wouldn't need a thread if it wasn't More Complicated Than That. (2/?)

For many MPs (according to those in position to know) what is driving their position isn't principle, but fear.

Under normal circs, at least some might say 'well I don't like Brexit but I represent a Leave area and we have to obey the will of the people and I definitely don't want to risk no deal'.

Yet even with concessions on workers rights etc, the peeling off has been vanishingly slim.

Instead, Labour remain committed to voting against any Brexit deal that doesn't meet their six tests. Which is and always has been unicornism, because no Brexit deal can meet their six tests.

(For example you can't have all the benefits of the single market without being in it. You can't be outside the EU but in the customs union and have your own trade policy.)

They also remain committed to the idea that the way to solve this is to have a general election, install a Labour government which will then renegotiate a deal - magically achieving all of the above - which the EU has specifically said can't be renegotiated. Again, unicornism.

What is driving this, of course, is that this is the order of events laid out by Labour at party conference - after the leadership mobilised and twisted arms to prevent an explicit commitment to a second referendum.

'Conference believes Labour MPs must vote against any Tory deal failing to meet [the six tests] in full.' In other words, Labour MPs are bound to vote against any deal.

'If we cannot get a GE Labour must support all options remaining on the table, including campaigning for a public vote. This should be the first step in a Europe-wide struggle for levelling-up of living standards, rights and services and democratisation of [EU] institutions.'

This is what effectively torpedoed @NickBoles Norway plan, and other suggested alternatives - they're not in the Labour conference programme, so Lab MPs can't support them (or at least can only support them after trying for a GE)

And of course the reason Lab MPs have lashed themselves to the mast in this way isn't because they venerate the decisions of their conference. It's because they're utterly petrified of deselection. So they need to show their local Momentum branches that they have been faithful.

In other words, if charge some level at ERG is that they're putting principle before pragmatism - risking any Brexit to get a perfect Brexit - the charge vs those Labour MPs is that they're putting pragmatism (need to keep seats) before principle (need to actually agree Brexit).

All of which illustrates, yet again, how the decision of a few well-meaning MPs to nominate a man they completely disagreed with for the Labour leadership, for the sake of having a wider debate, has completely changed British history.

With any other Labour leader, Lab campaign full-heartedly for Brexit and 52-48 v probably becomes 48-52 (this according to everyone senior involved in campaign on both sides).

With any other Labour leader, the PM almost certainly wouldn't have called an election which transformed the parliamentary arithmetic (because going up against Jezza looks at the time uniquely like a free hit)

And with any other Labour leader, the party would either have a different position now, or MPs would be much more willing to break ranks. /ends