Lots of talk again today about @UKLabour's positioning on Brexit.

I don't think that finding the right path as complicated as many seem to believe. Thread. 1/19 (sorry it is so long!)

Big picture. We have left the EU. A deal will, or will not, be done in the next month. We are facing either a 'hard Brexit' deal, or 'no deal'. There is no prospect of a 'soft Brexit' (customs union and/or single market membership). 2/

This, from @AntonSpisak on 'what to look for in any deal' is an excellent summary of the - many - live issues.

https://twitter.com/AntonSpisak/status/1330830606771630082 4/

What is striking, is how clear Labour's position is - or ought to be - on pretty much all of the questions. 5/

It wants as many rights as possible to be preserved, and is prepared to undertake the responsibilities and commitments necessary to reach a 'softer' agreement with the EU. (All that is, of course, more than compatible with 'accepting Brexit'.) 6/

Moreover, it is prepared to reach an agreement which can be enforced, as easily as possible, by both sides. And it is prepared to make commitments which would enable the NI/GB border to be 'de-dramatised'. 7/

What has been missing these last months (and years) is a clear narrative. Instead it has stood by as the Govt has invoked the hollow rhetoric of sovereignty and railed against the concepts of commitment and restraint. 8/

The key question - since 2016 - has been not about merely leaving the EU, but about finding a new relationship with the EU and the wider world. 9/

We have had precious little from the Govt about what it wants (some sort of buccaneering global Britain, apparently). But, we have also had precious little from Labour. 10/

And we need to. 11/

I would like to think that it is uncontroversial to say that Labour believes in internationalism, in cooperation between states, and in respect for international law. 12/

On the specifics, I think the answers are clear. It wants zero-quotas and zero-tariffs. It wants mutual recognition, equivalence, a data adequacy decision, participation in the European Arrest Warrant and Horizon funding, and agreements on transport and aviation. 13/

It wants robust measures on state aid, non-regression and 'ratchet' clauses on the environment and labour law, and cooperation on security.

It would have reached agreement with the EU on all this very easily. 14/

Each of these things will have a big effect on the UK economy. They are all things which - until recently - were uncontroversial, with the UK playing a big part in the development of EU law. 15/

The reasons why the Govt is opposed to them can - with a lot of justification - be criticised. It is simply asserting the freedom to do what it likes. Isn't there a danger that any deal - with weak enforcement provisions - will be a rogues' charter? 16/

I don't fully understand why these arguments are not being made. It is of course late to start making them now, but Labour needs to try to set the tone for the next months - in which the realities of Brexit will start to be felt. 17/

The point of making these arguments is not prevent the passage of the deal. It is far better to enter the next phase with a deal than without; and if it reaches a deal (fwiw, I'm still not sure it will), the Govt will have moved on some of the issues. 18/

The point is rather to make the argument for internationalism and cooperation, and to present (both to the UK population and the wider world) a very different approach from that of the current Govt. 19/19