Walking to the polling station on 8 June this year, I knew there was only one party I could vote for. I was brought up in Bradford, a city famous for its industrial heritage and a history of immigration. As a third-generation half-Pakistani, my life has been undeniably shaped by my ethnic makeup, and having moved to London in 2011 to read Russian and Spanish at University College, I suppose I would be considered quintessentially European.
In my mind, a vote for Labour was a vote for a softer Brexit. I am not naive enough to believe that a reversal of the referendum result is attainable, however much I yearn for that. Labour’s manifesto made it clear: retaining the benefits of the single market and the customs union were to be the foundations of their Brexit strategy. This was not a rush headlong into the abyss, but a cushioned landing from which would recover.
At the same time, I felt that Labour struggled to accentuate the differences between its own approach and that of the Conservatives, and there was confusion over the promises made in the manifesto. However, my trust in the party didn’t falter, and my vote was never in doubt. Labour’s commitment to the Erasmus scheme, for example, which I benefited from, led me to believe that Labour’s stance fell decidedly on the side of maintaining strong ties with our European friends.
Keir Starmer’s recent announcement of a time-limited transitional period is a welcome one. One of the most contemptible aspects of the Brexit “negotiations” has been the notion that “no deal is better than a bad deal”. The harsh reality is that a comprehensive trade deal with the EU will never be reached in the next 18 months, and it is Labour that has confronted this certainty.
While the Conservative party aims to appease Ukip voters and its own hard-line Brexiteers, Labour is acknowledging the complexity of the task at hand. While the Tories need the support of leave voters to have any chance of regaining power, we must take into account the 48%, who have until Starmer’s announcement been helpless spectators of the Conservative party’s European suicide mission.
Given the failure of the Liberal Democrats to increase its vote share, and the welcome death of Ukip, we effectively live in a two-party state. Labour had to present a credible alternative to a hard Brexit, and with the Lib Dem’s strategy of a second referendum having been rejected by the electorate, a transitional arrangement like Labour’s not only assures leave voters of the UK’s eventual exit from the EU, but also provides a layer of insulation from the economic damage that the Conservative party seem to be leading us towards.
Labour is adapting, whereas the Conservative party’s rigidity and unwillingness to make concessions is diminishing any chance of negotiating successfully with the evidently ruthless Michel Barnier. With a transitional arrangement in place, the renegotiation of our relationship with the EU can be given the time it deserves, with an undoubtedly better conclusion for the nation.
Criticisms of this proposal have primarily come from MPs representing constituencies with a high proportion of leave voters. Some appear to be worried about the lack of willingness to curb immigration, but this perpetuates the fallacy that immigrants have crippled public services and deserve to be scapegoated.
The fact of the matter is that the majority of Labour voters are pro-EU, and taking into account the numbers of 17 year olds acquiring the right to vote during the course of this election cycle, this change is not only right, it is politically wise.
• Isaac Qureishi is a Labour voter from Bradford
