For a few weeks, there seems to have been an unspoken but collective decision to take a breather from Brexit. After months of high drama, the will of the people appears to be to talk about almost anything else. Even a grievous national security leak has been seen by some as form of respite.

But as people look the other way, are things actually moving behind the scenes? Briefings from both the government and Labour have claimed the talks have made progress and are heading towards a conclusion. Could we, at last, be about to see a genuine Brexit breakthrough?

The negotiations between government and opposition have attempted to find a middle ground for a so-called soft Brexit. This would include a customs union with the EU and some degree of regulatory alignment, involving the UK changing its regulations to keep pace with improvements on the continent in workers’ rights and environmental protections, but also on core standards for products and other areas.

Labour’s reward could well be watching Boris Johnson repeal precisely the same legislation

The problem for the parties is that the language of “hard”, “soft” and “no-deal” Brexit occludes more than it reveals. Underneath the shorthand lie fundamental strategic choices for Britain. And these involve very real trade-offs that must be confronted.

Theresa May’s proposal is for a hard Brexit: abandoning economic collaboration with our most important trading partner in a deliberate and orderly fashion to secure an end to free movement. Labour’s proposal is to continue our close economic partnership with the EU on a new political basis: essentially giving up more economic control than we have at present for a compromise on immigration.

No deal is a radical plan to rip up trading arrangements with dozens of countries overnight – a form of economic shock therapy more extreme than anything seen in the 1980s at the height of the neoliberal revolution.

Since the strategic intent of each of these options is so different, there is no meaningful compromise that can be achieved between them. Indeed, May’s attempt to do this by burying a customs union without a say in the backstop has already, plainly failed; it has been exposed, rightly, as a dog’s breakfast of a Brexit. Reports suggest the government may be inching away from some of its red lines, but just like the debacle over the guarantees on the backstop, these may turn out to be an illusion. For a breakthrough to be achieved, there must be a fundamental change of government policy. It must move away from its preferred hard Brexit towards a soft Brexit. By most accounts, the cabinet ministers and advisers in the negotiating room are of the view that any Brexit is better than no Brexit. This is the sort of desperation only found in the dying days of a premiership.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest ‘Jeremy Corbyn would find himself as the only party leader defending the new status quo. So much for being the insurgent candidate of change.’ The Labour leader at the 2018 Tolpuddle Martyrs Rally. Photograph: Finbarr Webster/Rex/Shutterstock

But outside the room, things look very different. After more than three years of nostalgia-fuelled, expectation-raising rhetoric that Britain would be restored to its historic status as a “great, global trading nation”, a pivot by the government to soft Brexit would lose most of Conservative backbenchers and much of the cabinet. A meaningful, independent trade policy and the ability to slash back rights and regulations would have been lost, making the whole exercise pointless in their view.

As a result, it seems likely that only a minority of Conservative MPs would vote for such a deal – especially with the Conservative membership ever more committed to the no-deal fantasy. So even if the government were to make what appeared to be a big, bold offer to Labour, it would in fact be relying on Labour MPs to achieve a majority of the votes for the deal.

But would sufficient numbers of Labour MPs be prepared to prop up a Tory government that they hate, to deliver a political project that they have always opposed? Perhaps as many as 150 Labour MPs would now refuse to vote for any deal unless accompanied by a confirmatory public vote with remain as an option. As the indicative votes showed, there does not appear to be a majority in parliament for any Brexit outcome, including one negotiated by the leadership of both parties.

Moreover, since the strategic shift to soft Brexit has come so late in the day, it will mostly be achieved through a programme of domestic legislation with just minor changes to the non-binding political declaration with the EU. In addition to the withdrawal agreement implementation bill, there would be further bills on agriculture, the environment, workers’ rights and so on.

Cabinet ministers split over customs union Brexit deal with Labour Read more

This has three big implications. First, rather than a one-off, dramatic vote, Labour MPs would have to walk through the lobbies with the Conservatives for months and months to deliver the legislative programme of the deal. A disintegrating Conservative government would be propped up by what would amount to a grand coalition between the two major parties.

Second, it would probably precipitate a Tory leadership contest. So Labour’s reward could well be watching Boris Johnson repeal precisely the same legislation, humiliating the Labour party every step of the way.

Third, with May certain to be gone this year, Jeremy Corbyn would find himself as the only party leader going into the next general election defending the deal, which would be the new status quo. So much for being the insurgent candidate of change.

The prime minister is asking Labour to make an enormous political sacrifice to deliver a political project that the overwhelming majority of Labour voters, members and parliamentarians never believed in, and which nearly 60% of the public believe will make them and their families worse off; and doing so while driving a historic split in her own party, akin to the repeal of the Corn Laws in the 1840s. There is scant political logic for either party to pursue this course, meaning a growing temptation on all sides to refer the question back to the people through a public vote.

In short, don’t hold your breath for a cross-party deal any time soon.

• Tom Kibasi is director of the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) and founder of the Centre for Economic Justice