If you at it through his lens then it makes more sense to leave, even better if he can negotiate the deal.

The EU is obviously better than the Tories but in Corbyn's mind it is still a barrier to his vision. The EU is much more centralist than himself.
He is rolling the dice by moving out of the EU when not in power but there won't be another chance down the road.

Personally I think it is too much of a gamble and we should remain and reform from inside but I don't see why people struggle to see why Corbyn wants out.

He doesn't feel particularly strongly about the EU. It's only a conviction if you have strong beliefs.

The reason they aren't tapping into that support by wrapping themselves in an EU flag is because they have a ton of Leave constituencies, and the Lib Dems tried that and got fuck all for it.

And the above holds true for Labour/leave constituencies by all accounts.

Labour also isn’t winning power without its fervently remain army of volunteers.

It’s not about where their votes are going, it’s about whether they can be arsed to knock on doors and try to convince people to back Labour and turn out the vote on Election Day.

I take the point though. That group is also important. Hence the fudge.

I know what I'm about to say isnt smart politics (hell, it probably isn't smart anyway) but I feel like Labour has an obligation to oppose Brexit. Yes, I take @JMW 's correct information that Leave/Remain is not split along Labour/Conservative lines.

But there are two facts that make a second referendum (or arguing for one) necessary.

First, is the demonstrably wrong voting system of first past the post. It should not exist and is the mechanism by which any government gets into power. This is the precursor which enabled the Cameron government to be in a position to set the refendum up (a >50% parliamentary majority with 37% of the non-compulsory vote? GTFO if anyone thinks that is representative).

Secondly, the Brexit vote was won by a simple majority in a non-compulsory vote, with 72% turnout. Essentially, a leave vote was determined by 38% or thereabouts of the electorate.

So far, nothing constituting an argument, just a statement of events.

The point at which it becomes necessary for Labour to oppose Brexit is threefold
1. Brexit will harm the country (financially, socially, strategically) and indeed it already has.
2. Voters were misled by fraudulent campaigns from UKIP, Farage, Russia, Johnson, Murdoch.
3. The Remain voters, comprising 36% of the electorate, and the non-voting block of 28% of the electorate are not being represented.

Point 3 is the main thrust of my argument. If the Tories will not (demonstrated) back down from Brexit, and can not (likely) secure a beneficial agreement, then it is contingent for the Opposition party(s) to argue on behalf of the non-franchised voters who make up the majority of the electorate, regardless of which county they are located in.

This is precisely the time to act in defiance of focus group politics. There are two consequences of this, however.

a) The Labour party captures a GE majority on the remain and/or 2nd vote platform and is able to offer a second referendum.
b) The Labour vote collapses as pro-Brexit Labour voters desert the party.

In case a), the country avoids disaster. In case b), the Labour vote collapses, the Brexit negotiations ruin the country for a generation and in which case the Labour party can at least say it tried in the face of the Tories who were headed for disaster anyway.

The alternative, i.e the status quo where Labour cowardly supports Brexit, renders the party functionally pointless anyway and it may as well fuck off if it no longer serves the interests of the common person. The centre-Right/pro-Brexit Labourites can feel comfy as they short the economy into oblivion.

Don’t worry, Labour has a plan:

https://labour.org.uk/press/jeremy-corbyn-alternative-plan-sensible-jobs-first-brexit/

What the fuck is Corbzy doing atm? This mfer didn't even read the deal document properly or at least get briefed properly about it, and I still don't understand what his problem with Europe is as a socialist compared to what the political machinations for brexit are about. 

Listen fam, you can be a member of BBK or wotevs but like eventually I'm gonna go off you if you don't start offering up that sweet, sweet socialist alternative policy that isn't trash garbo poorly thought out pap that we're waiting for.

It’s all true. It’s why we don’t have any left-wing, Scandinavian-style social democracies anywhere in Europe.

monkey wrote:

But, imo, if someone came along and said Remain but we'll actually start enforcing the length of time people are staying here, that would be the end of Brexit.

Na, people don't know or care about that. To satisfy the anti immigration cretins it has to be no foreigners allowed.

Pull your finger out Corby.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/nov/19/sarah-wollaston-pushes-for-mps-vote-on-second-brexit-referendum-doctors-amendment-corbyn

I think he feels the EU would block any of the full bore socialist policies any genuinely left wing government would wish to introduce and getting out would be of equal benefit for him (or a left wing successor) in enacting suitably ‘extreme’ left-wing polices, as it could/would/will be for the Brexiteer Tories and the capitalist class in enacting an even more pitiless brand of human rights free turbo-capitalism.

He feels like a fucking idiot then. Literally nothing about isolating yourself from an international project tallies with legit socialist enterprise. There is no sensible argument from the left to endorse Brexit. Only think I can think of as a spur is some kind of domestic industrial protectionism but that wouldn't be very sensible.

I do think the chulink in his armour is being blinkered.

*chulink stays because I am apprecitor of fine onomatopoeia

They are, but I'm not going to vote for him either if he can't articulate himself well on this massive point of contention. It entirely undermines any other apparently progressive ambition claimed, it's not a sideshow.