One of the big issues is those people who actually say the EU is better at stuff than their own government and want to remain and are totally happy to cede power to a non-democratic body like the EU. We should be backing good, democratic government at national level (I know this sounds ridiculous given the dearth of talent in British politics, but the principle is correct, even if the reality is wanting). Remainers who scream about loss of rights etc is who I mean. Remainers who talk like that really do come across like headless chickens without any critical thinking abilities - they seem giving power over today because things look good means that will ensure things stay good, whilst the direct opposite is the logical outcome for any students in history. Ceding power to a detached central authority... when did that ever work out?

I'm not generally in favour of them anyway. We elect a government to make decisions for us. This one should certainly not have been put to the public because of its highly technical nature. The public were promised by Mssrs Davis and Fox etc how easy a great deal would be and how the EU would bow to the UK's whim, none of which were every realistic in a 1 vs 27 game.

We don't have regular referenda to vote on the make up or even existence of the House of Lords, or the number of MPs, or membership of NATO or on any other matters that affect UK democracy or security apart from a one-off vote on changing voting systems a few years ago. Why should we have them for membership of the EU? We elect people to the EP same as we elect MPs to the HoC and councillors to local government, and that should suffice.

Electing people to the EP is an implicit sign of accepting the EU as the main political body in charge of this country. It is not a democratic vote on whether the EU is or isn't doing a good job. Why should the implicit acceptance of the EU be the starting point for democratic choice about it, as really, that's no choice at all, is it.

It's clearly a strong democratic line to consider regularly whether we consider the EU should remain as the overriding political entity in charge, compared to us voting which individuals get to go sit and be told what rules they should vote on.

Surely you see the significant difference there?

PS We should definitely have a referenda about the continued existence of the HoL.

Yes I do, but we don't have regular referenda here on whether to get rid of the Westminster system in favour of a Presidential system, or to have a separate English Parliament or to change it in any other fundamental way or, or, or, or,.... so why should we for the EU?

Well a GE will at least give him and Labour the opportunity to present his version, and offer it to the public he also retains the option to go back to the public when the terms are agreed. Personally I think Labour should offer freedom of movement of people and put to the test those that suggest it's not the racism they voted for.

They'll vote against freedom of movement, because they feel emboldened and even brazen in a post-Brexit vote, Trumpified world, and they don't care how awful they look because they have no shame.

I'm interested in how you think it's directly democratically accountable to the people of the UK right now? For me, I understand the only mechanism to express such accountability is staying or leaving? Do you think that is correct?

No an extension to A50 keeps us in the EU long enough to either find a deal that satisfies the criteria and one that is offered in the GE. Remain lost and remainers would be far better served focusing their attention on getting the type of deal that best satisfies what they want from the relationship rather than trying to maintain the relationship.

The point is to win the hearts and minds of a much larger element than the approx 2% swing that the 2nd ref would be looking for.

Do we have any idea what his version is yet? He's been off message recently, as far as Labour policy goes, and I've still no idea what his version is. All the ambiguity should've been gone by now.

Defections to UKIP from the Tories are significantly more likely to result in Lib or Lab gains by splitting that vote.

It's a mistake to think the vote was a vote on the practice of brexit, it wasn't it was a vote on the principle. Remain couldn't offer a clear proposal because that needs to be negotiated, it is a bilateral agreement that one of the parties was unable to involve itself in prior to the triggering of A50.

My take is that there is a policy, I don't think it's the correct one because I think it ends FoM but I think there are good reasons for being ambiguous while the Tories are in government and they are calling for a GE rather than a 2nd ref to resolve. They can offer it when it is called not before. Recall during the 2017 GE the closing of the polls was most notable after the manifesto leaked.

Fundamentally disagree except that I do think it's important to win the 2nd referendum as convincingly as possible. There is no deal that satisfies the criteria nor one that satisfies any large majority of people.

I really fear a situation where we have a GE along the lines of: May with her deal vs JC with his renegotiation. We will get massacred.

Referendums are generally a bad idea, because majoritarianism is not democracy and democracy needs to be heavily moderated. In Germany, referendums are constitutionally forbidden, because a certain person consolidated his powers in the 1930s by holding three or was it four referendums, all of which he won handsomely because that's populism, and that's how dangerous it is.

However, Switzerland held two referendums on EFTA membership: the first on whether to apply, the second on whether to go ahead with the actual deal that had been negotiated. There would be nothing democratically out of order about holding a second referendum on Brexit, and the public has been 54-46 Remain for some considerable time, but it carries risk -- unless May Deal and No Deal are set at least a 75% target -- and really the government should just revoke Art.50 on the grounds that Brexit is undeliverable in the terms advertised anyway.

There was no referendum on the deal, the referendum was on the principle of membership. Just as the referendum in 1975 wasn't a referendum on the terms of membership agreed since.

The policy is basically to let the Tories deal with the mess that is Brexit and hope to somehow get a general election out of it. Given how massive Brexit is it's a dereliction of duty for Labour not to have a clear vision for Brexit that people could get behind. I know why they haven't come out with it but there's only so long you can go on stringing people along.

Pretty certain Jeremy doesn't view the EU in the same manner as many (most?) Labour supporters

https://twitter.com/NudderingNudnik/...40128716136451

He doesn't, no, he's a communist Lexitard and always was, whereas Labour members are almost 90% Remain and Labour voters are 75% Remain and every single Labour constituency in the country is now polling majority Remain. He doesn't care about that, because he's a communist, and therefore a vanguardist, and he and McDonnell have often stated over many decades that they don't believe in democracy, only in 'direct action' and one-party rule. Democracy is, in their view, to be used merely as a front to gain power.

What duty is he in dereliction of by not publishing a vision when his vision doesn't matter. It's not stringing anyone along the criteria are published but anything else can wait. He needs people to get behind it when it matters and that's during a GE

You really believe this.

Yeah, I agree with what Bob said.

It feels really bad rooting for a way to defy a legitimate referendum result, and it's true that backing out of Brexit via a second referendum will be catastrophic for public faith in the political process and will result in a surge for the likes of UKIP.

But it's still better than letting either of the two Brexit options (the pointless "stay in the EU in all but name whilst losing all decision-making power" or the nuclear NO DEAL > ECONOMIC ARMAGEDDON option) happen. And if the Tories are allowed to deliver Brexit whilst remaining in power, they'll be able to hammer the austerity and nationalism angles and do way more damage to our society than a handful of UKIP MPs ever could.

In the future everyone will be Brexit secretary for 15 minutes.

yeah Trump is known for his keen eye for mutually beneficial trade deals with smaller countries. We can't afford to miss this once in a lifetime opportunity!

Yes. We just have to accept that avoiding this appalling mistake is the priorty.

Hold a 2nd referendum, do our outmost to get as big a majority as possible for remain and then deal with the fallout

I know. Not sure how we got to that repsonse.

I'm saying that there is no deal that going to be any good or going to command popular support. More to the point alomost no-one believe there is some good deal that Labour would get. And people just want it over, they're sick to death of brexit. The idea of Labour fighting a GE on dragging it out while they try get this mythical great deal is horrific.

There's only one ground Labour wants to be fighting the election on and that the clear, straightforward left wing policies of social equality, health, eductation etc etc