I'd love to see it but have to also recognise that Labour might get destroyed electorally if they become too anti-brexit. The anti-EU sentiment is strong in much of the left as well as much of the right.

What labour need to do in my view is become the '2nd referendum' party. That appeals to both the remainers and those leavers who fear parliament isn't going to deliver on a real brexit.

I'm not totally against a second referendum. However, the problem is that if remain wins, I can't see Brexiteers accepting the result any more than Remainers accept the result of the first referendum.

Also, what options do people feel should be on the ballot paper of a second referendum?

According to polls there isn't much enthusiasm for a second referendum. Maybe if the Labour party made it an official policy it could be turned around, but it's highly speculative.

I think a second referendum if it came would have to go into more detail than the previous one ie asking the public to approve or reject the actual terms of Brexit - asking the same question a second time would be quite ridiculous.

I'm not dogmatic about the question but my view is that it should be 'accept whatever the proposed final deal is' vs remain.

It's vital that we (remain) win it by a decent margin. Given that need, I'd make a clear commitment in the referendum wording that remain need 55% and whatever the result it cannot be revisted for some largish number of years. then we have to pull out all the stops to win this thing - the EU needs to come to the party as well. If we fail then we have to accept it.

Polls seem to have it as more in favour than against.

Despite all that though it's been a pretty poor night for Labour.

This would be awful for the negotiators, and it is incredibly unfair to the majority who have already conveyed an out decision. It is also pretty much what Cameron tried to do, and he showed that the EU was inflexible in acknowledging its product was failing in its market, so a third attempt to ignore public opinion in favour of a pet product of a handful of deluded managers would suck.

'Out' has been chosen, a 2nd referendum only makes sense if it is 'Deal vs WTO'. And I can see some logic to delivering that referendum given the way we got to here - we don't want to end up in another EU situation of giving ruling power abroad with no mandate, so maybe we always need a referendum for certain types of international arrangement in future. *

Not sure if I agree with that (or know all the implications), but at least it is intuitive.

* This would give an interesting power balance where the rich lobbying business owners would have to campaign with some sort of bribery for regular people - it feels like that might have some upsides.

Some ukip pillock on the today program just defended ukip by comparing it to the black death

If the majority prefer the deal then they will get it. I even think we should spot them a few points.

Whatever deal parliament comes up with is the best they can get- if wto is the best they can get then they can propose that and we can have a wto v remain referendum.

I accept that ideally there would be 3 options (the deal, no deal, remain) but then it becomes very complicated. I dont know if it's feasible

[ ] hard brexit install jrm as feudal lord
[ ] leave all political aspects but maintain customs union
[ ] single market access with neccesary concessions
[ ] stay in but tell them to shove further integration
[ ] bring on the super state
[ ] bloody immigrants comin over ere takin our jobs wat are they gonna do about it that's what I say! Don't really give a toss about the EU but I'm mad as hell!

This is only true if your assumption is that everyone who voted out did so for the same reasons. During the referendum campaign, however, we heard a multitude of different post-brexit scenarios from the Leave camp. These ranged from the Norway model to hard brexit and everything in between. It is not at all unreasonable to have a second referendum based on what we know now, since there is no way someone who voted to leave the EU but become a second Norway or Switzerland would be happy with the current leave proposal.

Word Ken Livingstone mentioned after 5.7 seconds in this morning's interview on Sky News. (6)

Well zionism is 7 so I'm stumped.

If it's a proper noun, I'm going to go with Hitler.

Have you ever heard this opinion expressed by a Leave voter? It's irrelevant if Remainers weren't sure what they were voting against and it wouldn't change their decision. It feels to me like a straw-man.

So what exactly is wrong with what he is saying objectively?

Its obvious how it can play bad due to subjective optics, as its a highly charged emotive issue that no politician should be getting within a million miles off coz it aint ever going to look good.

Is his claim historically incorrect?

Plenty of times.

I have, many times, but I live in North London, so maybe they were closet remainers all along. The straw man here, if there is one, is your mention of remainer motives. It should be obvious why the two are not analogous.

I don't think Hitler ever supported the foundation of a Jewish state. The Haavara agreement was pragmatic in that it solved a number of issues for the new rulers of Germany (legitimacy, setting up more exports, etc.).

The problem with making these statements is that it completely ignores what happened as the Nazi party increased their influence, which clearly shows that Hitler didn't support Zionism at all.

Haven't heard what he's saying but if it is his claim that Hitler was a Zionist then clearly that's wrong. If that was the case he would have been deporting Jews rather than trying to exterminate them wherever he found them.

Nothing the Tory said was inaccurate. But it's exceptionally tendentious and it's only purpose appears to be to bait black people. And it the same Tory had a loooooooooooooooong history of anti-black comments *and* replied to each and every question about anti-black racism by talking about how (some) blacks benefited from slavery, what would you think?

the quote, for reference,

problems imo,

1) it misrepresents the situation (as i understand it): hitler was not a 'supporter of zionism', he was a supporter of booting the jews out of germany so that he could steal as much their wealth as he could, while simultaneously removing what he saw as the 'scourge' of german jewry

an agreement was signed with some members of the jewish community, but it ought to be remembered that the nazi's 'negotiating partners' were rather being forced to the table through the ever rising threats, violence and open hostility toward them (which ldo was being purposefully nurtured by the nazi state)

a handful of white ppl that chase a black family out of the community via threats of lynching are not 'supporters of black-only communities' (although that's probably how they'd present themselves)

2) 'before he went mad and killed 6 million' suggests that his attitude towards jews was something other than mad during his 1920s/early 30s 'zionism supporting' phase..... ??????????????????????????????

alternatively, a cursory read of mein kampf (1925, 1926)

3) context. he was defending naz shah's decidedly non-kosher suggestions that israel might be relocated to montana, and that there's a parallel to be drawn between nazi treatment of jews 1930-1945 and israeli treatment of palestinians now

BAIDS

The largely meaningless BBC general election projection has the unelectable labour party as the largest party (just)