Should we mention any bloc votes or union influence ?, not to mention sitting on the fence so long that he's got splinters in his piles.

You are unusually myopic on the Corbyn position on this WC; he's playing a blinder here, sitting back and letting the Tories destroy themselves, whilst still focussing on the big issues that the man in the street cares most about - despite the political obsession about Brexit - i.e poverty, the inequities of UC, wealth inequality, the NHS etc etc.

I'm not sure what you want him to do - but he's just been proven right in his decision to delay calling a no confidence vote - because he knew the more swivel-eyed faction of the Tory party were about to do it for him; timing is everything.

My comment was aimed at the xenophobic Brexiteers who criticse Juncker for being unelected & irremovable. Both of which are bololx. Whereas our own dear PM is not elected by the people.

As regards Corbyn, you mistake me for a Labour party member. I belong to a different political party. Having said that, I find it hard to criticise Corbyn for his current approach. The Tories created this shoite storm, not him. Where I think Corbyn is torn, is that, like Tony Benn, he believes passionately about democracy, down to the local level. And he finds that is at odds with a European organisation. What I believe, & my party believes, is that we should be fighting for local decision making on issues such as education, health, social services, local energy, local transport; while the bigger issues such as environment, workers' rights, food quality/production, major transport need large scale approach. One of the biggest things that infuriates me about Brexiteers is that they are happy to hand all decision making to a elite bunch of London-centric, in-bred, hate-filled, Eton Oxbridge 'elite' who don't have the slightest clue or care for the mass of the population.

I keep reading the ramblings of the liberal lunatic fringe over at The Guardian and I really don't know what they expect Corbyn to do, other than sit back and watch the Tories burn. While ever he's in opposition, Brexit isn't his problem to solve. He could change his stance on the matter every day if he wanted, there's nothing he can effectively do about it.

Their obsession is with a People's Vote - which I can empathise with to some extent - but they seem to have created the idea that it's within Corbyn's gift to just snap his fingers and make it happen; which it clearly isn't. And even it were - I'm not sure what it solves - half the electorate will still be pi$$ed off - just the other half.

The vote we need now is a GE - if Labour can get into office, which I think they would in a GE, then some of the things that people seem to think Corbyn should do now in opposition, he will actually be able to do; starting with reversing the crippling austerity years and tackling pressing issues like homelessness, child poverty and the slow death of the health and social care systems.

The only People's vote that is defensible is:

1. May's 'deal'?
2. Just get out.

I see your point. Although I rather doubt the more eager Brexiters would cling to this principled argument if the vote had gone the other way. Didn’t Farage say something to that effect when he thought leave had narrowly lost?

But what we must never, ever forget is that allowing people to vote for a unicorn that poops mars bars does not make providing them with a unicorn that poops mars bars feasible. It’s democracy not demomancy. And when people get a donkey with a carrot stuck on its bonce that poops donkey dung, we get stuck in a mess like this.

Lucid.

Which did people vote for?

Bren, I think that Corbyn has been increddibly slow to reveal his actual position on Brexit.

I certainly dont remember him "selling" a remain position duriing the referendum campaign and he was happy to leave it to dumb and dumber (Cameron and Osborne) to sell the remain option, which failed horribly.

Therefore he is culpable for allowing us to end up where we are.

Yes, he is of course, more than happy to sit back and watch the Tories implode and it has to be said, this is something that they are doing rather well, but, Corbyn should have been far more pro-active.

He too is also being less than honest with the electorate, in pretending that Labour (should they get the opportunity) would negotiate some kind of magical deal which honestly, appears to be dreamland stuff.

It was bad enough having Farage & Co lying and misleading the public so badly but, Mr Corbyn, has his focus firmly fixed on becoming prime minister and right now, this is to the detriment of ANY Brexit deal

Surely, a second referendum is inevitable now?
Isn’t a hope in hell that either no deal or May’s deal will gain a parliamentary majority (good ol’ sovereignty) so it will be put back to the people.

It could all be done in one referendum. First question: Do you want to Leave the EU or Remain? Second Question: In the event of a majority Leave vote, would you prefer to leave on the terms of the PM's deal, or with no deal?

And before the more swivel-eyed leave supporters start spouting the undemocratic nonsense, this would not be "overturning" the result of the 2016 referendum, any more than a General Election overturns the policies and mandates arising from the previous General Election. Indeed, democracy can only operate properly and fairly if voting is an ongoing process.

A second referendum would only perpetuate the Brexit merry go round.

Even if "remain" won the second referendum, the result is likely to remain extremely close and then what ? Best of 3, best of 5.

Unfortunately we still have to rely on the elected members to carry out the will of the people, something that so far, they have failed at rather miserably

The problem is, it is the wills of the people, and whatever they do, those that agree with them will take it for granted and those that don’t will be furious with them. And whatever they do most people will disagree.

I accept that you don’t want to tie negotiators hands, but ‘leave’ was a ridiculously open option. It had to be leave and go somewhere somewhat specific. By leaving it so open, people could project their own preferences onto it, which in some cases were/are mutually exclusive.

So a general election made sense from that perspective... but led to a hung parliament. There’s no settled public consensus still, more than two years on, on what Brexit should look like.

It is very simple. People voted to leave the EU. That was followed by a General Election in which the two parties receiving the overwhelming majority of votes cast stood on manifestos stating they would honour the referendum result. So, any daft so called People's Vote should not include a 'remain' option without first holding a general election where at least one major party stands on a Remain ticket and wins.

Whilst a laudable suggestion, I would claim many voters would struggle with the concept of two questions on one paper!

Some could say I'm mocking many of those who dragged themselves out for the first time in their lives to stick it to "The Man" -

They'd be right.

Let’s remember, most leave voters were uneducated when it came to politics and didn’t know what they were voting for as opposed to remain voters who surely didn’t include any 18/19/20 year olds voting for the first time who based their votes on scaremonging news they saw on social media or because their favourite music star backed remain.

Excellent post and the only way the basic principal of democracy is preserved. The supposed uneducated leave voters is a flimsy fallacy perpetuated by those that believe that democracy consists of "Have a vote, if we lose we have another"!

There are many observers that are actually saying WTO conditions are nothing that is unmanageable or to be frightened of in the event of no deal.

It's like voting for a political party with no manifesto who then deliver the opposite of what you thought then no-one being able to complain.

Is this yet more bravado and bull from planet leave ?
The very same group who said we would be no worse off, leave without a divorce bill, have exactly the same trading terms AND save £350,000,000 which we would then use for the NHS.
I think these are some of the reasons why "you" are labelled as "uneducated" etc
NONE of their "benefits" are likely to be true but, if you close your eyes and keep everything crossed, everything will be just fine, honest.
Free movement will end, in both directions but, this will be replaced by an increase in net immigration from elsewhere, something that is already apparent in the latest figures:

Table 1: Latest Migration Statistics, Year Ending June 2018

All Citizenships British Non-British EU Non-EU
Immigration 625,000 80,000 545,000 219,000 326,000
Emigration 351,000 128,000 223,000 145,000 78,000
Net Migration 273,000 -49,000 322,000 74,000 248,000

As you can see, the numbers from the EU are dropping but, the "controlled" immigration is now rising.

Who would have thought that this could happen, it's as though someone may have had an agenda

I don't think that No Deal needs a parliamentary majority. It is the default position, and anything other than a no deal needs a majority to agree. So, if nobody does anything between now and the 29th March, we leave the EU with no deal.

Given how negotiations with the EU have gone, does anybody trust this lot (either side of the house) to negotiate trade deals around the world?

The general election resulted in a hung parliament, which required a coalition government to form. If anything, that was a mandate to have a cross party brexit group negotiating with the EU and taking a deal back to the house, not just a tory brexit.

If there is a second vote (doubtful), then remain absolutely should be one of the options. You have the right to not choose it.

I have mixed feelings about a 2nd vote, for all the reasons that plenty of other people do; but Caroline Lucas' argument is quite persuasive - the stupid, arrogant binary choice that was offered 2 years ago contained none of the nuance that has now become clear and obvious, so a 2nd vote based on the information that is now readily available to everyone could be a way forward. One wonders why the ardent Brexiteers are so afraid of that, given their constant refrain that people "just want them to get on with it."

For me, if it did happen, it would need to be significantly more sophisticated than the first attempt; 3 options - Remain, the Government's Deal, or No Deal, and if there is no super-majority for any, the least popular would be eliminated, and a second round held to decide between the remaining options.

The problem with all of that of course, is that the people campaigning to influence public opinion are liars, charlatans and shysters, and the MSM in this country allows and enables that due to inherent bias and/or a ridiculous approach to 'balance,' which allows any swivel-eyed lunatic with an opposing view to be given a platform, unchallenged, regardless of the veracity of their information.

Whatever happens, all this talk of uniting the country and healing the rifts caused by Brexit are pie in the sky; too many people were promised too many things by other people who knew full well they weren't possible - so now there is a great swathe of the electorate who will see any deviation from those false promises, as a betrayal of their original vote.

Meanwhile, the country burns whilst we pi$$ about, spectating the jolly japes of a group of Eton educated sociopaths, who will never suffer any of the consequences of their actions.

The problem with a second ballot is that most people wont trust it to be the last. If the remain campaign don't get what they want what happens then?

The vote should be a simple remain or leave with no deal simple - as long as at that point if the vote is to leave those that want to remain accept the result and we get on with it.

It is obvious if you have two versions of leave you will be splitting the leave vote something not lost on the remain side. If you want to do that then you need to add them together and if combined they are greater than the remain figure then the highest of the two leave options is the one we take.

Personally I think the EU will come to the party and they will make sufficient concessions to the back stop to get the deal through.

The backstop may not be the only issue that is sppoking the Tory MP's.

We already know that many of the MP's wanted to remain and they will find any excuse to scupper the deal.
Those on the right of the party, will say the deal doesn't go far enough and those on the left of the party will always say that it goes too far.
The key to any leave vote is actually those MP's in the Labour party who want to leave joining forces with the Tories and right now, this doesn't look like it can happen.

Therefore, with Corby's eyes solely on gaining power in the UK, with zero regard for Brexit, a deal looks very, very unlikely and we may well crash out with no deal (under WTO terms). Bliss.

I'm sure it has already been said but I will say it once again. If there is a second vote with remain as an option how will we ever trust the principal of democracy ever again? Have a vote, if we don't get the result we want we will have another just makes a mockery of a right that was hard fought for.