to think it's not that difficult to understand Labour's position on Brexit

[chomalungma]

Apparently many people don't understand Labour's position. It's not that difficult to understand.

1. Renegotiate a better deal with the EU.
2. Put that deal to the people in a people's vote within 6 months
3. Enact the referendum
4. That's it

And yes,when it comes to the vote, people within Labour may have different views - some may want to remain, others to take the deal.

This is not about whether you agree with the position - that's a whole different thread - this is about whether the position is difficult to understand or not

Do you understand this policy?

Yes sounds straightforward to me.
Not sure if people genuinely don't understand it or are just swept away by Tory/ Brexit soundbites and can't be bothered to listen to both sides .

because the OP doesn't mention how all this would happen without involving our beloved parliament.
Exactly.

I was glad Labour didn't come down on either side, as neither have a lot of people. Leave/remain supporters are scattered across all party boundaries except Brexit party, I guess.

At the referendum we voted for a pig in a poke and the nature of the repercussions was hugely unknown. It's barely less so now.

Whoever gains power after the elections will be renegotiating a deal and Labour is the only party promising us a final yes/no say once we know for sure what we'd be getting into or out of.

Many people have re-thought their initial decision back in 2016 and many youngsters have reached voting age. More still will have done by whenever in 2020 a Labour or Labour-led coalition government held the referendum. And it wouldn't be a repeat of the 2016 choice because it would be, "Do you want this specific deal or would you rather stay in?" where last time every person who voted leave may have had a different deal in mind. Some people truly believed that we'd leave the very afternoon of the day the result was announced!

I think Labour's stance is clear and easily understood. Bear in mind, too, that alternative party leaders are in the wings. Why do you think the tories were so keen to doctor the Keir Starmer interview to remove his answer and then peddle the lie that he didn't have one? They must be terrified of him.

Still waiting to hear what "better" means,
After all the shit we've been through, it's very naive to think people will vote for more fudge.

You need an actual hill to stand and die on I strongly disagree with this, it causes conflict. Listening to other people and looking for constructive solutions is what is needed. The country is split in two and not only over Brexit. The difficult task it to try to heal this.

Pretty easy to understand.

Brexit party- hard Brexit
Conversatives- hard to medium Brexit
Labour- soft Brexit to remain
Lib Dem, SNP, Green- no Brexit

Which unless any of them get a majority, it seems unlikely they’ll be able to enact what they promise.

You can say it's easy to understand until you are blue in the face . But if it isn't getting through to voters, it isn't getting through to voters.
I thought we'd learned that lesson with the Remain campaign. It only makes sense if you can be arsed to think deeply about it.

At the moment both remainers and leavers want all their own way and the media are encouraging this. I don't think Labour's position requires particularly deep thought and I think some voters will come round to seeing that it is sensible.

@Paintedmaypole , what is a "better deal". And why won't Labour commit to supporting it after they have negotiated it?

These are not difficult questions.

I get stuck on understanding number 1. 1 says renegotiate. The EU has said it will not renegotiate.

The EU genuinely has better things to do than indulge all our nuances as they emerge.

Their 'easy to understand' Brexit policy depends on the Eu reopening the Brexit deal they have already negotiated, knowing that it will not be supported by the government. As other have said, how are they going to renegotiate it? By 'protecting workers rights'? How? What will they be negotiating on? I suspect they dont want to say because they are still runnning scared of their leave voters. Will they ask for a customs union and single market? Whats the difference between that and remain, apart from the fact we will have to take a load of rules with no say or benefits whatsoever. And they have been confused for 3 years over Brexit. They were forced to drag this policy out of their arses when they were hammered in the Euro elections and their MP's couldnt even explain their policy, so dont bother pretending that everyone else is stupid for not understanding their perfectly simple policy.

To those that say the EU won't renegotiate - they said that after May's deal, but they renegotiated with Boris, so I'm sure they would with Corbyn.

What you are saying is easy to understand. What I have heard before your post not so much.

All I have before now known of their policy is 'we can negotiate a better deal' (not sure why they think they can unless they completely change it to essentially stay) and 'people's vote' (but without understanding what they are planning to have the vote on).

More recently I have heard 'we will see how the election goes' and 'we have been clear'. It honestly sounded as though their policy on Brexit was to not have a policy, see what happens in the election (does it go more pro-leave or more pro-remain) and then decide a policy based on that.

Whilst your statement of their policy is succinct, I keep up with the news and up until yours I have still not been clear on what their actual policy is.

Given that we've already had a referendum where we voted to leave, why would remain be an option in a new referendum? Wouldn't it make more sense for any second referendum to be deal vs no deal, or Johnson's deal vs Corbyn's?

bellinisurge we don't know exactly what the better deal would look like because it hasn't been negotiated yet but I expect it would have more focus on keeping human rights protections, workers' rights etc. The reason for then putting it to a public vote again rather than enforcing it I imagine is to help reduce the amount of resentment that would result if it was imposed on people. It recognises that within both Labour and Conservative voters there are differences of opinion regarding Brexit.

I imagine that the negotiations for a new deal would have a different focus rather than being an improved verson of the existing deal.

Doesn't matter - I don't know anyway who will vote for them while he is charge anyway. Bit of a shame that cos without him they would good more sensible than the others.

Still would like to know what a better deal is?
Because if its so easy why can't they say now, when it really matters.

Still would like to know what a better deal is?
Because if its so easy why can't they say now, when it really matters

I totally agree mummmy (shocker 😂)

It’s pointless Labour saying they’d negotiate a better deal if they don’t disclose which red lines they are willing to drop in order to do that

With the current red lines we have the best deal possible

Dropping the FOM red line would lead to a whole new set of possibilities for example

Yanbu.

It’s very straightforward to understand. However, some people are being obtuse and choosing to not understand.

Just like people (Boris for example) were pretending not to understand Labours view on agreeing to a general election.

It may or may not be easy to understand, but it's no less stupid for all that - it shows Labour to be cowardly idiots that lack the ability to decide or have the courage of their convictions.

Their new deal will obviously be a sham, since they have decided to campaign against it in a referendum no matter what the deal is! Why not just promise a second referendum then, or outright Remain? Because they're terrified of losing their core working-class voters and hope that those voters are stupid enough not to notice.

I suspect Labour will find themselves sadly mistaken on that score...

I understand it. I just don't think it is very good.

@Paintedmaypole , that's just woolly "trust me" stuff. After all this time it's not good enough.
The painful truth is that the Tories managed to form a government and (until recently) had a majority in Parliament and so they were the UK government that the EU negotiated with.
If Labour had been able to form a government in 2017 it would have been a Labour UK government. But it was the UK government not "the Tories". This isn't so much a Tory Brexit as a Brexit negotiated by the UK government who happened to be Tory because they won more seats in 2017 following a democratically run general election and cobbled together a confidence and supply arrangement with the DUP.
It is what it is. Article 50 was triggered by the consent of Parliament and the clock started ticking then.

Using OP's method you can make anything easy to understand. Its genius, I cant think why they didn't think of using it to solve the crisis in the Middle East, or the NI conflict.