-
I don't understand what's supposed to be hard about this at all.
I'm not clear on what point it is that you are making here, it seems to be that Corbyn should not oppose Brexit because to do so would be undemocratic, and even if he ignored that aspect he isn't in government so opposition is futile and therefore should not be attempted, and that the only thing that matters, and must over-ride everything else, is to get to a GE?
To be clear - I, who have voted Labour my whole life, will not vote Labour if they are committed to Brexit, as they give every sign of being. I doubt that I am alone, and this will mean that they are likely to lose the GE they are staking everything on.
Dammit-
Of course opposition isn't futile, but Labour's time and energy is better used to work on issues, and compose a programme for government, where they're not bound by a referendum result. This is what they're doing. Their priority is to win power, when they would have a majority in Parliament and could actually do whatever they wanted to do about 'Brexit'. As Corbyn and co. know perfectly well (I think) that what they have put forward as their policy (seems to be customs union, maintaining EU institutions, guaranteeing EU citizens' rights, minus single market) would be more acceptable to the EU though still not be accepted by it, they would undoubtedly take a different tack once they were in power.
My hunch is that the first thing they'd do would be to buy time by applying for an A50 extension, citing the Tories' disastrous mishandling, and then calm the waters and get on with their other policy ambitions until the country's political climate changed. (As per usual, I don't think the Tories will risk a general election before boundary changes, but a week's a long time in politics.)
The referendum took the choice out of the compass of a political party's own decision-making power if they want to get elected. I know it should have been managed and explained better that it was only advisory, etc., but as Cameron and co. thought they'd walk it they didn't put any effort into that.
If Corbyn opposed 'Brexit' he'd be finished very quickly for that reason alone, but also simply because it would give the Tories a new lease of life and a welcome distraction from their deeply anti-social, vulnerable-people-victimising policies. 'Brexit' is not their weak point, no matter how much those against 'Brexit' would claim that it's a politically dominant issue--it's not. It's a symptom and not a cause, and what really matters are the issues behind it.
Corbyn understands that and chooses to address the causes (and provide real opposition there, in the proper substance of politics). The 'nothing's fair any more' / 'we have no control' (John Harris' recent videos for the Guardian show you a good range of views) that bolstered the 'Brexit' vote and pushed it over 50% and across main party boundaries is caused by many of the problems Labour are promising to address, e.g. in last year's manifesto and with the conference proposals just unfolding. If those were addressed, there would undoubtedly be a very different climate in which to address the EU issues.
Very few people, you being in a small minority, will decide not to vote Labour because of them not opposing 'Brexit'. It's definitely not a situation Corbyn wanted to be in, but there's nothing else he can do than what he's doing. And yes, as there are indications that Labour would win a general election before boundary changes, they want it asap (but again, they won't get it unless something very surprising happens).
Oliver Schick
I don't understand what's supposed to be hard about this at all.
As I said before, Labour cannot say that they want another vote to potentially reverse the result of the previous referendum, which is, of course, the motivation of many of those suggesting it. That would indicate (or could easily be spun into) contempt of democracy, giving the Tories a simple attack line against Labour in the event of a possible general election (which, as I've said, I'm convinced the Tories won't want to risk until boundaries have changed in their favour) and mobilise the protest vote again.
Corbyn's view it's quite easy to find--he's said several times, including post-referendum, that he's in favour of Remain, but with a clear intention to reform the EU. Nonetheless, Labour is bound by the referendum result (much as it's since been overcooked from its supposed 'advisory' status), as are all political parties if they want to be seen as responsible once in government, and the Lib Dems were very foolish in imagining that disdaining the referendum result would pay off for them electorally.
As for 'zero opposition', Corbyn can't do much if (a) he doesn't have a majority in Parliament, (b) the not-quite-legitimate 'majority' in Parliament are very scared of a Corbyn government, (c) the Tory rebels ('led' by the comically inappropriate 'rebel' Dominic Grieve) are so timid that the opposition can't exploit the divisions in the Tory party (with a weak May playing the factions off against one another, her main aim being to remain Prime Minister)--it's the Tory rebels who are the real culprits in not providing opposition, British ruling parties being in 'elected dictatorships', and (d) when there's a slim chance in a close vote, four Labour MPs vote against Corbyn despite the urgency (for Labour) of the occasion.
The only thing that can make a difference for Labour is a general election. Protests are a pointless waste of time, continuing to reinforce the divisions over Brexit and trying to pivot an electoral fight on that would cause Labour to lose the election for certain, and great intellectual debates won't work in the public arena.
The tl;dr of the whole situation is: Millions of people have been treated like shit for decades, for some reason the EU was set up as the bogeyman rather than the real culprits (conservative or conservative-leaning (i.e., Blair, Schröder, Jospin) governments without any real correction by an interstitial left-leaning government), and the attempt to damage the EU is evidently steered by interests like Russia's kleptocracy.
Not that I like the EU wholeheartedly--like the UK, it has been dominated by predominantly conservative governments of the larger countries for too long. Those countries have impoverished large swathes of their populations, too, leading them to become over-reliant on exports, and in turn coming to damage the economies of smaller, more import-reliant countries (e.g., Greece). Also, you've had different conservative governments across Europe evidently being at loggerheads with one another as the supposed capitalist Internationale of 'globalisation' hasn't really worked for some funny reason. Nonetheless, it is worth supporting the EU as the supranational organisation evolving out of the post-war settlement and a guarantor of peace in Europe. It just needs better input and a better balance of governments represented in it.
Note that I'm not trying to be in any particular political corner here. If you have a generally accepted 51/49 (or 52/48) decision-making process, then as no political party gets it all right you need change every once in a while. It's clunky but the only method we have. It just has to be prevented that one side becomes over-dominant for too long, which the conservatives have evidently been.