-
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).
I disagree with most of what you say here quite strongly - Labour captured the Remain vote, when it becomes clear that a vote for Labour is a vote for Leave I would expect a collapse in support for Labour, especially amongst the younger voters, who are the ones which have come out in huge volume for Corbyn recently.
Also Brexit is going to have an impact on tax receipts that varies between "bad" and "catastrophic", reforming the country whilst in a bitter recession with no quick route out will make a Labour government a short one.
Finally, if Corbyn thinks he can win a GE whilst backing Leave, against a Tory candidate who is likely to be Remain then he is going to lose his deposit.
Dammit-
a Tory candidate who is likely to be Remain
Where are we going to find these? There are plenty of Tory MPs who campaigned remain, but they're not going to be able to stand on that platform are they?
-
For Labour, 'Brexit' is a political red herring that would only have a strong impact on their vote if it could be set up as a strong dividing issue between the main parties, e.g. if Labour conference backed a referendum re-run. That would be a mistake. As I said, you're in a small minority in changing your Labour-voting behaviour because of Labour 'respecting' the referendum result--I'm certain very few people will do this. There have probably been studies, although I can't actively remember them. Most people would vote Labour because of positive policies/their manifesto/because Labour seem genuine about ending the long period of 'same old, same old'.
As I said, the last thing I expect Labour to do should they win a general election would be to rush ahead with 'Brexit'. They'd buy time and write a different story. There's no reason to worry about a headlong plunge into it or falling tax receipts. As they would undoubtedly start work on tax evasion and avoidance immediately, it's rather more likely that tax collecting would be beefed up and more effective.
If a Tory candidate openly backed 'Remain' now (e.g., a re-run referendum), this would damage the Tory vote and deliver Labour a win. No Tory would do this, not even Philip Hammond (who won't be the candidate), as there are far more Tory voters who believe in 'Brexit'. And I know you don't mean it literally, but it is, of course, nonsense to suggest Corbyn might lose his deposit.
Still, a week's a long time in politics, etc.
Bearlegged
Oliver Schick
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).