The role of an opposition party is to question the ruling party, not to oppose the will of their own constituents — NOS4A2

Labour votes in favour of policies that Labour voters want and against policies that conflict with this, e.g Conservative policies. In this case the leaders of the party have determined that Labour voters do not want the kind of Brexit that the government are pursuing (or at least unintentionally heading towards, e.g without a deal), and so oppose this in attempt to secure the kind of Brexit that they do want.

It isn’t hypocrisy but a matter of fact that people voted for Brexit. A second referendum is not meaningful — NOS4A2

Then neither is an early General Election on the issue of Brexit - although again, a General Election will never just be about Brexit.

So if you are saying that the will of the people on Brexit has already been decided then why are you in favour of an early General Election and criticising those who oppose it?

Labour votes in favour of policies that Labour voters want and against policies that conflict with this, e.g Conservative policies. In this case the leaders of the party have determined that Labour voters do not want the kind of Brexit that the government are pursuing (or at least unintentionally heading towards, e.g without a deal), and so oppose this in attempt to secure the kind of Brexit that they do want.

I’m not so convinced of that. A majority of Leave voters would rather a no deal Brexit.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-49551893

I know, but it's not like arguing with facts is going to work with NOS4A2. — Echarmion

Just thought I'd put it out there anyhow. There seems to be a lot of confusion around what is actually happening even among the mainstream news media who haven't done a great job of explaining things. I don't know how many headlines I've seen, for example, proclaiming that Boris is going to call a general election when he has no legal right to do so (only having the right to seek permission from the house to do so). They've only seemed to have cottoned on to that now that his attempt failed.

I always thought constituents were people. Maybe i’m Wrong.

I have to admit, the cover of The Sun (Corbyn-chicken) is hilarious.

The "will of the people" and "the will of their constituents" are different phrases. Are you telling me they are the same?

Constituents aren’t people? Maybe I’m wrong.

If 48% want to remain, 27% want to leave without a deal, and 25% want to leave with a deal, then what is the will of the people? To leave? That’s pretty meaningless as there are two incompatible means of leaving, and it may be that those who voted to leave with a deal would rather remain than leave without a deal and those who voted to leave without a deal would rather remain than leave with a deal. That’s the fundamental problem with the Brexit referendum.

It’s been decided but has yet to be implemented. People who would implement it need to be in power to do so. — NOS4A2

The people decided in the 2017 General Election who they wanted to implement Brexit (according to your logic).

@NOS4A2

Sorry, I deleted my post to correct it, so yours got deleted to. I defer to what @Michael said above about the numbers.

The people decided in the 2017 General Election who they wanted to implement Brexit (according to your logic).

And they saw how well that worked out. Hopefully they wouldn’t make the same mistake twice.

Constituents aren’t people? Maybe I’m wrong. — NOS4A2

Indeed, maybe you are. For example, did you know that certain combinations of words can have different meanings, even if the individual words refer to similar things?

If 48% want to remain, 27% want to leave without a deal, and 25% want to leave with a deal, then what is the will of the people? To leave? That’s pretty meaningless as there are two incompatible means of leaving, and it may be that those who voted to leave with a deal would rather remain than leave without a deal and those who voted to leave without a deal would rather remain than leave with a deal. That’s the fundamental problem with the Brexit referendum.

In my opinion, the UK should leave first and worry about deals after the Brexit referendum has been implemented. It seems the worry about deals and such were tacked on, willy nilly, after the fact.

So the will of the people does not include the will of the constituents?

And they saw how well that worked out. Hopefully they wouldn’t make the same mistake twice. — NOS4A2

If after 2 years the people ought be allowed to redecide how Brexit is to be implemented then after 3 years the people ought be allowed to redecide whether to implement Brexit at all.

But again, in a GE you’re not just voting on who implements Brexit; you’re also voting on who implements every other domestic and foreign policy, which is why a GE is a bad measure of the people’s will on Brexit.

In my opinion, the UK should leave first and worry about deals after the Brexit referendum has been implemented. — NOS4A2

Except the leave campaign ruled out leaving without a deal. From the Vote Leave manifesto:

Taking back control is a careful change, not a sudden stop - we will negotiate the terms of a new deal before we start any legal process to leave

Redecide? First the general will must be implemented. Only after can they vote to move back to the EU.

First the general will must be implemented — NOS4A2

And in 2017 we voted on who to implement Brexit. So that general will must be accepted, right?

Except the leave campaign ruled out leaving without a deal. From the Vote Leave manifesto:

There were other leave groups, such as leave.eu and grassroots out.

And in 2017 we voted on who to implement Brexit. So that general will must be accepted, right?

It seems to me we shouldn’t conflate general elections and referendums.

So which leave group should we accept as the will of the people, and why that one?

Neither. They are campaign groups composed of politicians. The vote is the will of the people.

And as I’ve explained the will of the people to leave is meaningless if there are incompatible means of leaving. The will of the people might not be to leave without a deal and so we shouldn’t leave without a deal.

Voting remain vs leave is like voting McCain vs a democratic, without being told if that democrat is Obama, Hillary, or Bernie.

Just as an aside, I’m finding I’m often in the minority regarding opinions on current events and politics. I really like conversing about these topics (which I think important) and I have zero intention to troll or to be insincere.

I see no issue about having a second referendum if it is about the means to exit, for example deal vs. No-deal. But including the option to undo the previous referendum without having implemented it is not democratic.

But including the option to undo the previous referendum without having implemented it is not democratic. — NOS4A2

Having a vote is never undemocratic.

Having a vote is never undemocratic.

But attempting to undo a vote is. That topic was already voted upon.

Undoing a previous vote with a subsequent vote is how democracy works.

The will of the people is whatever the will of the people is now, not what it was in the past. Voters have died, voters have changed their mind, and new voters who ought be allowed a say on their future are now of age.

So to summarise, if the majority today are in favour of remaining then the will of the people is to remain, and it is perfectly proper and consistent with democratic principles to put the issue to another vote so that this will can be shown.