"So your basis to suggest Corbyn lacks integrity, is his principled refusal to support a flagrant stitch up of the public."
So rejecting the part of brexit that delivers xenophobia and at least 60% of the long term damage a no deal brexit would is a stitch up?
No, refusing to confirm the desired arrangements with the public regardless of the arrangements, is a "stitch up". That's prefectly clear from what I wrote, including the clearly expressed position that democracy required a vote to bless/avert Brexit in it's final legal form.
Well that puts your position in perspective.
Why, yes it does. Brexit bad, must resolved democratically not by fiat, even if the fiat agrees with my personal preference. It's supporting the principle of democracy and the rule of law, I understand as a Tory voter, it's hard to recognize principles.
For example, "Pandering to Racists", they vote, they are subjects and deserve democratic representation. Because I utterly condemn someone's motivation and my reading of their rationale, doesn't mean I can ignore their vote without doing some grievous harm to democracy.
Why do you get to ignore their vote because they hold views you presumably hold contemptible.
Somebody said it far better than I could, so allow me to share
“William Roper: “So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!”
Sir Thomas More: “Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?”
William Roper: “Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!”
Sir Thomas More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!”
― Robert Bolt, A Man for All Seasons
"Why did May needed Labour votes to pass her deal, when as you will of course recall, the Confidence and Supply arrangement gave her a working majority? She couldn't pass the deal because her party didn't want us in the Single Market."
May's deal did not keep us in The Single Market. (Only for goods via a customs union,and the UK is a services economy. It was the precise opposite of what the UK needed for a "successful" Brexit, )
You avoided the question, her negotiation was not with the EU but with the ERG, something which is fundamental to this debate. May couldn't offer SM to the ERG, who wanted an end to FoM. They eventually got their aim, and utterly the correct thing for Corbyn to not support a deal to worsen our situation without explicit public consent
, the democratic instinct being strong in the man, even when inconvenient, because the man has integrity unlike, racist hypocrite May.
"So you like me would have voted to remain rather than that deal." Of course, but I voted for the party that gave remain as its manifesto rather than offer that choice. But leavers would be voting for the party that offered the deal they wanted (or thought they did, because few of them actually bother to check what being like Canada actually meant).
So you admit, Corbyn was the only person who proposed to give you a vote, where remaining in the EU as full member was offered. Leavers voted for a bundle of different fantasy, The only concrete thing that seems to be agreed was ending of FoM, based on the flagrant anti-immigrant, anti-people of colour, anti-european rhetoric employed during the Leave campaign.
The manifesto is all well and good, but honestly it's the people. Either you can trust them to be competent and honourable or you can't. Large numbers vote tribally, myself included, but I won't vote for Starmer (Voted only once for Blair. did vote Brown/Red Ed). Don't Trust Reeves, Lammy, and host of others, so I won't vote for them, as I don't trust them to tell the truth.
Manifestos are not binding as has been established, so it's mainly about spending priorities.
So other than the expert view, https://ifs.org.uk/publications/9218 I think it's fairly well held view that without the OBR costing them all, they are not worth the paper they are written on and certainly of more interest to the media than the electorate.
"which is why I'd put Hard Brexit as an option" Corbyn's target was a hard brexit. Ending free movement is a hard brexit. You speak like one of those gaslighted into thinking any deal is a soft brexit. It isn't.
Hard Brexit is a spectrum from leaving SM to WTO. It starts with ending FoM. In my view this is a "Hard Brexit" but you are moving goal posts, the context was in a putative second ref. A choice to end FoM should be offered, alongside a choice to accept the proffered deal, or a choice to remain in the EU with current terms/opt-outs.
There should have been a preferential referendum between Remain in the EU, Remain in the Single Market and become a 3rd country. A deal that does 2/3 the damage of no deal is no choice.
You can't have it both ways, either do the undemocratic sensible thing, and just remain.
Or do the democratic stupid thing, and offer a real choice to properly fuck the country over.
"The man tried and failed"
It is quite clear he tried and succeed. He got the hard brexit he desired, and left the blame with the Tories. But he didn't do it with integrity, he used the same lies all the other brexiteers did.
Bollocks, he did the only decent thing and campaigned to offer people a democratic climbdown. He wasn't in office, and had no Say. He's not in the ERG - who you don't blame once, or the literal Government either Cameron/May/Johnson - no it's all magic grandpa's fault.
You are deluded - the people who fucked us are the Tories, they are still in power.
Your hatred for Corbyn - still unexplained, is making you irrational.
You demand he ignore lots of people votes ,support May without lettings people vote, and excluded any choice you personally don't want. Your problem is with democracy not Corbyn.
Yes, idiots get to vote. You don't get to disenfranchise people just because we disagree, I disagree with you, but I would defend your right to vote against my interests. See the quote above for rationale.