Snap General Election called

[Son of Mathonwy]

I'm open to a number of approaches on things like witholding tax. And I'd also note you could combine the current HMRC split on corp. tax and individual tax and just process (go after) the individual. And whilst there are some very rich individuals in the main individuals will not retain teams of lawyers and accountants as do companies to seek to (legally or otherwise) avoid as much tax as possible

Yes, I can see why putting the corp and income tax take all into income tax would be simpler and better in some ways in theory, but I can't see past those 3 objections of mine, particularly the first.

Also, another point that occurs to me is that (at least for owner-run companies)) the tax take is smoother over time if it's taken as the profit arises rather than when dividends happen to be paid.

I do understand the concern. I am advocating a huge change in how taxation works, and it's a fair concern that political concerns could well derail such an overhaul, and too simply getting the detail righting such a change and not falling foul of the law of unintended consequences is another wholly reasonable concern.

Nonetheless just because it's the way we always do it is a poor reason imo to carry on doing something that is actually designed to stifle productivity, especially because there is anyway seemingly a race to push corp tax rates ever further down and I'd much prefer a considered approach in advance about how tax should be levied fairly than suddenly at some later point in time trying to bolt on new tax levies to recover lower corp tax revenues.

Also it'd remove it as a political tool for the various parties, the Tories often suggest they'll cut rates, Labour suggest they'll bump the back up to cover a number of social spending programmes, and none of that volatility is useful to business, although when even the Tories take the stance of 'fuck business' there's a problem across the board

Agreed that changes to the system should be very carefully considered. Although (as I've said) I don't think corporation tax is done this way just because it's the way we always do it.

And it's not designed to stifle productivity - it's designed to raise revenue from those who can most afford it. I understand this can be taken as punishment for success (as can taking more tax from the better paid). But the alternative will damage the weaker participants and ultimately reduce competition by driving them from the market.

Don't be misled by "survival of the fittest" thinking - it works in nature because the fittest merely get to reproduce more, before dying. Corporate survival of the fittest transcribed to the savannah would lead to a single, immortal, mountain sized lion chomping every wildebeest in sight.

[Mellsblue]

They haven't said they're going to campaign against it.

But even if they did, I still don't understand your confusion. They are going to negotiate a deal which (unlike Boris's) is not particularly harmful to the UK. Then they'll give the electorate the choice of whether they want that specific Brexit (as opposed to the whatever-you-want-it-to-be Brexit of the original referendum) or not. Whether they take a position during the "final say" referendum or not is not relevant. It's for the people to decide.

They have said they will campaign to Remain, which is to campaign against their own deal. I’m not confused. I understand it perfectly. I just think it’s an illogical position for the party to take and the MP in car crash is either incredibly thick or completely disingenuous.
Thanks for explaining how a referendum works, but your time may be better spent on the thick/disingenuous MP. If you think that the position Labour takes in a referendum is not relevant then you’ve swallowed a load of bunkum. If you think negotiating a deal and then campaigning against that deal is logical then, well, let’s agree to disagree.
Finally, kudos on knowing what deal Lab will negotiate and it’s potential ramifications years hence. The manifesto isn’t even clear on FoM, for goodness sakes.

Their manifesto does not say which way they will campaign (and nor did Corbyn on Tuesday). In the event, there may well not be a party line on it, although I'm sure many individuals will make their positions clear.

I was explaining what Labour's policy is, not what a referendum is. Sorry if you took it the wrong way. The MP may well be thick or disingenuous. I know nothing about him; I'm not defending him.

Negotiating a deal and then leaving it to the public to decide is a way to bring all the people back into the process to sign it off, rather than siding with either the 52% or the 48% and assuming they couldn't possibly have come to a different conclusion in the last 3 years. I guess, as you say, we'll have to agree to disagree.

Agreed, their manifesto doesn't give perfect clarity on FoM. I assume that this is up for negotiation, but since the intention is to have a customs union and close alignment with the single market, I would expect movement to be very close to the "free" end of the spectrum.

The manifesto doesn’t say which way they’d campaign? Maybe I should be confused!! The Shadow Chancellor, Shadow Foreign Secretary and the Shadow Secretary for Exiting the EU, presumably the bloke overseeing the negotiations, have all said they’ll campaign to Remain, and that’s only the ones I know of. Given the vast majority of Lab membership and voters and most of the Unions are pro-remain, you don’t have to look far beyond the manifesto to see how it will play out.

A second referendum, if only the Remain v Lab deal, will not bring all the people back in to the process. There will be vast swathes of leave voters not catered for by that option (standard point that I voted remain so I’m not some bitter Brexiteer). If the referendum was remain v Lab deal v Johnson deal v no deal then you’d ‘bring all the people back in to the process’.


Aaaarrrgggghhhh. I’ve been sucked back in to the Brexit vortex. Time for a Friday lunchtime drink.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Also not headline news on the BBC today - Boris ducking out of the second head-to-head debate with Corbyn. Surely that's news?!

Puja

And why are C4 cancelling the debate? Why aren't they empty chairing him?

Bit hard to have a head-to-head debate with one person missing.

Puja

Fair point. I was mixing it up with the multi-leader debate.

[Mellsblue]

a single, immortal, mountain sized lion chomping every wildebeest in sight.

Is the working title of Labour’s free internet provider? Now. Where is that drink.

[Puja]

And why are C4 cancelling the debate? Why aren't they empty chairing him?

Bit hard to have a head-to-head debate with one person missing.

Puja

Fair point. I was mixing it up with the multi-leader debate.

The next one of which he has also chickened out of...

Puja

[Digby]

Yes, I can see why putting the corp and income tax take all into income tax would be simpler and better in some ways in theory, but I can't see past those 3 objections of mine, particularly the first.

Also, another point that occurs to me is that (at least for owner-run companies)) the tax take is smoother over time if it's taken as the profit arises rather than when dividends happen to be paid.

I do understand the concern. I am advocating a huge change in how taxation works, and it's a fair concern that political concerns could well derail such an overhaul, and too simply getting the detail righting such a change and not falling foul of the law of unintended consequences is another wholly reasonable concern.

Nonetheless just because it's the way we always do it is a poor reason imo to carry on doing something that is actually designed to stifle productivity, especially because there is anyway seemingly a race to push corp tax rates ever further down and I'd much prefer a considered approach in advance about how tax should be levied fairly than suddenly at some later point in time trying to bolt on new tax levies to recover lower corp tax revenues.

Also it'd remove it as a political tool for the various parties, the Tories often suggest they'll cut rates, Labour suggest they'll bump the back up to cover a number of social spending programmes, and none of that volatility is useful to business, although when even the Tories take the stance of 'fuck business' there's a problem across the board

Agreed that changes to the system should be very carefully considered. Although (as I've said) I don't think corporation tax is done this way just because it's the way we always do it.

And it's not designed to stifle productivity - it's designed to raise revenue from those who can most afford it. I understand this can be taken as punishment for success (as can taking more tax from the better paid). But the alternative will damage the weaker participants and ultimately reduce competition by driving them from the market.

Don't be misled by "survival of the fittest" thinking - it works in nature because the fittest merely get to reproduce more, before dying. Corporate survival of the fittest transcribed to the savannah would lead to a single, immortal, mountain sized lion chomping every wildebeest in sight.

I like that last being a lefty concern, when really you'd be one tiny nationalisation away from nirvana

[Digby]

They are going to negotiate a deal which (unlike Boris's) is not particularly harmful to the UK.

Then that means staying in the Single Market, and that runs into a problem that many on the left specifically want out of the Single Market, including Corbyn. I think you could reasonably say a Labour deal might be less harmful than the deal Boris has put forward, I doubt you'd be able to say it's not still particularly harmful

Sure, "not particularly harmful" is my personal opinion; I could of course go into why I think that at great length (main points being avoiding no deal, avoiding Trump deal, keeping free trade with EU, keeping many non-trade links with EU). I still think remaining in the EU would be the least harmful option of all.

Labour to my understanding are not proposing keeping free trade, they're proposing remaining in the customs union, and then trading off access that tries to mirror the Single Market access for whatever level of control they're willing to trade off and for whatever monies they're willing to trade off. Given they're not setting out what they're happy to trade off and the leadership have some big concerns around what they see as restrictions of Single Market rules I'm not in advance confident they'd strike a great deal, nor that they'd event want to much try to do so

In part that's helpful to me as it'd make remaining more likely, supposing Corbyn honours a move to hold a 2nd referendum

[Son of Mathonwy]

The manifesto doesn’t say which way they’d campaign? Maybe I should be confused!! The Shadow Chancellor, Shadow Foreign Secretary and the Shadow Secretary for Exiting the EU, presumably the bloke overseeing the negotiations, have all said they’ll campaign to Remain, and that’s only the ones I know of. Given the vast majority of Lab membership and voters and most of the Unions are pro-remain, you don’t have to look far beyond the manifesto to see how it will play out.

A second referendum, if only the Remain v Lab deal, will not bring all the people back in to the process. There will be vast swathes of leave voters not catered for by that option (standard point that I voted remain so I’m not some bitter Brexiteer). If the referendum was remain v Lab deal v Johnson deal v no deal then you’d ‘bring all the people back in to the process’.


Aaaarrrgggghhhh. I’ve been sucked back in to the Brexit vortex. Time for a Friday lunchtime drink.

It's possible to have a view that isn't polarised but is still clear. Of course there is disagreement within the party. That's what makes it a compromise. But I don't mean that in a bad way. When there is a real split of opinion, a compromise is what is needed.

Sure. The Labour referendum wouldn't bring everyone in. Nothing would. But it's a practical way forward and brings in the majority of the 2016 voters (unless you think less than 2% were interested in a soft Brexit). I could handle a multi-choice referendum but the press would gleefully make it seem as confusing as possible. So I'm happy with Labour's idea.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Agreed that changes to the system should be very carefully considered. Although (as I've said) I don't think corporation tax is done this way just because it's the way we always do it.

And it's not designed to stifle productivity - it's designed to raise revenue from those who can most afford it. I understand this can be taken as punishment for success (as can taking more tax from the better paid). But the alternative will damage the weaker participants and ultimately reduce competition by driving them from the market.

Don't be misled by "survival of the fittest" thinking - it works in nature because the fittest merely get to reproduce more, before dying. Corporate survival of the fittest transcribed to the savannah would lead to a single, immortal, mountain sized lion chomping every wildebeest in sight.

I like that last being a lefty concern, when really you'd be one tiny nationalisation away from nirvana

Not my nirvana! I generally only want nationalisation (or at least very strong regulation) for utilities/natural monopolies.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Then that means staying in the Single Market, and that runs into a problem that many on the left specifically want out of the Single Market, including Corbyn. I think you could reasonably say a Labour deal might be less harmful than the deal Boris has put forward, I doubt you'd be able to say it's not still particularly harmful

Sure, "not particularly harmful" is my personal opinion; I could of course go into why I think that at great length (main points being avoiding no deal, avoiding Trump deal, keeping free trade with EU, keeping many non-trade links with EU). I still think remaining in the EU would be the least harmful option of all.

Labour to my understanding are not proposing keeping free trade, they're proposing remaining in the customs union, and then trading off access that tries to mirror the Single Market access for whatever level of control they're willing to trade off and for whatever monies they're willing to trade off. Given they're not setting out what they're happy to trade off and the leadership have some big concerns around what they see as restrictions of Single Market rules I'm not in advance confident they'd strike a great deal, nor that they'd event want to much try to do so

In part that's helpful to me as it'd make remaining more likely, supposing Corbyn honours a move to hold a 2nd referendum

If they want a customs union and close alignment with the Single Market then they want something very close to free trade ie free trade on almost everything.

[Digby]

Sure, "not particularly harmful" is my personal opinion; I could of course go into why I think that at great length (main points being avoiding no deal, avoiding Trump deal, keeping free trade with EU, keeping many non-trade links with EU). I still think remaining in the EU would be the least harmful option of all.

Labour to my understanding are not proposing keeping free trade, they're proposing remaining in the customs union, and then trading off access that tries to mirror the Single Market access for whatever level of control they're willing to trade off and for whatever monies they're willing to trade off. Given they're not setting out what they're happy to trade off and the leadership have some big concerns around what they see as restrictions of Single Market rules I'm not in advance confident they'd strike a great deal, nor that they'd event want to much try to do so

In part that's helpful to me as it'd make remaining more likely, supposing Corbyn honours a move to hold a 2nd referendum

If they want a customs union and close alignment with the Single Market then they want something very close to free trade ie free trade on almost everything.

Their position on getting that close to single market access is very much in line with the Tory have your cake and it it approach, and that makes me nervous, 'cause it's a load of bollocks from the Tories too

[Banquo]

Labour to my understanding are not proposing keeping free trade, they're proposing remaining in the customs union, and then trading off access that tries to mirror the Single Market access for whatever level of control they're willing to trade off and for whatever monies they're willing to trade off. Given they're not setting out what they're happy to trade off and the leadership have some big concerns around what they see as restrictions of Single Market rules I'm not in advance confident they'd strike a great deal, nor that they'd event want to much try to do so

In part that's helpful to me as it'd make remaining more likely, supposing Corbyn honours a move to hold a 2nd referendum

If they want a customs union and close alignment with the Single Market then they want something very close to free trade ie free trade on almost everything.

Their position on getting that close to single market access is very much in line with the Tory have your cake and it it approach, and that makes me nervous, 'cause it's a load of bollocks from the Tories too

Labour imo have no intention of leaving the EU if they get into power, they just dare not say so at this moment in time, and are keeping JC happy til they don't need him any more. Their 'policy' is classic realpolitik, lets not dress it up as anything else- I don't blame them btw.

[Mellsblue]

The manifesto doesn’t say which way they’d campaign? Maybe I should be confused!! The Shadow Chancellor, Shadow Foreign Secretary and the Shadow Secretary for Exiting the EU, presumably the bloke overseeing the negotiations, have all said they’ll campaign to Remain, and that’s only the ones I know of. Given the vast majority of Lab membership and voters and most of the Unions are pro-remain, you don’t have to look far beyond the manifesto to see how it will play out.

A second referendum, if only the Remain v Lab deal, will not bring all the people back in to the process. There will be vast swathes of leave voters not catered for by that option (standard point that I voted remain so I’m not some bitter Brexiteer). If the referendum was remain v Lab deal v Johnson deal v no deal then you’d ‘bring all the people back in to the process’.


Aaaarrrgggghhhh. I’ve been sucked back in to the Brexit vortex. Time for a Friday lunchtime drink.

It's possible to have a view that isn't polarised but is still clear. Of course there is disagreement within the party. That's what makes it a compromise. But I don't mean that in a bad way. When there is a real split of opinion, a compromise is what is needed.

Sure. The Labour referendum wouldn't bring everyone in. Nothing would. But it's a practical way forward and brings in the majority of the 2016 voters (unless you think less than 2% were interested in a soft Brexit). I could handle a multi-choice referendum but the press would gleefully make it seem as confusing as possible. So I'm happy with Labour's idea.

A binary referendum is polarised. There’s only two options, you can’t compromise. What it is, is a fudge between the vast majority of the party and a minor cabal around Corbyn. If the manifesto said that the official party line will be to campaign for the deal but allow MPs, activists, members etc to campaign as they wished I’d give a begrudging nod of the head and defend it as a solid and honest policy. However, they haven’t, they’ve just fudged. The same as May did during, well, her entire govt and rightly got criticised for.

Glad to see you’ve moved from ‘all the people’ to ‘majority of 2016 voters’, as they are vastly different things.

The whole Brexit process has been an embarrassment to the country. From a shallow referendum campaign playing to people’s fears, to ERG types losing their minds that no deal won’t be countenanced, to the ultra Remainers finding any which way to deny they lost by anything other than nefarious means, to prats in high vis vests thinking it’s ok to insult and scare the likes of Anna Soubry, to a counter totalling the amount of dead old people required to swing the population in to remain, to Johnson proroging Parliament, to Bercow going against the (very strong) advice of his clerks, though to some Remainers saying all leave voters are thick and racist. I suppose Labour going in to an election with their senior MPs saying they will campaign against any deal they agree to put/recommend to Parliament and the party policy as whole, including the leader, not to know whether they’ll campaign for or against a treaty they will negotiate is just the next (il)logical step on a steep downward path. If Dominic Cummings had come up with such a plan everyone would (further) lose their minds. Classic Dom.

The glass of red didn’t help.

[Digby]

If they want a customs union and close alignment with the Single Market then they want something very close to free trade ie free trade on almost everything.

Their position on getting that close to single market access is very much in line with the Tory have your cake and it it approach, and that makes me nervous, 'cause it's a load of bollocks from the Tories too

Labour imo have no intention of leaving the EU if they get into power, they just dare not say so at this moment in time, and are keeping JC happy til they don't need him any more. Their 'policy' is classic realpolitik, lets not dress it up as anything else- I don't blame them btw.

Where would that Labour power base be operating from to enact that decision?

And I would blame them, even if it's what I want I rather like the idea of telling prospective voters what you actually intend to do rather than what you think will get you votes.

[Mellsblue]

If they want a customs union and close alignment with the Single Market then they want something very close to free trade ie free trade on almost everything.

Their position on getting that close to single market access is very much in line with the Tory have your cake and it it approach, and that makes me nervous, 'cause it's a load of bollocks from the Tories too

Labour imo have no intention of leaving the EU if they get into power, they just dare not say so at this moment in time, and are keeping JC happy til they don't need him any more. Their 'policy' is classic realpolitik, lets not dress it up as anything else- I don't blame them btw.

They also need to keep the working class leave constituencies. Not that it’s worked in Great Grimsby going by the latest poll.

[Mellsblue]

Their position on getting that close to single market access is very much in line with the Tory have your cake and it it approach, and that makes me nervous, 'cause it's a load of bollocks from the Tories too

Labour imo have no intention of leaving the EU if they get into power, they just dare not say so at this moment in time, and are keeping JC happy til they don't need him any more. Their 'policy' is classic realpolitik, lets not dress it up as anything else- I don't blame them btw.

Where would that Labour power base be operating from to enact that decision?

And I would blame them, even if it's what I want I rather like the idea of telling prospective voters what you actually intend to do rather than what you think will get you votes.

Your last para is spot on, Diggers, old boy.

[Banquo]

Their position on getting that close to single market access is very much in line with the Tory have your cake and it it approach, and that makes me nervous, 'cause it's a load of bollocks from the Tories too

Labour imo have no intention of leaving the EU if they get into power, they just dare not say so at this moment in time, and are keeping JC happy til they don't need him any more. Their 'policy' is classic realpolitik, lets not dress it up as anything else- I don't blame them btw.

They also need to keep the working class leave constituencies. Not that it’s worked in Great Grimsby going by the latest poll.

well that's my point about 'dare not say it'

[Banquo]

Their position on getting that close to single market access is very much in line with the Tory have your cake and it it approach, and that makes me nervous, 'cause it's a load of bollocks from the Tories too

Labour imo have no intention of leaving the EU if they get into power, they just dare not say so at this moment in time, and are keeping JC happy til they don't need him any more. Their 'policy' is classic realpolitik, lets not dress it up as anything else- I don't blame them btw.

Where would that Labour power base be operating from to enact that decision?

And I would blame them, even if it's what I want I rather like the idea of telling prospective voters what you actually intend to do rather than what you think will get you votes.

The Party conference. But what they imo will do is negotiate a deal that won't appeal to anyone much, and campaign for Remain.

oh and yes, sorry in an ideal world they'd be honest, and say that they do not want to leave, and any deal they want to negotiate with the EU would make it even more pointless to leave. But unfortunately, elections (have become?) all about power...which you can see in the way they've presented policies; they are just between a rock and a hard place on Brexit. So when I say I don't blame them, its from a cynics pov.

[Mellsblue]

Labour imo have no intention of leaving the EU if they get into power, they just dare not say so at this moment in time, and are keeping JC happy til they don't need him any more. Their 'policy' is classic realpolitik, lets not dress it up as anything else- I don't blame them btw.

They also need to keep the working class leave constituencies. Not that it’s worked in Great Grimsby going by the latest poll.

well that's my point about 'dare not say it'

Apologies. As you may have guessed from me being ‘confused’ about Labour’s Brexit policy, I can’t read minds.

[Banquo]

They also need to keep the working class leave constituencies. Not that it’s worked in Great Grimsby going by the latest poll.

well that's my point about 'dare not say it'

Apologies. As you may have guessed from me being ‘confused’ about Labour’s Brexit policy, I can’t read minds.

crikey, you are having an off day.

[Digby]

Labour imo have no intention of leaving the EU if they get into power, they just dare not say so at this moment in time, and are keeping JC happy til they don't need him any more. Their 'policy' is classic realpolitik, lets not dress it up as anything else- I don't blame them btw.

Where would that Labour power base be operating from to enact that decision?

And I would blame them, even if it's what I want I rather like the idea of telling prospective voters what you actually intend to do rather than what you think will get you votes.

The Party conference. But what they imo will do is negotiate a deal that won't appeal to anyone much, and campaign for Remain.

oh and yes, sorry in an ideal world they'd be honest, and say that they do not want to leave, and any deal they want to negotiate with the EU would make it even more pointless to leave. But unfortunately, elections (have become?) all about power...which you can see in the way they've presented policies; they are just between a rock and a hard place on Brexit. So when I say I don't blame them, its from a cynics pov.

Their leadership group is mostly at best Eurosceptic, and often openly hostile towards the EU. And said leadership group have gone out of their way on repeat basis to ignore Conference, just as Jeremy said he wouldn't to help win an election

[Mellsblue]

Where would that Labour power base be operating from to enact that decision?

And I would blame them, even if it's what I want I rather like the idea of telling prospective voters what you actually intend to do rather than what you think will get you votes.

The Party conference. But what they imo will do is negotiate a deal that won't appeal to anyone much, and campaign for Remain.

oh and yes, sorry in an ideal world they'd be honest, and say that they do not want to leave, and any deal they want to negotiate with the EU would make it even more pointless to leave. But unfortunately, elections (have become?) all about power...which you can see in the way they've presented policies; they are just between a rock and a hard place on Brexit. So when I say I don't blame them, its from a cynics pov.

Their leadership group is mostly at best Eurosceptic, and often openly hostile towards the EU. And said leadership group have gone out of their way on repeat basis to ignore Conference, just as Jeremy said he wouldn't to help win an election

By leadership group, do you mean Milne etc?

[Banquo]

Where would that Labour power base be operating from to enact that decision?

And I would blame them, even if it's what I want I rather like the idea of telling prospective voters what you actually intend to do rather than what you think will get you votes.

The Party conference. But what they imo will do is negotiate a deal that won't appeal to anyone much, and campaign for Remain.

oh and yes, sorry in an ideal world they'd be honest, and say that they do not want to leave, and any deal they want to negotiate with the EU would make it even more pointless to leave. But unfortunately, elections (have become?) all about power...which you can see in the way they've presented policies; they are just between a rock and a hard place on Brexit. So when I say I don't blame them, its from a cynics pov.

Their leadership group is mostly at best Eurosceptic, and often openly hostile towards the EU. And said leadership group have gone out of their way on repeat basis to ignore Conference, just as Jeremy said he wouldn't to help win an election

all of McDonnell, Thornberry, Abbott, Starmer, Long-Bailey and possibly Rayner have said they'd campaign to remain at points in time. Corbyn is the standout from what I remember- who from the shadow cabinet is a leaver?

You are right that there were shenanigans at Party Conference when the current policy was nodded through despite an impression that the majority at conference wanted policy to be campaign for remain....but my conjecture is that was 'expediency'.

[Digby]

The Party conference. But what they imo will do is negotiate a deal that won't appeal to anyone much, and campaign for Remain.

oh and yes, sorry in an ideal world they'd be honest, and say that they do not want to leave, and any deal they want to negotiate with the EU would make it even more pointless to leave. But unfortunately, elections (have become?) all about power...which you can see in the way they've presented policies; they are just between a rock and a hard place on Brexit. So when I say I don't blame them, its from a cynics pov.

Their leadership group is mostly at best Eurosceptic, and often openly hostile towards the EU. And said leadership group have gone out of their way on repeat basis to ignore Conference, just as Jeremy said he wouldn't to help win an election

By leadership group, do you mean Milne etc?

He'd be one of them, along with McCluskey, McDonnell, Slocombe, Midgley, Abbott, Fisher and of course Corbyn Jnr. I don't know if Ken Livingstone is still a big sounding board for Corbyn

[Digby]

The Party conference. But what they imo will do is negotiate a deal that won't appeal to anyone much, and campaign for Remain.

oh and yes, sorry in an ideal world they'd be honest, and say that they do not want to leave, and any deal they want to negotiate with the EU would make it even more pointless to leave. But unfortunately, elections (have become?) all about power...which you can see in the way they've presented policies; they are just between a rock and a hard place on Brexit. So when I say I don't blame them, its from a cynics pov.

Their leadership group is mostly at best Eurosceptic, and often openly hostile towards the EU. And said leadership group have gone out of their way on repeat basis to ignore Conference, just as Jeremy said he wouldn't to help win an election

all of McDonnell, Thornberry, Abbott, Starmer, Long-Bailey and possibly Rayner have said they'd campaign to remain at points in time. Corbyn is the standout from what I remember- who from the shadow cabinet is a leaver?

You are right that there were shenanigans at Party Conference when the current policy was nodded through despite an impression that the majority at conference wanted policy to be campaign for remain....but my conjecture is that was 'expediency'.

Some of those I don't really see as having much influence, some of them (and without naming names the Shadow Chancellor) I suspect are bullshitting for Britain