and a lot to be lost by openly opposing it.

That is the part I don't get. The default position of the opposition should be to oppose.

I accept that opposing "Brexit" had a lot of potential risks, but what he should have been doing from a fairly early stage was vehemently opposing a "tory-brexit". He could have peddled the line that a "good" brexit was possible (which he probably genuinely believes), while hammering the truth that the tories were royally screwing it up and were in fact using it as an opportunity to ransack the country and worsen the lot of the majority of the population. The only risk would have been if the tories did a good job, and if he still thought that was likely to happen after the first six months has passed, then he wasn't paying attention.

"None of this addresses the wisdom of Labour's policy towards Brexit and a new referendum. All it does is indicate that its policy is specifically haemorrhaging remain votes without enhancing its appeal to leave voters. If the party's aim was to maximise support next week by appealing to both remain and leave Britain, it is failing spectacularly."

[Source: YouGov poll: Labour's Brexit tactics are failing spectacularly (May 2019) ]

○ Labour and Momentum put activists on snap general election notice | The Guardian  - July 25, 2019 |
○ Brexit: Labour to back Remain as it calls for a new EU referendum | BBC Interview - July 9, 2019 |

Interesting read ...

○ The Technology Trap by John Harris, columnist @TheGuardian
○ The Democratic Hopefuls Have Endorsed the Green New Deal. So Why The Silence?

"Climate is now the leading issue named regularly in polling of Democratic primary voters, after years on the bottom."