I disagree with the whole concept of break/continue to a label.
When I was much less experienced, I had to deal with ugly nested looping/conditional code, like this, where nesting levels incorrectly interacted with each other. The real issue is poor nested logic, too much nesting. Maybe some of the inner scope should be broken out to another function (for isolation).
IMHO, this violates the idea of scope encapsulation. The inner loop/scope should not know or care what the outer loop/scope is doing nor why. And vise-versa. Just because you can does not mean you should.
This feature does not do what 'break' or 'continue' should be doing:
'Break' breaks out of the scope and goes to after the _end_ of this scope.
'Continue' stays in the loop, continuing with for the next iteration of the scope, from the the _top_ of this scope.
We already have a feature that goes to a label (forward or back), it is called 'goto' and it is mostly discouraged.
I understand the request but I will vote 'No" on this.
We should not be adding any feature, to C or C++, that encourages more complexity (spaghetti, ugly code-flow side-effects).
Sorry, Not sorry.