Theresa May has resigned effective June 7:
This is all about Brexit. May has attempted to pass soft Brexit deals that keep advantages and burdens of remaining in the EU, but Parliament has repeatedly voted them down.
As I have pointed out in the past, there are only really two rational options for Brexit: Either remain in the EU or leave with essentially no deal. May’s proposals have attempted to keep a middle ground, but they effectively mean that Britain would have all the advantages and burdens of remaining in the EU, but would lose it right to vote in any EU decisions. Clearly they have no advantage over remaining in the EU, and the only real alternative to remaining is a no-deal Brexit.
The EU is structurally incapable of making fundamental changes to the its requirements of related to movement, trade, regulations, taxes, and other factors that lead to the referendum that approved Brexit. According to EU treaties, any real change in these requirements require the approval of every member state, which is nearly impossible to achieve.
In addition, any significant concessions by EU would simply encourage other member states to leave. The only way the EU can survive a Brexit is by punishing the Brits as much as possible even if it results in hardships within the remaining EU members. The beatings will continue until moral improves . . .
The original Brexit vote was a “once-in-a-generation” choice:
Before the Brexit vote, the only other referendum was to join the European Common Market back in 1975. Was Cameron wrong to say that the Brexit vote is final?
If parliament votes for a new referendum, then what would that say about democracy when the people have already voted to leave?
Would a new vote mean that “voting will be repeated until we get the right result?”
Or would a new vote actually be a step towards following the will of the people?