May quits as UK prime minister

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?

Lol. It’s righting a wrong like in 2020 when Trump is ejected from the White House.


Trump was elected to a four-year term. Brexit was intended to be a once in a generation decision. The two are not equivalent.

On the other hand, I see some parallels with Democratic attempts to invalidate the 2016 election. They have included court challenges in Pennsylvania and other states, fantasies about removing Trump under the 25th amendment, and continued pushes for impeachment.

Elections have consequences even when you don’t like the results.


It wasn’t election, it was a non-binding referendum.

And while the majority of those who voted in the referendum voted in favor of Brexit, the pro-Brexit campaigners were explicitly running against a hard Brexit. Largely due to the understanding that it would be economically suicidal.

Ultimately Parliament is supreme and can ignore the results of the referendum if they want to. Or they can hold another with actual specifics to vote for.

I’d be in favor of another referendum with a tiered preference choice. Option 1: Hard Brexit, option 2: May’s deal (or some other soft Brexit), option 3: Remain. If your first choice isn’t the majority, it goes to 2nd choice.

But no matter who ultimately replaces May as PM, what was promised re: Brexit can’t be delivered, and what can be delivered people didn’t ask for and won’t like.

There’s no Machiavelli waiting in the wings to steer the UK through a rocky Brexit. Nor anyone who appears to be able to do the impossible.

1 Like

Yes, the vote was non-binding.

Logically the question on a new referendum should be the same at the last one. It should be apparent that the choice is between leaving with no deal and staying in the EU.

Three choices would mean that a majority is unlikely. Would you propose a run-off between the top two?

Yep, it needs to be a run-off imo.

It can’t be the same question as the last one. It isn’t anywhere near specific enough, as it says nothing about what our relationship will/should be with the EU going forward. Nothing about trade or immigration, and those are the two biggies.

The last two years of endless screw-ups are entirely due to that lack of specificity. Parliament is endlessly arguing over what the people really wanted because the vote was vague enough to argue both ways.

Put hard Brexit on the table, see if it gets a majority. It won’t. Put soft Brexit on the table, see if it gets a majority. It won’t.

Thus the problem.

I wonder if the UK is leaving and if Robinson won? It’s my understanding it will all be posted on Monday. Something tells me…it’s going to be a long weekend for the UK establishment. :sunglasses:

If you’re referring to convicted fraudster Stephen Yaxley-Lennon adivsing UKIP as they run for seats in the EU Parliament, we should find out Sunday night

Though it won’t change Brexit in any meaningful way, mind. And Farage left UKIP to form a new party (which beat UKIP significantly in the polling), as he says he considered their affiliation with Mr Yaxley-Lennon and their anti-Muslim rhetoric to be abhorrent.

“My heart sinks as I reflect on the idea that they may be seen by some as representative of the cause for which I have campaigned for so much of my adult life,” wrote Farage, who regularly contributes a column to the newspaper. “The very idea of Tommy Robinson being at the centre of the Brexit debate is too awful to contemplate.

“And so, with a heavy heart, and after all my years of devotion to the party, I am leaving Ukip today. There is a huge space for a Brexit party in British politics, but it won’t be filled by Ukip.”

Yes, there seems to be big disconnect between what Cameron said about the Brexit referendum and what the actual legislation said. The referendum was non-binding and it made no mention of another vote one way or the other.

Of course if the vote had gone 52/48 in favor of remaining, Cameron would have used his statement to say that another vote is not possible. He played a game of chicken and lost.

Thats why we have a redo in next year. LOL. They have consequences for a while, but that time past when the dems took over the house. for Brexit, it just hasnt worked out well and nobody can agree on an exit strategy that will work. good luck to the next PM.


You can pretty much lay this entire mess at his feet, it was purely a manifesto pledge to the base and some MP’s to win his re-election.

He never thought people would actually vote for Brexit, so the remain campaign was lack-lustre and the referendum itself inherently flawed.

It should tell you something that the most googled phrase in the UK the day the results came in was “What is the EU”.

1 Like

Enjoy your weekend :tumbler_glass: and let’s talk again Monday. :sunglasses:

I don’t understand the problem with having another vote especially when the public can now see laid before the, the effects that leaving the EU without a deal in place are going to be.

It’s okay for people to change their mind.

Because the pro-Brexit bunch know they would loose…badly. They won last selling a lot of pie-in-sky. People see the reality now, and it’s not pretty.

1 Like

There seems no end to that bull ■■■■ post.

First Sarah Palin. Now Theresa May.

Why do women politicians quit early?

1 Like

Ask Margret Thatcher…oh that’s right…

The problem with May’s proposals was that they were Brexit in name only. They kept all the burdens and advantages of remaining in the EU, but Britain would lose any say in the EU government. What possible advantage did they have over simply staying in the EU?

Ultimately there are only two rational alternatives: Remain in the EU or leave without an agreement. The EU is unwilling and unable to provide any real compromise.

Jeremy Corbyn the last I heard was against a second referendum.

Isn’t that the truth. My favorite is “The people really didn’t know what they were voting for”. As if the voters all have the IQ of Forest Gump and didn’t even bother reading what was on the ballot.

1 Like