> Once it got to the hard work of making it happen they realized how awful the deal would be and how the economy would be harmed. Because they didn't want their name attached to it they resigned.

One could argue that they didn't expect the vote to pass at all, and did it to gain favor with their constituency - to be able to say they "tried to leave the EU but alas." They knew their promises were untenable, yet they made them anyway, but there's no way to fulfill them once the vote passes, hence resignation.

The problem is that literally nobody wants May's job right now. Given the shit sandwich she has to work with she's doing the best she can, but the best they can do is make a terrible situation slightly less terrible.

Boris wants the job, God help us.

I don't get why she can't just rescind article 50, and get rid of brexit altogether.

The leave voters will just complain, but it avoids all the chaos and cost associated with leaving, when there's no clear benefits.

I believe she can, and that is technically an option. The problem is that this could destabilize the country. Citizens voted and asked for a Brexit to happen. The government is trying to honor that request as it is a democratic country. If it just decided to ignore the vote and cancel any plans for Brexit, the British government would do irreparable harm to the idea of democracy in Britain.

They could perhaps vote again.

Voting until the result satisfies is not a solution either, IMO.

In Switzerland it is not a problem to repeat a vote, either after about ten years or if there are new circumstances justifying a re-evaluation or if the proposition has been modified to appease the opponents. Some proposals needed several retries to be accepted by the Swiss. It takes time.

I seriously think that UK should stop the process and start again. This is not undemocratic because people now know better (new circumstances justifying a re-evaluation). The process would be like this:

1. The parliament decides to cancel the process

2. A Spanish judge made a proposal how to halt the Brexit

3. An emergency committee tries to find a temporary deal with the EU

4. After a year or so, the popular vote is repeated

But you can vote to vote again. It’s all for the peoples’ will.

I don't think it's the intention of democracy to vote until you think the result is good.

If "you" is the people then why not? It's not as if governance is a static thing normally. Amendments can always be made.

Governance isn't static yes, but that doesn't excuse just voting until you like the result.

But then you're letting special interests dictate the results, if the people choose to re-vote.

> Once it got to the hard work of making it happen they realized

They aren't stupid. They knew all along it would be impossible. They didn't think the vote would go for brexit. They wanted to use it as political leverage and they underestimated the stupidity and malleability of the public and the powerful amplifying influence of social media.