Actually yes, you do.
You made the assertion that there are people who refuse to accept the referendum result and who are standing in TM's way at every turn.
So it is
you who has to say who you think those people are.
there are hundreds of MPs who've voted against anything in regards to moving forward with brexit after the referendum aside from legal challenges outside of the house of commons and lords constantly against legislation.
There were some who voted against triggering A50. Almost half of those were SNP MPs, and who's to say that they didn't take note of the fact that Scotland voted 62:38 to remain?
Which do you want? MP's doing exactly what their constituents tell them to do, or what they think is in the best interest of their constituents and the country? Either way, how can you justify complaining about how the SNP voted?
Of the others there was a mix of those who were not denying the result of the referendum, only the Tory version of what leave meant, and those who shared the beliefs of people like Burke and Churchill on what their constitutional duty was.
Again, you are free to disagree with their opinion on leave vs remain, but you may not deny them the right to have one. After all, it's just our parliament taking back control of our laws.
The only significant legal challenge of which I'm aware was the one over whether MPs should have a say over invoking A50 or not, and unless you're one of those who believed all the bovine excrement about judges being enemies of the people for standing up for the rule of law, how can you object to our courts having jurisdiction in this country? After all it was just an example of taking back control.
There have been other legal challenges, but I think you'll find that in a democracy, where citizens have rights, that one of those rights is to petition the courts to rule on legal matters if you believe that someone has behaved unlawfully. If you want to remove the country from the jurisdiction of the ECJ, do you really want to also remove it from the jurisdiction of
any courts, so that citizens no longer have any legal protection against whatever the government wants to do to them?
If you don't want the courts to be able to make the government obey the law, and you don't want our elected representatives to be able to hold them to account, or to have any say in what laws and regulations we have, then I wonder what makes you think you are interested in democratic processes.
And lastly, whilst I'm sure that some of the recent anti-TM-deal votes were cast by MPs who have the strength and the cojones to behave as Burke and Churchill said they should, the vast majority voted against the appalling mess of a deal which she has negotiated, not against the fundamental idea of having a deal.
Again, it's about our democratic institutions taking back control.
Of course I know you are just looking for an argument.
No, I'm just looking for nonsense like this not to go unchallenged:
Her desire or lack off wanting to work cross party has nothing to do with it and everything to do with people who refuse to accept the referendum result standing in her way at every turn.
