I’d bet my house that if the government was steadfast in the result the WA would be vastly different
That's a very intriguing claim; if I may say so.
Care to elaborate a bit on what in the WA would be vastly different exactly when the government would be more steadfast?
Because as far as I see it, TM:
1- triggered article 50 to leave the EU despite the UK not remotely being ready for it
(would you have triggered it even earlier, knowing no preparations were made at that point?)
2- drew additional red lines for the type of Brexit which can't be spelling 'out is out'
more than they did
(out of the SM and CU, out of Euratom: what more would you leave, there's nothing left?)
3- stands by the constitutional order of the UK, including the GFA which is an integral part of that order.
(are you willing to split the UK for the sake of Brexit, in a sovereign part which exits the EU, and a sovereign part which remains in the EU?)
So rather than claim the government should be more steadfast like you do, I'd say it should be looking at where it needs to be flexible instead:
a- it can't be on 1- as that's pretty much irrevokable by now (at least politically) so that ship has sailed
b- it can't be on 3-, unless it wants to make Brexit into an even bigger constitutional and existentional crisis than it already is for the UK itself
c- so it has to be on 2-, since those red lines are nothing but self-imposed by TM and her Tories and never got mandated by the people, not even in a simple GE (which she lost, btw)
Rather than being steadfast and screw Brexit and the UK's economy at the same time, TM should do what I've been advocating her doing for some time now: that is to actively work with JC to get the sort of brexit which commands a very large majority in Parliament, even if not in her own party: a sort of Norway+ like JC has now officially proposed to her in return for her support.
Yes, that means staying in a CU with the EU forever, just as it means all but staying in the SM too (wasn't such promissed by the vote LEAVE campain anyway?) and it means Dr Fox will officially be out of a government office (but he's been out of a real job to do anyway, so who cares?) ... oh, and yes: wealthy conservative businessmen and party sponsors will not like the fact the UK will not be able to lower its food, social, labour and consumer protection standards in a drive to be more competitive than the EU, but seriously: would that be such a big drama for the 17.4M people who voted for brexit because they were already stugling under the government's economic policies of today?
Do they all run a Dyson or a private hedgefund?
I think a wide majority in both parliament in society is more than willing to settle for a Norway+ outcome, as it explicitly delivers on the referendum result as well as best protecting the economy and jobs of millions of ordinary people, so why on earth is the PM not going for the obviously best available solution, persuing rather an illusion of her own party?
Does she really still feel she has the moral obligation to save the face of a bunch of Brexiteers who've been very disloyal to her on numerous accounts?
How much of a fetish is it, to save the personal careers of a few Tory MPs? To the point of selling the economy and the jobs of millions of people down the river?