Editor's note: Huang Jiyuan is an opinion editor with CGTN Digital. The article reflects the author's opinions, and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

For what it's worth, Theresa May has been consistent in her pursuit to bring the country together through Brexit. But, it is the same consistency that led to her eventual downfall. For the lack of a better word, she is an "old-schooled" politician who believes that compromise is the way to do politics.

Nothing illustrates this better than what she said in her final speech as PM on July 17: "The sustainability of modern politics derives… from painstaking marking out of common ground… means delivering on them (principles) with the consent of people on all sides the debate."

She tried to achieve a consensus with the European Union and with members of both the opposition and her own party. She insisted, and is still insisting, in raising the banner for finding common ground for the greater good of the people and the country.

What she didn't and still doesn't fully comprehend is that compromise is a strategy, not a political position. Hailing compromise as a political slogan does not help anyone because, let's be honest, nobody likes not getting what they want. In the post-2016 world of politics, nothing is more effective than taking a firm position. Brexit, in itself, has never been a "compromising" issue.

The question was crystal clear: "Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?" Yes or no. It is in itself a binary choice. The public perceives it as such. There is no choice that says we will leave while part of us will remain. The referendum, however divisive or surprising that is, has given politicians a firm stance on the issue – the United Kingdom is set to leave the European Union.

Prime Minister May didn't enter into office in the best position to be qualified as someone who has a firm stance on Brexit. She first cast a Remain vote during the referendum, and then came into office with the promise of a "hard Brexit." This move, to many Brexit voters, is dubious at best, treacherous at worst.

Her action in the following two years did nothing but inflame the notion that she doesn't have a stance on the issue. Shortly after taking office, she declared a hard Brexit to take the UK out of the EU's single market and immigration system. But in 2018, she proposed to create a UK-EU free trade area under "a common rule book." Afterwards, the idea of binding the UK to EU's single market and customs system was floated around in 10 Downing Street.

More crucially, she showed no signs of when she thinks enough is enough. At first, she said she would deliver Brexit on time. Then, when the date for Brexit, initially set for March 29, 2019, approaches, since there wasn't a viable deal in place, she asked for an extension for no later than June. Afterwards, the extension was pushed back further to the end of October. Only later, she reluctantly added that an extension doesn't take no-deal off the table.

From day 1 to her last speech, May wanted to deliver Brexit along with a deal. This is a valid plan. However, what May didn't quite grasp is that, on an issue like Brexit, a deal is not necessarily what people want the most. Leaving Brexit is an uncompromising political position. A deal, on the other hand, is a compromise.

Like she said in her farewell speech that politics is "the business of turning your convictions into reality," Brexit is the conviction turned reality for many people. For those who haven't enjoyed the benefit of the economic integration with the European Union and can't find their identity in a globalized era and those, let's face it, who don't like foreigners, this is their first time in a long while getting a result they wanted. For too long has politics been about globalization and interdependency, that these people's voices have been ignored. Brexit is the product of them making their convictions into reality. Politicians, like May, simply cannot show these people that even though their voices were legitimized, the reality wouldn't match their convictions.

Yet, from the start, she has always, always emphasized a deal with the EU. This is a responsible act for a prime minister, if she has only told people what her red line is. Never has she expressed when everything just stops and Britain just leaves with or without a deal.

Her policy changes in negotiations and her postponements have linked a deal with Brexit and created the image that only deals would lead to a Brexit. She has essentially been telling people that the country wouldn't completely leave and would retain some sort of membership within the Union for its economic benefit. It can also be perceived as just to leave enough so to satisfy the results of your votes.

A deal can be the product of strategic compromise. A political stance can't. Mixing a deal with a political position create an inherently paradoxical political campaign that has mixed strategy with stance, leaving the voters confused when it comes to offering their support. And May did nothing to dispute this – her actions only further inflamed her oppositions and weakened herself. And having to compromise, making promises about retaining certain amount of relationship with the EU, shows to many people that the incumbent government is undermining their hard-won victory.

Oddly, May should have known about the power of taking a firm stance. When the Brexit bill was up for a vote in parliament and she realized that there isn't enough support to pass the bill, she tried to force it down other MPs' throats, three times. By betting on the pressure coming from Article 50's deadline, she tried to back those non-supportive members of parliament into a political corner and force them to accept her deal.

She thought they would compromise in the face of immense pressure. What's the result? She found that those MPs' stance on the issue uncompromising. And her action only brought her the biggest defeating margin in British parliamentary history, a vote of no-confidence, and eventually her resignation. She should've learnt from this episode that Brexit is not really a political problem that can be bargained and compromised, but an ideological stance that people have taken, and so have the MPs.

The 2016 election cycle and political events have shown the world that taking a firm political position is the more popular approach. And Brexit is a political position, clear and simple. People care about the relationship with EU – there is no doubt. But they also expect politicians to deliver on their views, not to undermine them by compromising with everyone and every faction.

Theresa May underestimated the people's will and chose compromise as her political stance. From the start, she has been telling the people that they wouldn't get all of what they've voted for, that she was going to compromise for the greater good. It is fine strategy, but a lousy stance. Her successor would most likely not forget or make the same mistake.

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com.)