I've received a number of emails from Britons who disagree with my rejection last week of the "traitor" label for British Prime Minister Theresa May. These emails offer insight into what motivates those who oppose May's Brexit deal and her ongoing negotiations to get Brexit effected. The emailers want Brexit carried out without any associated framework deal.

First up is Jeff Wyatt, the gentleman who provoked my original article by calling May a traitor while live on Sky News. Wyatt, a member of the U.K. Independence Party, suggested that May's mandate to effect Brexit has evaporated with her failure to effect Brexit on time. As he put it to me, "Our intransigent stubborn and deaf Prime Minister has had not one, not two but three huge defeats in the Commons and still she won’t do the honorable thing and simply leave the EU as our law permits nay instructs and go join the rest of the world as a free nation uncoupled by the failing economic and political project that is the EU."

Yes, May's mastery of the House of Commons has been less than ideal. Wyatt also pointed to one legal analysis that suggests May's deal is inconsistent with Brexit referendum voter intent. But I am not alone in disagreeing with that analysis.

Another emailer, A.J. Clark, told me that "Brexit has also impinged on free speech with the British police advising people to tone down the Brexit rhetoric on social media." Clark is correct in arguing that British speech laws are increasingly authoritarian.

Alexandra told me that Theresa May is "not working for the best interests of the UK but of Brussels as Brussels wants to keep the UK in the EU as it is to their trading and financial advantage." I accept the contention that Brussels seeks Britain's retained EU membership, but I believe Alexandra ignores those Brexit voters who wanted restored parliamentary sovereignty but not necessarily an end to preferential British trade access to the European single market.

The above emails were all interesting to read and consider. Still, other emails I received suggest that other hard-Brexit supporters prefer emotion to argument. One, from Nick, began, "Hey Mister, May is a traitor and has committed treason. What a fool you really are."

Another, the ironically named Richard Braine, told me, "The crimes of William Joyce against the British people were less than those of Theresa May. Joyce was only a treasonous broadcaster, not a treasonous Prime Minister. He was executed."

Joyce was a Nazi sympathizer who conspired to see his nation destroyed. May is a democratically mandated leader who is trying to manage the political interests of her country. Implying that May deserves to be tried and executed is just dumb. Indeed, it is sick. Braine also used his father as a proxy for his argument. "My 94-year-old father," Braine told me, "risked his life for several years as a naval officer during WWII, including at D-day. He was fighting for Britain's survival as an independent country. He voted Leave."

That reference speaks to the ultimate issue here. Namely, that Brexit is tied up in deep questions of honor and national identity. And while I respect the right of individuals to say what they think — and should have made that clearer in my original article — I remain unconvinced that the Brexit vote was a mandate for a hard Brexit. I have no doubt that Braine's father, like my Royal Air Force veteran grandfather, is a great Briton. But neither his service nor Braine's viewpoint gives him the right to dictate the measure of Brexit.

Instead, the referendum and May's office gives her the responsibility to see Brexit carried out. Assuming that the Brexit deal finally enacted restores parliamentary supremacy, I believe May deserves support. And seeing as the current Parliament cannot bind future Parliaments, that basic arrangement would ensure a future government could alter the terms of trade and free movement with Europe. If, that is, Britons voted to elect that government.

In short, Brexit is very open to interpretation.