I for one understood the point you were making in your earlier post, Hmack. Regrettably it seems to be a feature of the Brexit debate that while there are those who want to understand and argue the practicalities and economic aspects of staying or leaving the EU, and do so out of a concern for the country and society, the debate seems to have an irresistible pull exerted by those motivated by ideology, prejudice, ego and ambition. And that is not wholly a dig at the right-wing Brexiteers as I sense there are those on the hard left whose arguments seem motivated more by anti-Tory ideology than what's good for the country. This raises passions to a level which seem to drown out reasoned debate.
It's hard too draw out any positives in this but I harbour a degree of comfort in (a) the belief that Mrs May and her Chancellor seem practical and reasoned by nature and hopefully will moderate the excesses of the hard Brexiteers and (b) if the PM is unsuccessful in this the likelihood is that the conservatives will implode, another general election will follow and a new government, faced with an impasse within the UK over Brexit terms, will decide to seek another mandate from the people.
Indeed, I am fascinated by TM's constant desire to kick the can down the road, which has reached a new art-form with the cabinet currently tasked to workshop two conflicting solutions to the customs union conundrum, both of which have already been rejected by the EU commission.
Could it be that by deferring the decision, TM is following the path suggested by author Ian McEwan, who has noted that:
“A gang of angry old men, irritable even in victory, are shaping the future of the country against the inclinations of its youth. And a handful of billionaires lavishly funded the Brexit campaigns for their own financial reasons. But, by 2019 the country could be in a receptive mood: 2.5 million over-18-year-olds, freshly franchised and mostly remainers. And also 1.5 million oldsters, mostly Brexiters, freshly in their graves.”