To be fair, both May and Corbyn have near-impossible balancing acts to pull off right now. On the one hand, the Conservatives' membership and the press are both overwhelmingly behind Brexit, but the big businesses who bankroll the party are generally against it, and certainly against a no-deal Brexit. And on the other hand, a large majority of Labour's traditional parliamentary seats voted to leave, but the party membership and many of the new voters the party picked up in 2017 are against Brexit.

A hard brexit would be the Most idiotic Thing to do. Why Not taking Something while leaving. A Bad seal is still better as No Deal at all. You cant govern a Country with your Heart. You have to govern it your brain. It might be that the British People today are to Proud to Accept anything from the EU.  But Tell that to the Future generations who wont give a crab about your Feelings today. They want to know what Deal you made for Future generations.

Pretty good enumeration

Some things to add:

Almost all imports and exports will get more expensive until trade deals are realized.

Since the UK is heavily reliant on food imports, foods will get much more expensive from the 1-2 punch of import taxes and the loss of EU subsidies in that... ehem...field.

You were talking about UK citizens potentially no longer meeting qualifications in the EU (mostly that means that they will have to have a job or be retired to be able to stay over long term, just like any other non-refugee from a non-EU country), but the reverse would also be true. Considering that many EU citizens work for the NHS, and the latter already being critically short on staff, this could potentially deal a heavy blow to UK healthcare.

As for trading at WTO rules, UK already stated copying the EU schedules (how the EU trades with any country they have no trade deal with). However, the EU, due to it's sheer economic size, has a better negotiation position that the UK alone. Hence why Taiwan already stated that they won't accept trading with the UK under those rules. Not all is bad though, as the UK can still get better deals for them since the ones from the EU are tailored to benefit the Union as a whole, not specific countries.

*Looks at record-long Shutdown*

Yeah, right

theory, yes. In practice, trying to pretend that the opposition doesn't exist after the vote - or worse, openly treating them with contempt and hostility while dismissing their views as being irrelevant - almost never ends well in the longer run.

A vote of no confidence or a general election has the possibility of leading to avoiding brexit altogether and revocation of article 50 is still technically viable but whether it is politically viable is another matter altogether ... 

Even the possibility of an extension may not grant enough time to hold another referendum. It is compulsory that the Electoral Commission has at least 22 weeks to setup a referendum. As I mentioned before 10 weeks minimum is needed for campaigning and the 12 weeks before that is used to test the question in hand ... 

In my experience, something as politically unviable as directly disobeying the first referendum's result by revoking article 50 may as well be treated as altogether impossible from the viewpoint of the common citizen. If something that politically unviable is what you want to happen, you may as well give up, it's just not going to happen. That's interesting about the Electoral Commission. You might be right then, a second referendum might not be possible.

"If they simply redid the first referendum exactly as it was done then in a second referendum, I'd agree with you here."

A new format does not justify inclusion of an option that has been ruled out recently. If we are to preserve the spirit of democracy and the yet to be granted first wishes then remain needs to be excluded if we are to have a second referendum ... 

But this isn't simply a new format I'm suggesting. It's a referendum that clarifies the opinion of the first referendum. What is actually meant by "Leave" and "Remain"? Different people may have had different ideas on it when voting, and it would be dishonest to suggest that their will is being enacted if a better referendum could more clearly demonstrate their will to be contrary to what seemed to be indicated by the first result. Again, the second result could still be for a Brexit, but the mandate would be clarified to justify the precise Brexit desired, with the people fully informed of the precise Brexits that are possible.

"I understand that the point of democracy is to decide action based on incomplete agreement of the people, and that to live in a democracy is to agree to go along with the consequences of not always being on the side of the broader consensus, but the health of democracy is dependent upon the respect of the people for democracy, and when opinion is so evenly split on matters of such importance to the country, it's just not healthy for the democracy."

What is or what isn't healthy for democracy is a matter of debate for the constitutional republics/monarchies out there or thereof to find the right balance. I can tell you what is not democratic is not accepting the result. What you also ask for subsequently is the Singapore/Taiwan/Japan model of democracy but would find a weaker opposition somehow palatable in a liberal democracy? By setting dominant party politics as the precedent you are virtue signalling that you are content with one party dominating the majority of your political life. Are you truly certain that sacrificing one of the cornerstones of a liberal democracy which is a strong opposition for a stronger consensus if it means facing the possibility of seeing republicans as the mandate the majority of the time or even people like Trump? 

Again, I don't feel a second referendum would be a refutation of the first, done the way I proposed, so it wouldn't be "not accepting the results" but rather more like clarifying the will of the people more precisely, as I explained above. I think I understand what you mean about opposition, but I think you may misunderstand me. Do you think I'm suggesting that actual representation, as in the actual makeup of parliament/congress/other legislative body, should be driven by the broadest possible consensus? Because that's not what I meant when I spoke of consensus. I meant consensus for the purposes of mandates for policy preferences of the people, and the policy preferences of their legislative bodies. The makeup of the legislative bodies should be designed to be inclined to include more viewpoints, not less. Our system in the US is horrible for that. But policy preferences of the people should be as accurate as possible to what the people as a whole want, pleasing as many people as possible. Sometimes there are more than two possibilities, and certain options may leave more people happy than others, such that a broader consensus and thus a stronger democratic mandate may be achieved by allowing people to rank their choices like I suggest. It effectively allows everyone to say how everyone would most easily find a compromise, if they had to.

"Well you haven't made much progress there, have you?"

Depends entirely on what you mean by 'progress'. Britain has made quite a bit of progress outside the EU so even if the British people are committed to Brexit, it won't matter if the two parties won't agree on the withdrawal agreement. To the EU, a withdrawal agreement comes first before talking about trade deals ... 

I suppose I'm just not as impressed as you are with the progress made thus far. I think if a hard Brexit had been the voted upon option to begin with, with the full force of British government putting every resource into negotiating more and better trade deals with whomever possible for the entire duration of time from the referendum until March 29th, 2019, the UK would have made much more progress, and you'd all have a clear picture of what your new trade system would look like long before the deadline when things switched over. This would give time for businesses to make whatever changes would best help them adapt.

"America has hardly come to terms with their current president. He's being investigated in various ways and may eventually be impeached. And especially if the American people on the whole want him impeached, he should be impeached. Just as if the people of the UK want to cancel Brexit, they should be allowed to do so."

It's good enough that America isn't waging a civil war over it at the very least so that's pretty much coming to terms with the president.

Well I suppose if that's your standard, then sure, whatever.

If the British people wanted to undo Brexit then do it AFTER the fact that it has happened, not under false pretenses of democracy. Leaver's have waited OVER 41 YEARS for their chance ever since the European Communities membership referendum. It's nearly unbelievable how you're suggesting to break a precedent that the UK has held for decades and proudly at that ... 

1973 Northern Ireland sovereignty (no), 1975 EC membership (yes), 1979 Scottish devolution (no), 1997 Scottish/Welsh devolution (yes), 1998 Greater London Authority/Northern Ireland Belfast (yes), 2004 North East England devolution (no), 2011 Welsh devolution (yes), 2011 alternative vote (no), 2014 Scottish Independence (no) 

In all of the above mentioned cases the results of all previous referendums were respected yet somehow you want undermine democratic principles to make a special case for Brexit ?

Again, the will of the people with the Brexit vote would be clarified with the second referendum, so I don't feel this undermines democratic principles at all, but rather upholds them more faithfully.

HylianSwordsman said:

But this isn't simply a new format I'm suggesting. It's a referendum that clarifies the opinion of the first referendum. What is actually meant by "Leave" and "Remain"? Different people may have had different ideas on it when voting, and it would be dishonest to suggest that their will is being enacted if a better referendum could more clearly demonstrate their will to be contrary to what seemed to be indicated by the first result. Again, the second result could still be for a Brexit, but the mandate would be clarified to justify the precise Brexit desired, with the people fully informed of the precise Brexits that are possible.

HylianSwordsman said: 

Again, I don't feel a second referendum would be a refutation of the first, done the way I proposed, so it wouldn't be "not accepting the results" but rather more like clarifying the will of the people more precisely, as I explained above. I think I understand what you mean about opposition, but I think you may misunderstand me. Do you think I'm suggesting that actual representation, as in the actual makeup of parliament/congress/other legislative body, should be driven by the broadest possible consensus? Because that's not what I meant when I spoke of consensus. I meant consensus for the purposes of mandates for policy preferences of the people, and the policy preferences of their legislative bodies. The makeup of the legislative bodies should be designed to be inclined to include more viewpoints, not less. Our system in the US is horrible for that. But policy preferences of the people should be as accurate as possible to what the people as a whole want, pleasing as many people as possible. Sometimes there are more than two possibilities, and certain options may leave more people happy than others, such that a broader consensus and thus a stronger democratic mandate may be achieved by allowing people to rank their choices like I suggest. It effectively allows everyone to say how everyone would most easily find a compromise, if they had to.

HylianSwordsman said: 

I suppose I'm just not as impressed as you are with the progress made thus far. I think if a hard Brexit had been the voted upon option to begin with, with the full force of British government putting every resource into negotiating more and better trade deals with whomever possible for the entire duration of time from the referendum until March 29th, 2019, the UK would have made much more progress, and you'd all have a clear picture of what your new trade system would look like long before the deadline when things switched over. This would give time for businesses to make whatever changes would best help them adapt.

Again, the will of the people with the Brexit vote would be clarified with the second referendum, so I don't feel this undermines democratic principles at all, but rather upholds them more faithfully.

If a second referendum is intended to be a clarification of the first vote then it does not justify the inclusion of a remain option. "Remain" by all accounts was a very well understood option given the question at hand which was "Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?" ...

This means that EU membership is not in the deck of cards so while it might be alright to include a customs union, freedom of movement or some other combinations thereof but EU membership itself must be ruled out in it's entirety to preserve the spirit of Brexit ... 

Again no EU membership which is what the original question and vote implicated. If you wanted to 'clarify' the will of the people more precisely then only Leave options are on the table as the first referendum ruled out EU membership entirely. It's either no deal, May's deal or a possible opt in for a Norway+/Canada/Switzerland style of deal but nothing else ...

The British people had voted no EU membership so that's the end of it, you got it ? People are divided over Brexit but the vote has already been settled previously for it and there's no turning back to the people. What the citizens might not have a consensus on is how they want Brexit handled and the House of Commons also can't come to agreement either on what kind of withdrawal agreement either which comes first for the EU before any trade deals ...

Again, you seem to be missing the concept here. The idea is that some people may feel that if they can't have a hard Brexit with no deal, they'd rather not have a Brexit at all, and had they understood that from the beginning, they may have voted Remain. Similarly, Northern Ireland seems to be of the opinion (if I'm understanding things correctly) that they wanted to leave, but ONLY on the condition that it not be a hard Brexit, so they might want to choose Remain as a second option as well, since if they'd known that May would be this incompetent in securing a deal, they might have never chosen leave. Plenty of people might have a Brexit preference, but just want some sort of Brexit, so long as the end result isn't Remain, people like you. And of course, plenty of people might decide that upon closer inspection, leaving doesn't seem so scary after all, and since a lot of the threats have already been baked into the stock market and companies that are going to flee Britain to stay in the EU have largely already done so, Remainers might have a better idea now what sort of Brexit they want if it comes to that, or might have changed their mind and would pick one of the Brexit options as their first choice. But I suppose your fear of people changing their minds is the main reason you're against this. But that seems silly to me, because if they changed their mind, it's because they got new information that gives them a more informed opinion that led them to change their mind. Why should that not be allowed to be reflected in the referendum? It just seems to me like the result of the second, designed as I explained before, would be the most accurate read of the will of the people of the UK. It allows them not only to express their opinion as fully informed as could honestly be expected, but also to indicate preferred conditions of compromise if they can't have their exact way, and indicate preferred conditions on the way Brexit plays out, if it comes to that. It's to me the most honest way to make sure the final policy most closely reflects what the UK would be most pleased with, which seems to me like the point of a referendum.

Again, if you respected the principles of democracy then everyone needs to come to terms with the result. You take the institutions that exist in western liberal democracies for granted so you still have yet to understand why a result cannot be overturned by a follow-up election. Make no mistake that I'm not missing any concepts, however it is you that needs to understand why we cannot break precedent so easily and that a different election format is not a justification for doing such ... 

Northern Ireland wanted to remain, they didn't want to leave but if they had to leave they wanted to do so under the condition of having no Irish backstop since the protestant unionists which are still currently in political power wanted to be in a strong relationship with the union of kingdoms (UK), however a proposed customs check by the EU between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK threatens this unity since Northern Ireland would be treated very differently and the protestant unionists don't want that ... (the DUP would rather ditch the single market than have a border with the rest of UK) 

The conservative party is in a coalition with the DUP so it's not that Theresa May is necessarily bad at securing a deal but it's that she can't compromise on the backstop proposal unless she wants to risk losing in a vote of confidence ... 

As far as changing minds are concerned, people do change their minds but the precedent of respecting the democratic result means that an election cannot be overturned with another election and that is final. Just as the 2016 US presidential elections was a close race, Americans must come to terms with Trump and the same should apply to the British with Brexit. If the British people still want to change their minds then do so after the fact that they've already left the EU but don't run down their own precedents or institutions in the process with it ... 

Well..... Unfortunately that's how a vote works, the one with the most votes winst he one with the least loses, you could say that about anything though, since the last General election, how many people have died and how many people have become eligible to vote, let's have another election, we have new talent in the England team, let's have a go at the 2018 World Cup again