You can prattle on about what has happened if you wish, I do not. I accept the result as the will of the majority and if you don't, then that is your problem. I am now only going to interest myself on future developments and will not read your overlong essays.
Unemployment is below 5% for the first time in over 10 years and even the Bank of England admits that there is no post Brexit economic slowdown. So much for all the Project Fear lies.
I am more concerned with what is about to happen; this is not "my problem" at all but everyone's problem. You appear to be supremely confident that because "the will of the people" has been given in the referendum, what happens next can't begin soon enough and will be all plain sailing because UK will tell EU what it wants and get it.
So - let's look at the present and future, as you suggest and put to one side for a moment the events that have led to where we are now (wherever that might be).
As you know, there are several legal challenges and the 5 September 2016 debate of the petition that's now attracted 4,139,837 signatures (hardly a small number); do you not agree that it would be sensible to get these out of the way first, whatever their outcomes, before invoking A50? Ms May seems to agree on that and other issues because she's clarified that she won't invoke it this year; this will mean that nothing can even be arranged to commence in respect of negotiations to leave EU until some 6 months after the referendum was held.
We cannot know for how long those legal challenges will continue, nor can we predict the results of any of them. They might all achieve nothing but, if one of more of them is successful in either forcing Parliamentary debate (if indeed it has to be forced) or overturning the referendum result as having been obtained illegally, it will be a good thing that Ms May will have exercised due prudence and caution in not rushing into progressing the necessary procedures.
However, this is not the only "unknown unknown" (as a certain American used to say). Let's examine some others.
Since you have total faith in the referendum and its outcome, what is you view on the announced intent of Mr Owen Smith, contender for Labour leadership, to hold it again if in office? OK, that would presume several preconditions; firstly, that Mr Smith wins the leadership election (à propos which Labour has just attracted nearly £5m in new membership subscriptions in order to enable some quarter of a million more people to vote on it), secondly that there's a General Election, thirdly that Labour wins it and fourthly that, having won it, Labour endorses Mr Smith's intent, so it's a pretty long shot but does at least demonstrate the preparedness of at least one Parliamentarian to conduct a re-run if in office.
Not all Leavers have the same view about future trading arrangments. Some believe that UK can continue in a "business as usual" manner, extracting all the advantages of being in the single market as now but without agreeing to free movement of people as now. Others believe that some negotiation will have to be done on this and some compromises reached on both sides. Others again would put two fingers up to the single market and hope to manage without it.
I don't know to which of these you personally subscribe (although I suspect that it may be the last). The fact, however, is that UK's continued membership of the single market as a non-EU member state will incur costs (which is not the case for EU member states)
and require agreement to free movement of people; this is what Norway does; pay up and accept free movement of people, &c. Do you really imagine that an already aggrieved 27-state group will bow down to UK (which they didn't want to leave EU in the first place) and waive these two crucial rules in its favour?
Severance of UK from EU will not in any case be only about trading arrangments; there are many other considerations as well.
In UK itself, hundreds if not thousands of lawyers will be required to unravel all laws passed and repealed in UK since it joined what was then the "Common Market" 44 years ago; new lawmaking and repealing cannot simply be postponed while this is done. Do you believe that UK has sufficient lawyers willing and qualified to do this for the government without - ironically - having to drag in rafts of them from elsewhere in EU? Have you thought of the cost of this moumental operation alone?
EHICs will become invalid in UK (though how soon is yet to be decided) and these, all passports and every other item of documentation that includes any reference to EU will ultimately have to be scrapped and/or amended; this again will all take vast amounts of time and money.
In sum, as I wrote previoulsy, once A50's invoked, UK will be sailing into a most expensive, long drawn out and uncertain ocean of unknown and unpredictable negotiations; only a fool would assume that these will all go in UK's interests and proceed without bitter argument, not least because they will all be conducted on a one nation against 27 basis. It would not surprise me if the entire process occupies a decade at least; it will certainly not surprise me if UK comes out of all of it regretting the steps that it will have taken in order to satisfy "the will of the people".
Yes, UK unemployment has indeed reduced in recent times but that's nothing to do with the referendum or its result. Whilst the UK stock market seems for the time being to have recovered from the shock, the pound has fallen sharply and, if employers relocate their operations to elsewhere in EU as a consequence of moves towards Brexit, unemployment will rise again, as a consequence of which tax revenues will fall just when so much extra money will be needed to deal with all the issues that Brexit will bring on us all should it proceed. It's far too early to pronounce upon what will happen to unemployment as a consequence of Brexit, not least because the effects of Brexit on that and on the economy in general are unlikely to materialse until after A50's been invoked.
These are just some of the reasons why I cannot even begin to share your confidence. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to assume that, just because A50's invoked (if and when it is), UK will tell the rest of EU what it insists upon and EU will just give in to its demands. I find that most improbable; why should EU cave in to a member state that it didn't want to leave just because "the will of (its) people" has nevertheless determined that it
must leave?
Sorry about the length of this, but the future is so far from cut and dried in UK's favour that it's impossible to dismiss it all in a handful of words if it's to be taken as seriously as it deserves; if nothing else, you ought to be able to deduce from this that my concerns are by no means confined to what's already happened.
Best,
Alistair