This piece by @cjbickerton and Richard Tuck at least nods towards honesty in discussing the consequences of a hard 🇨🇦 style Brexit.
See here. 
It does however allude to - without really facing up to - one of the serious problems with that “let’s just take the hit” view.
The authors admit that it is “striking” that that prospectus was not what was sold to voters in the referendum campaign.
For convinced democrats, that must be a problem. But they ignore it, and press on.
The central theme of the rest of the article is that the U.K. suffers from (1) a low wage/flexible and open/low productivity growth model (2) that can be better addressed outside the EU.
I see the force of (1): but the problem with (2) is that it ignores other EU economies whose productivity is (and wages are) much higher, despite free movement (on which the authors attempt to pin the problem).
Nor is it really convincing to blame EU non discrimination rules for our (in fact England’s) decision to have high tuition fees. The obvious (unanswered) question is how Scotland (and eg Germany) manage free or low fee tuition (even teaching in English).
But the piece does openly acknowledge the costs of hard Brexit, so at least gestures towards honesty on what I called the dilemma.
As for the trilemma (Irish border) @cjbickerton passed that test elsewhere on the full Brexit site, where he advocated a hard border backed by the “assertion of U.K. sovereignty in NI”.
That’s at least honest, though the historically aware might note that the “smack of firm government” approach to Ireland by England/the UK over the last 1,000 years has had, let us say, mixed results. /ends
PS - though I said @cjbickerton’s piece gestured towards honesty in the dilemma, it doesn’t face up to practical problems like these. Breezy assertions that businesses can adjust (at an admitted cost) don’t really cut it.
