A couple of thoughts on this:
Throughout the Brexit process, there's been lots of this: choices encountering barriers
For some, the barriers suggest that the choices were wrong
For others, the barriers suggest that not enough effort has been put into overcoming them
For others, the barriers suggest that not enough effort has been put into overcoming them
Of course, both co-exist. If awareness of barriers had been better, then choices might have been different, just as the effort to overcome barriers might have been misjudged
That's all fine, in abstract theory for decisions yet to be taken, but much less so for Decisions We're Dealing With Now
However, I'm not sure that arguing "it's too difficult' is the most productive pathway. Either you have to change your implementation pathway or review your decision, or both
What's crucial in that is having a clear sense of the purpose of the original decision: why was it made, to what intended effect?
If you can't articulate that, then efforts to resolve problems will continue to fail, because you'll not have a good benchmark of success
I'll suggest here that Brexit (in general) is an example of a decision without clear intent.
More precisely, it's without an intent that has a broad consensus behind it.
More precisely, it's without an intent that has a broad consensus behind it.
Put differently, it was a decision with many motivations, which couldn't (and can't) be mutually reconciled, so there is an on-going battle for capturing the 'meaning' of #EUref
Absent a dominant political narrative in government of that meaning, we'll continue to run into these kinds of problems, because we'll not have a clear steer on the way in which they are problems
