I'm pretty sure opposition to free movement was a key underpinning of Brexit support, so I don't think the Brexit vote can be seen as a mandate for the “Norway option”.
Also, not sure that that's an option that would actually be in the table for Britain; from the European side, it makes a lot of sense to support that as an option on the way (deeper) to into the European system, but not on the way out.
Probably, but was it on the ballot paper? No. Was it in the manifesto? (which manifesto of the multiple Leave campaigns, or the Conservative 2017 one?) This is why we're in a mess, for every option people appear saying that it's not what they voted for.
So you have a slight majority who voted Leave. But they were (in their own minds) voting for different flavors of Leave. You don't have a majority behind any particular kind of Leave.
Therefore there is no possible way to do this that will satisfy the majority of people. That's going to be problematic.
I wonder how many of the people who voted Leave thought that was true.
Now, you can say that it doesn't matter, because they had opportunity to inform themselves before the vote. It's not like the rules around Article 50 have changed since the vote. But still, I wonder how many of the Leave votes really meant "Leave, even if it's a hard Brexit". (I can't prove any of this, of course...)
> best of your ability.
Leaving aside the plain lack of ability from those running the show, as written this is a mandate for the "Norway option" - EEA and free movement, ECJ etc, but not actually in the EU. This is basically as close to the status quo as possible except we'd give up our ability to vote on EU rules and just have to accept them.
However, when this is suggested, a whole bunch of Brexiteers respond with outrage.