. [ ] Remain a member of the European Union

. [ ] Leave the European Union

Do you see the huge honking flashing design flaw here?

No? Let's rephrase this with a little substitution:

. [ ] Continue the known reality

. [ ] Do something else (to be determined later)

There's the problem. The second was a catch-all that cast a huge net encompassing all imagined alternatives. Everything that isn't what is currently now, that's option 2.

That's what won, because it's every imagined alternative tossed in a huge pile. Your Own Personal Favorite Idea is option 2! Hooray!

The problem is that when that has to become concrete it turns out that staying in the EU outweighs any one particular instance of the "leave the EU" reality ... and one of them has to be executed on.

WHAT SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED

The plebiscite should have had detailed, specific scenarios and been structured as follows:

. [ ] Remain in the EU

. [ ] Option 1 (addendum 1)

. [ ] Option 2 (addendum 2)

. [ ] ...

. [ ] Option N (addendum n)

Why? Because that's what would actually be happening, the actual reality that has to be contended with, not just some undefined fantasy.

BUT THIS FAVORS STAYING, ALWAYS

No. Not necessarily. If the Brexiters could offer a real-world, concrete, provable, air-tight demonstrably better alternative instead of amorphous good-feelings then they can persuade the public with this imagined reality instead of relying on a reality imagined.

What shouldn't have been allowed, and why this is a total mess, is an option of amorphous make-believe. Make-believe will always win.