Brexit was an ill-defined 🦄 that promised to be all things to all people. Lower immigration AND easier travel. More sovereignty AND frictionless trade. More money AND no economic cost. Higher standards AND fewer regulations. A Norway-style relationship for some, a clean break for others. It over-promised relentlessly and created an imaginary destination that was never remotely achievable. There was never one agreed Brexit. What was real was the economic consequence of putting new barriers between Britain and its largest neighbouring market. We have now lived with the result long enough to see it: weaker trade, weaker investment, damaged supply chains and greater vulnerability in food and energy. At some point refusing to repair Brexit stops being respect for the 2016 vote. It becomes a conscious decision to live permanently with the damage. We now know more than we did ten years ago. Democracy allows us to change course.

The rewriting of 2016 needs challenging. ❌ The referendum ballot did NOT ask: “Should Britain end freedom of movement?” It asked whether Britain should remain in or leave the EU. Nothing about leaving the Single Market. Nothing about the customs union. Nothing about ending free movement. And during the referendum prominent Brexit campaigners openly cited Norway and Switzerland as models for Britain outside the EU. 🇳🇴 Norway is in the Single Market and accepts free movement. The Leave coalition contained several completely different versions of Brexit. The public was never asked to choose between them. So it is simply not accurate to retrospectively turn 17.4 million Leave votes into 17.4 million votes specifically against free movement. That interpretation came afterwards. And if Britain is now deciding what relationship it wants with Europe, voters are perfectly entitled to decide again with the actual choices made explicit.