See, even you can begin to discern the difference between immediate and important.
If you want to see things from outside the Guardians' remainiac bubble, stop fussing about the price of Avacados and the life-ending nightmare of being delayed at the ferry port for an extra hour, and think about how Brexit will be written up in 50 or 300 years by people looking for at how it affects their lives - look at it, for good or ill, as one of the events that changes they way we are governed and how the state works - look at it in the same way as you look at the introduction of Jury Trials, or the Great Reform Act, or Magna Carta and the Provisions of Oxford 50 years later, or the Trial of Charles I and the end of Rule by Divine right - or WW1 and the rise of the Labour Movement and the Emancipation of Women.
Brexit is, or will lead to, fundamental changes in our country that will make the country my great, great grandchildren live in very different to the country they would have lived in without Brexit - again, for good or ill - what no one writing then will care about is a shortage of Spanish Strawberries or the tradegy of buying non-EU insulin during 2019.
They won't even care if no aircraft carrying holiday makers or business people were able to fly to Europe for a month.
Put yourself on the side of history and not on the side of some whining cretins who believes that their personal convenience lies at the centre of the universe.
This reminds me of the Tony Blair exhortation when trying to put the details of the Belfast Agreement that we should be aware of the 'heavy hand of history on our shoulders'. Ironically an
immediate move on an
important issue. There is a further degree of irony that the practical details of brexit risks the stability of that important agreement.
Indeed you mention great leaps forward from the past, but of course most of those haven't been reversed, votes have not been taken away from women as times change. Brexit is a threat to what I believe was a leap forward (the Belfast Agreement) towards establishing a more peaceful time throughout the British isles. I grant you that there might be something better and more peaceful to come out of all this sometime hence, but there is also an immediate risk of strife.
There is a downside in waiting for jam tomorrow whilst enduring bread and water today, in that people are generally people and they want to overcome immediate problems in front of them now. No one in the future will care about those problems, but for good or ill people in the here and now will.
There was a great leap forward when Jenner discovered vaccinations but few parents would have been keen of their own kids being part of the risky 'variolation' experiments that were a forerunner to vaccinations, even if they were asked to consider the bigger picture and the hand of history.
Incidentally on a personal level some of the problems you outline such as avocados, queues at ports, and air travel disruption don't bother me. However distancing the UK from some of the benefits of collaboration do bother me, and I don't really mean materially.
The line you take also puts me in mind of the suggestion a week or so ago by Jacob Rees Mogg that the impact of brexit won't fully be felt for 50 years, in his case I believe he was talking about the benefits (!) of brexit.
If my perspective and thought process is part of some flawed Guardian remainiac process OK, but I am afraid I am still interested in the practical details that start to take shape in the near future.
Perhaps if I thought the referendum result was a disaster now, I would find that position far more coherent than I do.
