I do, yes; I likely have more practical experience of the processes of divorces than the average person, from both my personal and professional lives.
So let me try to extrapolate an answer to my question from your posited analogy.
Divorces involve many disbenefits of different kinds to both parties; financially both parties will be worse off in the short to medium term, and in the case of the financially weaker party (the UK in this case) likely in the long and foreseeable term too. There are obviously immediate practical disbenefits too - ie having to arrange the divorce terms; in a case where the parties have to continue dealing with each other (for example children, or shared trade, or one could look two geographical blocks having to stay next to each other like a divorced couple having to continue living in the same house) there will have to be continued arrangements too, which all-too-often (and certainly much more often than not) are contiuned sources of acrimony (and hence disbenefit) as well.
Divorcing parties bear these large and long-term financial and practical disbenefits because they cannot at an emotional level countenance continuing to live together. They consider the emotional benefit worth all the practical disbenefits.
I extract from this that your answer might mean that you recognise there are no practical benefits from leaving the EU, however you were made so emotionally unhappy by living in a UK that was part of the EU that any disbenefit from leaving is outweighed by the emotional benefit of removing that source of unhappiness. Is this close to a correct summary?
