I think we can discount some (or a lot of things) that were said yesterday. Passions were high and many people were positioning themselves politically, grandstanding, talking to their bases, opportunism... the whole lot. That was both in the UK and the EU. The News output was a joke yesterday. It is understandable but remember we will now have time to Leave and passions fade over time.
Instead of this, we should have people from all sides coming together to get a plan in the best interests of the UK. The people want that. The biggest risk is the politicians.
The politicians on the whole do not have a clue about the EU. They are misinformed, ignorant and the arguments put forward by both sides were terrible. We did not get any discussion around what Leave or for that matter Remain actually would mean moving forward. The level of ignorance from politicians and the media is palpable. This 2 year negotiation is a myth. It can last as long as both parties wish it to last - that is one of the easier changes. Sturgeon made an economic case for remaining in the EU yesterday. This is fine but this is a political union as much as an economic union. What if we were able to get the economic benefits without the political union?
So what does Leave mean? On one extreme it could mean we do no trade with the EU and on the other extreme it could mean we accept something not much different to what we have now. Obviously neither of these will happen.
I believe what should happen is we use the framework on the Norwegian model. One benefit of this is that we do not have time to make a whole new trade agreement with the EU and we don't have to start from scratch anyway.
We already have the full aquis (the body of EU law) in our law so it is easier to follow the Norway/EFTA model. With regard to future change, we can repeal unwanted parts of the aquis (or make it specific to EU trade) but we won't want to repeal everything and we won't have the capacity to do so in 2 years. Norway/EFTA is a first step. The EU social stuff can just be repealed as it isn't about trade. (this is the stuff that stops us from deporting criminals)
A common complaint with regards to the Norway model is that it means you need to take the regulation from the EU without having a say. However, this is a misunderstanding on the whole. Our agreement with the EU will be around trade in the common market. The main power in trade now is in the global bodies not the EU. The EU lost its power about 10-20 years ago. So for vehicle standards for example, we do this at UNECE where Norway has a seat. In the EU, the EU represents us at UNECE, negotiates with the other states, gets agreement then makes a directive then we implement this in UK law. If we leave the EU and go Norway/EFTA, we get to go and actually negotiate at UNECE and then implement the decision - we get to actually have a say and cut out the middleman.
So with this model we could have a non contributory access to the common market, our own migration laws, a non-exclusive trade deal so we could get new trade deals with the USA, China, Korea etc., a repeal of the social aquis and a declaration of supremacy of UK law. i.e. something that the vast majority of people would want and would support in this country.
We also avoid financial Armageddon and WWIII.