I remember a lot of talk about going to WTO, taking a 5-10 year hit would be worth it to get out of the EU for good from brexiteers.
If you boil down the options, leave meant no more FoM, the ability to do your own trade deals, not be subject to EU laws, no large payments to the EU, whether it's 200-240 million of the false 340 million. It also means a hard border for Ireland and NI.
All along leave meant leave unless the EU gave in to certain things. No-one voting leave thought FoM would still exist, no-one believed leaving the EU would mean you can't do your own trade deals, no-one believed leaving the EU would mean you're still subjected to EU laws, no-one voting leave thought they'd still be paying the EU 200 million a week.
Leave has always meant leave and relies on the EU to make special arrangements which aren't forthcoming and unlikely, they have 27 nations and the EU organization to protect. The EU also have a trump card in the Irish border. Who wants to officially be responsible putting in a hard border? English people voted not really caring or considering it.
A Norway type deal means accepting FoM and paying 95% of the fee. Leave voters weren't voting with this in mind.
I don't think people in general and politicians expected the EU to play such a hardball game and I don't people and politicians a like knew how intertwined the EU is set up to be, the Labour manifesto shows this. UK is faced with no deal, take a hit and sort it out over time, or remain a full member. There's no point in compromising, you might as well stay a full member.
It's not surprising how it's come down to this as I said from the get go I can only see leave meaning fully leave ultimately as I knew how it's setup and they're unlikely to treat the UK differently. They might do afterwards, who knows in a few years if UK does fully leave.
I think UK should remain a full member by the way. I'm not for leaving at all.