I have no intention of putting words into your mouth, Brian, but I'll summarise what I took away from your various arguments on the point:
"Nobody was in a position to make any promises about the shape of the future relationship, therefore the possibility of a 'no deal' was always there, in the background. That it was downplayed by the campaigns doesn't mean it wasn't a credible outcome. So if people voted Brexit, they voted for a range of possible outcomes, including no-deal. Therefore, you can't say there is no mandate for 'no deal'."
I accept that 'not having no mandate for no-deal' is different to 'there was a mandate for no-deal', but in practical terms, they effectively have the same outcome: if no-deal happens, those in power can argue it was TWOTP.
The flaw in your argument, for me, is that while the possibility was always there in the background, it operated at a level well below the public consciousness. It was also contrary to the various campaign messages being touted at the time. So it is understandable that people may have mentally discounted the possibility of no-deal as being in the category of 'so unlikely, it's essentially impossible'. It is conjecture, of course, but my feeling is that, had the campaigns been more direct about the possibility of a no-deal Brexit and the consequences, fewer people would have taken the Leave option. As it is, those who argued this possibility at the time were shouted down as 'Project Fear', further enhancing the idea that a no-deal Brexit simply wasn't worth worrying about.
