Continued membership of the Single Market and the Customs Union would deal with these issues in a stroke. The problem for the hard-brexiters here is that they will not get their "own" trade deals. However as the EU has 65 such trade deals worldwide already and is adding more (New Zealand and Australia next year) I would suggest that argument is rather irrelevant.
The main problem is that nobody really new what 'leaving the EU' really comprised:
Was it just the political entity?
Was it also the SM?
And the CU?
During the campaign it never really got specified and depending the LEAVE speaker of the day, the SM was or was not left, while the CU wasn't even mentioned (probably because it was as good as unknown even?), so now a political interpretation is having to be made as to what needs to be understood, depending far more on party and personal interests than on country and people, sadly.
On the SM, from the onset it has been made clear by the EU that the 4 freedoms are indivisible, yet it was promised time and time again by numerous LEAVE campaigners that a vote for them would change this hard stance (clearly that was an overpromise, at the very least...), so although it is obvious from this overpromise that their conceptual idea was to stay well IN the SM, the people actually did vote OUT on this element too, albeit fooled to believe it wasn't going to be required to actually leave the SM too.
The issue of having the SM explicitly included in their promise is now haunting sensible politicians in Britain as it means they need to beg the EU for a long transitional deal (beyond the 2 year exit period) as well as seek continued participation in all the current FTAs the EU holds with other countries and blocs, because leaving the SM just like that would be like cutting off both your legs just when you want to participate in a marathon...
Even more amusing it is to see how apparently the UK Government thinks people also understood LEAVE as meaning leaving the CU too, while at the same time they assume it did not mean leaving (most of) the European Agencies?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agencies_ ... pean_Union
I really wonder on what basis a detailed conclusion can be drawn as to which of the lesser known components of the EU were ment to be included in a LEAVE vote, other than on a personal interests basis?
Indeed, leaving the CU allows the UK to negotiate it own FTAs and God knows certain fractions of the Conservative Party have great personal interest in seeing the UK soften up on certain consumer protection issues the EU is very strict on, so concluding a copy of the EU's FTAs minus whatever they find restrictive for their sort of trade in it is their ultimate goal as 'Britain goes globally' of course, hence it now needs to be able to do away with all those protections according to those politicians.
Leaving any of the European Agencies in contrast is not yielding a great personal interest nor political gain, it's just causing a huge headache for the UK by producing miles and miles of additional red tape at a huge cost, even though doing that would by far be living up to the promise of 'taking back control' far more than leaving the CU is for instance.
The EU on the other hand is not giving in on this cherry picking because the EU is not an ordinary take-away where you can select whatever you like from its menu and even have it all modified a bit further even to your own personal flavour: it only offers certain combo deals, all of them at a predetermined price, so it keeps asking Britain which of the combos it wants, or move aside for the next in line to come up to the counter until it has made its mind up with the help from the easy to understand combo menu displayed at the entrance and posted here numerous times already...