I still have hope that this will be stopped, or more accurately that article 50 will never be triggered.
I think no matter what this has created (or illustrated) divisions within the UK that is going to take years if not decades to mend.
Both sides will hold significant grudges if article 50 is triggered or not, which will not stop the uncertainty that the UK is currently undergoing.
I also don't like the saying by figure heads of the EU and national states: 'out is out'. It's so not like the usual EU.
I read these statements as when article 50 is triggered there is no remedy to take this back. So, if they leave, then they leave and if they want to come back in they will have to undergo the same process as new members.
To me that is an acceptable stance, especially in the face of the sheer amount of uncertainty the UK has laid at their doorstep.
Untangling the UK from the EU is a huge undertaking. This is going to require new legislation from all member countries beyond the EU level if the UK only ends up negotiating for third country member status, if they only want to trade under WTO rules.
When the EU politicians keep stating that the UK cannot keep the EU in a state of uncertainty, I can completely understand that. There are many, many issues that will need to be addressed that cannot be until the UK gives a formal declaration.
At the same time I understand that the UK needs to get their house in order before making any decisions that cannot be unmade. With two parties undergoing change in leadership and potentially new parties set to make bids, with Scotland and Northern Ireland unamused at the result, there is a lot of uncertainty as to who will even be leading and negotiating the the UK exit (or, like many have theorized who will be leading if the UK doesn't exit).
All around this is a huge event that has ripple effects and consequences that are completely unknown. It has also illustrated -to me- why an integrated European plan was developed in the first place.