I think the presumption here, that we need to heal a divided country, is wrong. Leave voters will not be happy with any deal, because it does not give them what they voted for: better public services, higher wages, more sovereignty.
You think the presumption that we _need_ to is wrong? Or a presumption (which I haven't stated) that this deal _will_ heal divisions? All I presume is that splitting the difference will be less divisive than any alternatives.
It is that presumption that is wrong. Leavers will say this does not give us anything we voted for: better public services, higher wages, more sovereignty. They will be as unhappy as Remainers. Sometimes compromises are worse than one side winning.
Every election is divisive. If the vote had been what the current polls are suggesting (a 54% Remain victory), would you be writing a column advocating that we leave a little bit to heal divisions? If you enact policies that deliver what many Leavers voted for, things will heal
As I said before, a deal like this is the most divisive thing you can do. This compromise means neither side gets anything they wanted, because Leavers did not want to Leave in itself, but the things they were promised Leave would bring.
You have flu. One side says take cold showers and regular runs. The other says that will make you worse: stay inside and rest in the warm. The compromise in this case is to just do regular runs, and you end up in hospital.