Yeah - or at least without the point where it became an article of faith that Brexit was all about some sort of absolute sovereignty and hence that any Brexit that wasn't hard as fuck wasn't worthy of the name or reflective of The Will Of The People. From then on we'd got a ruling party that essentially selected for people who were either completely disconnected from reality or didn't give a fuck about the consequences of their actions at every level from the leader to the membership, with predictable results.
Counterfactual exercise - can we imagine a world where someone had managed to build a post-referendum consensus in favour of some sort of softer Brexit? Where the whole thing had more-or-less worked with plausibly deniable downsides, the Tory party had mostly got over its internal differences and hadn't swerved to the right, and we we'd now be stuck with them in power pretty much forever? Or was the descent into madness part and parcel of any Brexit campaign that could get it over the line?
You've missed a third type of pro-Brexit Tory: those who've actively and personally benefited from the economic chaos, tanking pound, deregulation, etc.
In answer to your question, I think a soft Brexit (namely, staying in the CU/SM, like Norway/Switzerland) would have avoided the economic and logistical problems, so you or I would have gone on living our lives without noticing shortages, big price hikes, massive passport queues etc.
But this solution was always going to be a fantasy, because your Bakers, Ress-Moggs etc. that I mentioned above wouldn't have got the result they wanted, while your rank-and-file Leave voters could claim - quite reasonably, actually - that the UK would have less sovereignty, not more, since we'd then have to abide by EU laws we have no say in.