[simonh]

As has been mentioned on this thread before you posted, those analyses were based on the announced policy that article 50 would be triggered immediately. It wasn't. Long term Brexit is absolutely going to be disastrous for the UK economy, unless parliament can get us on to a soft-brexit EEA membership track.

The tragedy is that the British economy was going well through the beginning of 2016 and after a bumpy road immediately after the vote that momentum has held up over the last 6 months. That won't help us if we really do crash out of the EU hard.

[Ntrails]

> Long term Brexit is absolutely going to be disastrous for the UK economy, unless parliament can get us on to a soft-brexit EEA membership track.

No. It might be. I'll even accept will probably be. You haven't got a clue, I haven't got a clue. Professors of economics at respected universities don't agree, in house analysts at top financial institutions don't agree. At best you can say that heavily politically influenced bodies tend to agree.

I'm fine with you stating an opinion on this stuff, I have my own expectations (chunky period of inflation and stagnant growth at best) - but I'm awfully tired of people selling forecasts as facts

[zigzigzag]

those analyses were based on the announced policy that article 50 would be triggered immediately

Then they were naive analyses rather than expert analyses weren't they?

Did anyone seriously think Cameron would stay on to implement Brexit? Only someone utterly clueless about British politics could have thought that - it was obvious there'd be a leadership change in the event of a leave vote.

It is also obvious that Article 50 was deliberately botched, the guy who wrote it have said so explicitly. 2 years is a stupid choice for the amount of time available, designed specifically to discourage people from trying to leave. So assuming it'd be invoked immediately anyway was a very bad assumption.

No matter how you slice it, the so-called "experts" were completely wrong and excuses don't cut it.