What has been said on frequent occasions is a "promise" that things will be better for us all if we leave the EU.

It is worse than that. Most Brexit commentators and promoters recognise there will be some short term disruption, but insist in the future it will be better.

Keith was honest enough to say he believed that disruption would last at most three months after Brexit day if we left with no deal. Nigel, despite picking me up on an error I made with dates, was not prepared to give any indication how long these short term effects might last. Some politicians have said 10 years, and while Rees-Mogg didn't quite say how long they would last, be did say it might take 50 years for the full effects of Brexit to be understood.

What 'short term' means is vital, because to cope with short term disruption requires resources. Some big manufacturers are stock-piling: that ties up money and affects balance sheets. Some householders may be thinking of or actually doing the same with non-perishable food - again, that ties up resources. Whether you do that or not, come any actual disruption you may be living of some kind of savings - actual money or food stocks for example - to cover any shortfall during the disruption.

Now, if you are a millionaire, you may well be able to cover a disruption lasting a few years. On the other hand if you are living on a zero hours minimum wage job you may not have enough resources to last a week. Small businesses may have enough cash in the bank to pay their workers for a month or two but would go bust if the disruption continued for three months.

That is why how long and how severe the disruptions are matter. Sunny uplands beyond, even if real and not some mirage, cannot be considered in isolation.