"It WAS actually a vote for all the 'worse' stuff the Leave campaign predicted."
As far as the effect on race relations, that immediately happened
Nobody discussed the economic effects that have now been suggested
Nobody even considered the effects that leaving would have on Northern Ireland and the possible repercussions on the peace process

This is what I predicted earlier - the supporters of the Government are now blaming "the people" for what is likely to go wrong
The incredibly stupid irresponsibility of allowing a referendum without planning for such a momentous move for Britain is beyond belief
The British people entered into this with no information as to what might happen - Farage's racist poster won the day, not common sense based on real information
Now, it transpires, there was not even a 'plan B'
I've never been a great fan of Murdoch's 'Times', but today's leader seems to lay out everything the voters should have known about leaving Europe before they were asked to vote.
That was not thw case, so people need to be given the right to make a decision based on what is now known
Jim Carroll

Today's 'Times' leader
Brexit’s Costs
The UK will not have a cost-free or jobs-first exit from the EU
Brexit will make Britain worse off than it would be remaining within the European Union. That is not a partisan claim. It is the stated position of the government that is intent on executing the policy, as set out in an 83-page cross-departmental study published yesterday. The projections are inherently uncertain but the only credible position is for policymakers to be upfront. Brexit has inherent economic risks and trade-offs. Politicians and voters need to be clear what these are.

Forecasts have admittedly been wrong before. In the 2016 referendum campaign the British Treasury estimated that there would be an “immediate and profound" economic shock in the event of a Brexit vote. George Osborne, then chancellor, said it would tip the economy into a re¬cession and cost up to 820,000 jobs within two years. The outcome was very different. Economic growth has decelerated but continued Employment has continued at record levels. The hit to consumption that economists generally expected did not happen, as households drew down savings.
That is the necessary caution when considering the new study. It sets out 15-year projections of the economic impact of four scenarios for Brexit. These are: Theresa May’s scheme of exit from the customs union and single market, with frictionless trade, a negotiated UK-EU free-trade agreement; a Nor- way-type arrangement, under which the UK remains within the single market and retains freedom of movement; and a no-deal Brexit.

All of these, according to the study, are economically damaging for Britain to varying degrees. And the first (the Chequers plan) is not even on offer. The impact of Brexit on GDP in the first 15 years is estimated to be a hit of 2.5 per cent under Mrs May’s preferred scheme, up to a decline of 9.3 per cent under a no-deal scenario. The Bank of England has warned that a no-deal scenario might cause greater damage than the financial crash.
The long-term nature of these projections and their specificity are bound to elicit scepticism. Economists cannot see the future but they do know the impact on growth of cross-border flows of goods, services, capital and labour. Brexit is set to constrain these flows. Hence the British government concludes that a negotiated deal would reduce GDP by between 2 and 4 per cent compared with staying within the EU. Leaving without a deal would be considerably worse.

There is no doubt that both sides in the referendum campaign made flawed claims and that economists did not in the main expect growth to re¬main as robust after the vote. Yet the effects of Brexit are now more visible, as measured in an enduringly lower level for sterling, weaker investment intentions and emerging labour shortages.
Philip Hammond, the British chancellor, acknowledged that a deal would make Britain's economy smaller than if it were inside the EU but argued there were countervailing political benefits. That is a plausible case, as it sets out trade-offs between sovereignty and economic growth. It is not the case made by Brexiteers during the referendum campaign, who argued that Britain outside the EU would benefit from access to faster-growing markets while retaining access to Europe s single market. So long as the costs are widely understood and acknowledged by policymakers and voters then Brexit is a democratic course. But there is no cost-free or jobs-first Brexit to be had. Britain must face and make its choice.