http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/brexit-to-cr...
No "immediate crash of financial markets and recession", but it doesn't appear that they predicted that.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jan/05/chief-econo...
And after some more research I can confirm the Treasury actually did predict an immediate crash. You are exactly 100% wrong.
I'm not arguing against you. I'm pointing out that you haven't made an argument.
A claim with no documented basis is not an informed one, doesn't add anything to the debate and is useless to everyone involved.
> And after some more research I can confirm the Treasury actually did predict an immediate crash. You are exactly 100% wrong.
Again, you've failed to provide any citation for your claim. Until you provide a citation, readers should disregard your comments as if you haven't said anything.
https://amp.theguardian.com/business/2016/may/13/imf-warns-s...
'How bad could it get? Morgan Stanley warns British stocks could lose nearly 20 percent in a Brexit win scenario. Bank of America Merrill Lynch believes U.S. stocks could lose upwards of 7 percent. Citigroup sees European stocks down 20 percent. Deutsche Bank sees 10 percent downside risk.'
https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/could-brexit-vote-cause-a-s...
'Unemployment would rocket. Tumbleweed would billow through deserted high streets. Share prices would crash. The government would struggle to find buyers for UK bonds. Financial markets would be in meltdown. Britain would be plunged instantly into another deep recession.
Remember all that? ..It hasn’t worked out that way. ..it is obvious that the sky has not fallen in as a result of the referendum, and those who said it would look a bit silly.'
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/20/brexit...
'To the shock of many — not least business titans who bankrolled the Remain campaign — the instant collapse doesn’t seem to be happening.'
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/07/that-brexit-apocalypse-i...
Somehow I doubt you would be so scrupulous in asking for sources for generally known facts if they were not so inconvenient for your position. I'm also interested to know in what world you think 'immediate and profound economic shock' does not correspond with a stock market crash.
But your links seem to be the opinions of others and not the Treasury.
Where in your "more research" have you found that the Treasury predicted a stock market crash? Or do you still not have any evidence for your claim?
I assume you meant "remain" there. But in any case: from whom?
So far you've cited an American news network, financial institutions such as Morgan Stanley, Bank of America and Citigroup, and some UK journalists referencing hearsay. In what way did these commentators represent "leave" or "remain"?
On the other side you've got Leave.EU, an actual group campaigning to leave, misleading people with the NHS funding claim on their campaign bus.
You are conflating groups who actually actively campaigned for one side of the referendum with some random general groups who stated an opinion - some of whom are not even associated with the UK!
Of course you're going to be able to find some people who thought that bad things would happen; just as it is possible to find some people who thought that good things would happen. But the ability to find people who had some opinion is meaningless in any debate.
There's a long way to go from there to then claim that people who predicted bad things were "massive concerted lies and deceit" as if that's somehow equivalent to a campaign group misleading voters that at one point aimed to be the officially recognised electoral campaigners for the leave vote.
So no, your general point doesn't stand. You have not demonstrated FUD from the remain side.
> Do you honestly believe there was no FUD from the remain side?
Do you really not understand the distinction between these two statements?