There's nothing fantastical about it. The UK had similar growth rates to the US in the 1980s, it had equal wealth at the start of the 20th century before the wars. Brits and Americans aren't so different. Arguing for being more like the US is therefore the opposite of fantasy economics - the existence proof is right there, sitting across the Atlantic, being very much real and not a fantasy.

This type of shallow, unintellectual dismissal of any thinking outside the EU box is exactly why Remain lost in the end. Describing everyone who pointed out the problems as fantasists, racists etc made the pro-EU side look unclever, unthinking. The "fantasy economics" line was tried over and over, it didn't work because enough people saw through it. The claims of an instant recession were tested and found to be false. Who cares what economists think about Brexit or the EU nowadays? The UK is out and people can see the claims of immediate/total economic devastation weren't true, so there's now potentially a reason to argue for more growth/wealth oriented ways of doing things. Before there wasn't because the EU would stop it anyway, so back then a model more like the US or parts of Asia really was fantasy economics.

It's a fantasy because there is no democratic consensus for a US model as you have admitted. The UK isn't the US at all by any number of key measures - market size, resources, dollar. The Tories ejected Truss when she tried the 'growth' low tax thing because they knew they were heading for electoral (and financial) disaster.

The UK is in a no-mans land outside of a huge market on our own continent and all you can offer is 'we can try new stuff now'.

I can accept the vote as long as there is an honest discussion about the consequences. What I can't accept is lines like 'Who cares what economists think about Brexit or the EU nowadays?'. Going back to my original point, Brexit has poisoned economic discourse.

That's not what fantasy means. If it were, then just 7 years ago you could have said there was no democratic consensus for leaving the EU and that it was a fantasy to suggest it. But that wouldn't have been correct.

My point is that in order to build democratic support for a policy you have to be willing to put in a lot of effort and campaign for it. In the EU there was no point in doing that, because even if you won a democratic victory (an election, referendum, etc) then it didn't matter, the EU would overrule you and the voters, the end.

Yes, Liz Truss tried to do the easy bits of pro-growth policies without the hard bits of actually cutting spending. That doesn't work and she was quickly replaced. The shadow of lockdowns is a long one and the country will be much poorer as a consequence regardless of what politicians do. Nonetheless, I doubt anyone is trying to claim that the new higher tax levels are going to reverse the UK's economic decline.

The UK is not in a "no mans land", that's the sort of emotional catastrophising that this thread is full of. It's a big country and still sells to the EU just as it did before - see my other comments. Exports haven't actually fallen at all because the much vaunted single market wasn't really a single market for the UK's companies anyway so leaving it didn't make much difference.

We all want honest discussions of the consequences. That's why I'm posting on this thread in the first place. Blaming global lockdown/furlough-inducted inflation on Brexit isn't honest economic discourse. Neither is simply insisting on deference to academic/civil service economists, who have been consistently wrong about it.