Economists have always been better at explaining why something has happened than what will happen next, but thats to be expected in complex systems. It's much easier to work with factual events than assumptions. Doesn't mean that the whole science of Economics is discredited though.
Have posted this before but I did a paper a long time ago using the Treasury, BCG and (I think) Cambridge groups economic models - simulations of what they believe will happen given under different policy assumptions. Using the same inputs, they all gave (sometimes pretty wildly) differing outcomes. I still do some work in International agricultural markets and it never fails to amaze me how unpredictable markets actually behave in real life.
yes - markets behaved themselves pretty well after the vote, with not too much intervention needed. Again, I've said this before but I was working in the Stock Exchange building the week after the vote (or maybe a couple of weeks after - can't remember exactly) and most people seemed to think that it wouldn't happen, or would at least be a Norway type arrangement, so markets and businesses were pretty much in a wait and see mode at least after the initial shock.
The point at which we leave with no deal is a lot different than the point at which a referendum result is announced though. There will be real impacts on the economy and business, rather than just markets reacting to potential events 2 years in the future, and I don't think that anyone, expert or not, believes that we won't be heading into a period of fairly considerable economic damage. The only question really being how long it will take to drag ourselves back out of it. Optimists maybe think 2 or 3 years, pessimists 10/20 years?? (realists 5 to 10 years?)
does anyone think that a no deal is a good short term outcome? Striker posed the question but not sure he ever got an answer.