Echoes of pre-referendum. Very small fringe cluster of cranks produce report. BBC give it vastly disproportionate coverage.
They do that either because i) insufficient expertise in house to decide what is cranky, ii) political power of the Brexit stance the cranks represent, iii) interpreting the Charter to require perpetual 'balance'.
Exactly this situation prompted us to organise the infamous 'economists' letter. Which failed so miserably to get anything like the same coverage.
Because that view was already out there in the mouths of @George_Osborne , the BoE, and other institutional protagonists.
That those institutions were being tarred with 'groupthink' insults, widely reported, did not open up a motivation to get us covered in the balance/drama algorithm that constructs a BBC story from first principles.
We disbanded after the referendum was lost. But Ec4Brexit mutated to break from the old coalition and influence which of the many Brexits would be chosen.
But, you know, if you are out there, we are still here. And those signatories, in fact practically the entire econ profession, would be rooting for SM/CU membership.
IIRC not one of the critiques levelled at the old analysis of Brexit by Ec4FT, which they inherit, has been addressed. The work is dross.
