If we are to leave the EU, the sooner the better – but don't rule out a second referendum

We can already see the damage that the uncertainty is inflicting on the economy. The sooner it can be brought to an end, the sooner investment and consumer spending can resume

Christine Lagarde of the IMF (GETTY)

If it were done when ’tis done, then ’twere well it were done quickly. As Christine Lagarde, head of the International Monetary Fund, has advised, if the UK really is to leave the European Union, then the swifter the progress the better.

The logic is quite compelling. We already see the damage that the uncertainty is inflicting on the economy, and the sooner that uncertainty can be brought to an end, the sooner investment and consumer spending can resume. That, in turn, also means the sooner growth in jobs and wages can return, and the less need there will be for further cuts in public spending and tax rises to make up the gap in the public finances.

The danger hinted at by Ms Lagarde is that as uncertainty closes in on the economy and confidence oozes away, then a recession will take hold before the negotiations are anywhere near completion. As other nations, notably Japan, have found, such a collapse in confidence can leave an economy becalmed for years, if not decades. It can also leave it almost completely resistant to any kind of stimulus that government or central banks can bring to bear. None of that is an enticing prospect, and makes “project fear” look positively understated.

One possibility that remains is that the reality of economic decline will so shock our leaders and the country that they re-examine the Brexit vote. It is conceivable that a second referendum, based on a proposed new deal for Brexit set against the existing membership of the EU, could be held if it was possible to find a way to do it around the notorious Article 50. That may, however, prove too much to hope for.