Britons are being deluged with data. Those who want the country to leave the European Union (EU) are as likely to reel off supportive facts and figures as those who want it to stay in. But the pro-Brexit camp is thus far resisting the temptation to use complex economic models to prove its point.
Take for instance the UK finance ministry's analysis of how some alternatives to EU membership might affect the economy. Published on April 18, this door-stopper of a document estimated that after 15 years the annual loss of gross domestic product per household would be between £2,600 and £5,200, depending on the sort of trade relationship negotiated. It even includes an outline of the economic model used, and mathematical equations for good measure.
So far, so predictable - it's possible to construct models to say whatever you like. Perhaps more surprising is that Leave campaigners have so far refrained from coming out with heavyweight economic analysis of their own.
True, Scotland's pro-independence camp made itself look silly by doing just this in 2014. It relied on heroic assumptions, including oil prices at $110 a barrel and rapid population growth, to come up with forecasts that the average Scot would be economically better off if there were a secession. With oil prices currently less than half that level, these assumptions now look ridiculous.
Leave campaigners may be betting that it's not worth running this risk, especially since it's far easier to poke holes in others' models than construct a foolproof alternative. Leave reckons the government's analysis hinges on an increase in net migration, which they would probably cut if they win the vote.
The catch is that this spotlights one of the weaker points of the Leave argument - that post Brexit they could have a free-trade agreement without free movement of people. That looks tricky. So does winning the vote without any serious economic analysis.
