Editor's note: Jonathan Arnott is a former member of the European Parliament. The article reflects the author's opinions, and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

Many years ago, before the internet and computer games, children in England would amuse themselves by trying to build a pyramid out of playing cards, known as a "house of cards." It would be unstable, and quick to fall over with the smallest of touches. The phrase "house of cards" entered the English language to mean any structure or institution that could come tumbling down at any moment – and even became the name of a fictional television show.

In the last few days, Operation Yellowhammer – the British government's No Deal preparations – have been in the news. With the UK government on the brink of collapse, and the Opposition refusing to allow an election, it feels as though we're living in times that would normally be more in the realms of fiction and fantasy than fact and reality – yet here we are. The arguments over Brexit continue still; the 17.4 million people who voted for Brexit struggle to understand how, three years after the vote, the UK is still a member of the European Union.

During that campaign, the Remain campaign claimed that the UK would be financially worse off by leaving. They pointed to banks and other financial institutions, plus Treasury predictions, which suggested that the UK's GDP would be far lower in the event of Brexit. Still, an oft-repeated phrase in the UK today is "nobody voted to be poorer." Perhaps not; people voted Leave often in search of new economic opportunities – or simply to get back the right to self-government.

Those projections have been proven remarkably wrong. We were told that the UK economy would collapse immediately after a Leave vote and that over half a million more people would be unemployed. In fact, record numbers of people in the UK are in work. Wage growth is at an 11-year high.

What went so badly wrong with the predictions? In my opinion, they suffered from four main problems:

Firstly, there was a "bunching" effect: economists who believed Brexit should be successes were ignored, and studies would frequently quote each other as part of their methods. A "new" study might simply be a rerun of an older study.

Secondly, GDP is a measure of total national income. It isn't a measure of how much the average person earns. In the no-Brexit models, immigration runs at higher levels. GDP may be higher in that case without Brexit, but if there are more people in the country, the average income is not.

Thirdly, they failed to properly model any economic benefits of Brexit: the ability to get rid of EU laws stifling business, to be able to sign new trade deals around the world, or simply to regain control of our own manufacturing, agriculture and fisheries.

Finally, and perhaps most interestingly, there was a bias. Researchers at Sweden's Central Bank noticed something unusual: institutions which would do badly themselves out of Brexit tended to come up with the most negative projections (a "propaganda bias" as described by the researchers). When those institutions were then quoted by others, it created a false sense of impending economic doom.

Once you start to unpick those economic models, it becomes clear how wafer-thin they really are. The whole structure falls down, much like a house of cards. But as David Folkerts-Landau, the chief economist of Deutsche Bank, recently said about a no-deal Brexit, "Over the medium-term, the economy will do well. There will be a hit in the short-term, but in the medium-term it will do well. To go for an inadequate deal, or a deal that constrains the UK, would be a second-best solution."

In my opinion, the UK must respect the result of the referendum, irrespective of the onslaught against it by politicians who are not truly representing the wishes of those who elected them. A good deal with the EU would be helpful, if one was on offer, but I'd rather leave without a deal than be stuck with a poor deal for generations to come.

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com.)