It's just generally the way things go in situations like this. You have 2 opposite sides with their own agendas going head to head and all you get are the "dire consequences" voices on both sides - and by default you'll get much louder voices on the side of status quo because businesses and markets don't like the unknown.
Now that the change is going to happen, they will all be motivated by profit to be the ones to take advantage of the new landscape.
On a side note: The viewpoint that the majority of Brits only voted the way they did because they must just be too stupid to know any better - is pretty insulting ... and petty.
It's unfortunate that you're insulted, but it's borne out by empirical data. The more highly educated a voter was, the more likely they were to vote to remain. It wasn't a perfect correlation, but it was clear and, I believe, quite telling. I also suspect that's why most of us on this board know people who voted to remain; in my case, my British friends are literally all economists from grad school or business, are all highly educated, and all realized that this would have major, unforeseen by many, consequences. They run the political spectrum, so it's not a political distinction, but it is a matter of having a deeper understanding of the issues.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...e-results-compare-to-the-uks-educated-old-an/
"The higher the level of education, the higher the EU support
According the polls, university graduates were the most likely people to want to remain in the EU - while those with a GCSE or equivalent as their highest qualification were more likely to back Brexit.
This was a pattern that was reflected in the results.
Only three of 35 areas where more than half of residents had a degree voted to leave - South Bucks, West Devon, and Malvern Hills in the West Midlands."
As to the rest of your suppositions, it's just not how things typically go. Retrenchment and isolation has historically resulted in economic stagnation, recession, or worse (including at least one world war). The economic inefficiencies generated by a breakdown in a common market are significant, complex, and expensive. Voting to leave the EU means voting to LEAVE, which means they don't get to keep all the same benefits and perks. It will cost time, money, and yes, result in great uncertainty while all of that is worked out, and economies do not grow when they are scared. Yes, I am 100% confident that the U.S. will work out trade deals with the U.K. (or whatever is left of the U.K.), but a U.S. corporation with operations based in London, doing business on the European mainland, will still have to either move its operations or open another base. And repeat, and repeat, and repeat, with each iteration requiring a slightly different strategy and outcome. To pretend that's not the case, or to not understand that it will be the case because one does not understand the consequences of one's actions, is dangerous.
Lastly, it's safe to say the loudest voices on this topic came from those pushing for the exit, and not on the side of the status quo. Revolutionaries are always the loudest; they have to be by nature of their role.