Those who (like me) believe that open economies remain the best way of securing broadly-based prosperity need to take these wider questions of policy design and public consent seriously. Far more so than has been the case over the last generation, and in ways that will upset aspects of conventional thinking.
It's been drummed into us that Brexit means Brexit. And now we hear that there is a 'Hard Brexit' and a 'Soft Brexit', with ideology seemingly having more of a say than what works for all. The details sound, and no doubt are, very complicated, and I certainly wouldn't have a clue where to start with sorting out a UK wide position, let alone negotiating for it.
A three-point rescue plan to help stop the housing crisis getting worse as a result of a post-Brexit shock, prevent a sharp slowdown in growth and provide some economic certainty. The Bank of England alone can't protect jobs and homes. If the Conservatives politicians can't offer economic leadership, then Labour must.
The good news then is that this is not likely to be a banking crisis like that which we witnessed in 2008. The bad news though is what comes after the initial 'shock' has passed. Because even if the Bank of England looks set to be able to weather the immediate storm inflicted by stock markets, the longer term implications look far less certain and far more challenging.