Almost two months after the Brexit vote, Britain’s economy remains in rude health. Unemployment is at its lowest for 10 years, inflation remains low and consumer spending in July was strong.

The doom-mongers who predicted a panic in the aftermath of the referendum were wrong. Even house prices have continued to rise, unaffected by the prospect of the UK being outside the EU in a couple of years’ time.

This is one way of looking at the recent economic data. Another is to point out that had Mark Carney and the Bank of England not recognised the danger signs, Britain would have been in dire trouble.

Bank officials read the economic tea leaves and agreed that a shot of adrenaline was needed. Without extra monetary stimulus, redundancies were inevitable, the pound would tumble to parity with the dollar, sending inflation spiralling upwards, and investment was likely to plunge. House prices might have dropped by 20%, as the Treasury famously predicted, with wages slumping instead of rising sightly.

Carney, a safe pair of hands as goalkeeper in his student ice hockey days, has become the ultimate economic backstop.

Brexiters brush aside the counter-factual arguments, saying that the Bank’s stimulus plan, which included a cut in interest rates and pumping and extra £70bn into the economy, played second fiddle to the wisdom of the UK household, which has turned out to be more self-confident and far-sighted than City economists had assumed. Consumer confidence surveys were another plank of support for this view, recording a rise this month after plummeting earlier this year.

But what is more likely is that consumers were in a genuine panic until they heard that their central bank was priming its big guns. Soon after, though, they noticed the letter from their mortgage company highlighting the effect of the Carney interest rate cut on their monthly bills and felt much better about the world. Almost all economic activity these days seems to be predicated on zero interest rates, easy access to cheap credit and the Bank’s promise that it will do anything to maintain growth.

But next year could bring further trouble. Once Article 50 is triggered and the debate about our relationship with the EU begins in earnest, concerns about trading outside the free market will resurface.

City economists have predicted a 350,000 increase in unemployment over the next four years and a growth rate consistently below 2% over the same period. We know this because the Treasury published its review of economic forecasts by the City’s major banks. Investment, the lifeblood for improvements to productivity and higher wages, is expected to leach away, and not just to the EU.

Why, finance companies will ask themselves, should they stay in a post-Brexit London when they could be in Singapore or Hong Kong? Likewise, Ford and other manufacturers will accelerate the process – under way for years now – of taking their factories to the more compliant, low-cost destinations such as Turkey.

Unable to attract investment on the basis of being connected umbilically to the EU in key areas such as carmaking, pharmaceuticals and creative digital industries, the government will turn to tax cuts and other incentives that will undermine its ability to fund welfare, healthcare and education.

Donald Trump is considered by many to be the biggest threat to the global economy. This threat remains theoretical and, if the latest polls are to be believed, unlikely. Brexit is just around the corner and involves the world’s sixth-largest economy leaving the world’s largest trading bloc. Such a seismic event cannot avoid creating a shock and some painful after-effects.

Let’s hope Theresa May is as good as her word and provides a clear plan of industrial support to mitigate the worst effects of leaving the EU. Without that, Carney may be called upon to give an ailing economy another stimulus shot.

At last, a real tax evasion crackdown

‘‘We need to talk about tax,” said Theresa May when making her pitch for Conservative leader. She promised a crackdown on both avoidance and evasion. Empty words? It seems not. Last week the Treasury published an eye-catching proposal to fine the enablers of tax avoidance. Accountants, solicitors, banks and financial advisers whose tax schemes are successfully challenged by HMRC could find themselves paying the equivalent of 100% of the tax owed.

Pressure groups have been arguing for such a measure for years, as a deterrent to those who dream up schemes and collect the fees, while their clients pick up the tab from the tax office.

The big four accountancy firms will have little incentive to remain in the game of advising on avoidance. Smaller outfits may move offshore. Which brings us to another key piece of legislation, proposed but not yet passed.

Last March, following revelations of HSBC helping clients hide money in Switzerland, George Osborne suggested a corporate offence of failure to prevent the criminal facilitation of tax evasion – designed to tackle the difficulty in holding companies liable for the acts of their employees.

This isn’t really aimed at banks, though. After crackdowns by US and German regulators, attention has shifted to a lesser-known but growing sector – trust companies. They help set up the structures,and provide nominees who act as directors, shareholders or trustees, so the real owners can remain out of sight. As we learned from the Panama Papers, these services are popular – and lucrative. In 2012, private equity group Blackstone bought one such operator, Intertrust, for €675m. It floated on the Amsterdam stock exchange for €1.3bn last year.

The mere threat of corporate liability is already having the desired effect. Reports suggest trust companies, many of which have UK offices, are combing their books for likely evaders. The government should pass both pieces of enabler legislation without delay.

On the up and up: rail fares

Last week saw the annual rail fares revolt, as news that season ticket prices will rise by 1.9% was met with outrage from commuters, green campaigners and trade unions. Passengers, in particular, have a point. They provide the bulk of the industry’s income now – £8.8bn, compared with £3.5bn from the state – but the railways cannot afford a fairer deal.

Last year, the industry’s costs rose 7% to £900m, outstripping the latest fare increase. The government, which sets the caps on fares, is thus unlikely to come to passengers’ aid. The answer is not nationalisation of rail franchises, because the most expensive bit, tracks and stations, is already state-owned through Network Rail. The answer is lower costs. And that means building better relations with trade unions and reducing profligacy at Network Rail. In the meantime, there is no light at the end of the tunnel for commuters.

Sugar tax policy leaves a bad taste

The government’s sugar tax and childhood obesity strategy has received a mixed reaction. Health experts believe it does not go far enough, while soft-drink makers believe the tax will simply hurt consumers and businesses rather than lower obesity levels.

Targeting soft drinks when fruit juice, smoothies and coffees are all loaded with sugar is a mistake, they say.

The most important reaction, however, was from supermarkets. They criticised the government’s watered-down obesity strategy, saying that mandatory cuts to sugar levels in food were needed to ensure a level playing field and ensure genuine change.

The supermarkets are often criticised for two-for-one promotions and selling snacks at the till, but they are correct here.

The only way to make change happen quickly and effectively is for the government to step in. When it has done so previously, such as by pushing brands, shops and restaurants to publish nutritional information on their packaging, companies have stepped up to the mark.

Unfortunately, the government has left its childhood obesity strategy vulnerable to the vagaries of capitalism and the free market. Even if responsible companies do take action, others may not, and so responsible companies will pay the price.