If you voted leave, what relationship do you want Britain to have with the EU?

[DamsonJam]

So first up, this is not supposed to be a leave bashing thread or trying to question why you voted as you did. I (as a remain voter) may not like the result, but I'm trying to respect it.

What I'm trying to grapple with is what happens next. 52% of voters indicated they want to leave the EU, but what is that a mandate for exactly?

• an EEA style arrangement (like Norway, Liechtenstein and Iceland)
• an EFTA style arrangement (like Switzerland)
• WTO arrangements (like the rest of the world)
• something else (and if so what? (and please something remotely viable, not the Boris Johnson line of full access to the single market without obeying any of the rules we don't like)).

And why is that choice the best option? I'm genuinely curious and trying to understand. Please be kind.

I would like to be able to trade in Europe and am willing to apply EU regulations to goods traded in Europe. However for the domestic market and trade with the rest of the world, I want the freedom to apply our own regulations.

I do not want EU social chapter or regulations imposed on the UK. We are more than capable of developing our own social and welfare controls (such as parental leave instead of matnity leave).

I would like better control of overall migration.. (including the rest of the world) and to reduce the numbers of low skilled people arriving here... Not sure I would get all I want..

I was a remainer so it's no surprise that I'm in favour of the Norway/EEA model.

Mainly because it's the only existing model that allows for access to the single market for services (like financial services) as well as goods.

In my opinion it is VITAL that we have trade agreements that cover services.

Only with this in place will London continue to be the European Centre of financial services which is fundamental for the health of our economy.

If we don't continue to have the right to do this many large FS companies will move their HQs to Frankfurt or Paris...they already have contingency plans in place to do this and will be waiting to see what happens in negotiations (if we're lucky).

In the 1970s we were still a 'goods' economy...we are now a 'service' economy.

Stumbly,
I am far from convinced that London is godo for the economy. The reaction of the "markets" really does show them for what they are. There was no actual change in the economy on Friday. No international trade deals were cancelled.No people were rounded up and deported. Nothing actually happened, yet the markets went balistic. Why?

Because for all the shiny surface they are no more than gambling dens and casinos. The so called markets do not actually create a penny worth of wealth. They do amass huge smounts of money by skimming off a tiny portion of the money flowing through them. It is all to easy to be blinded by the huge numbers and forget the wealth is generated by people actually making things, and transporting them.

For many years I have felt the "city" is out of balance with the rest of the economy. And moreover it does not actually serve UK industry. million pound bonus culture in the city creates social division between the obscene wealth in city and the poverty nearby.

I consider a smaller financial sector better in balance with the general economy would be better for the country as a whole.

In 2012 tax receipts from financial services including employees was something close to £100 billion. That's a lot of money to make up from elsewhere.

The problem with an EEA deal without full freedom of movement is that it would probably exclude Financial Services (maybe even all services, and allow free trade in goods only). FS make up a huge amount of our tax take - which Frsnce or Germsny would welcome with open arms

Oh yes, financial services will definitely be the sticking point - and it's not actually in the EU's interest to let London keep its full access, so it won't be pretty...

But in the end the deal with most likely be a half-way point between the EEA and the Canadian FTA - which model it ends up being closest to will depend on the EU's willingness to cut the UK some slack (ahem), and on the next PM's ability to deflect the anti-immigration slant of the Leave vote.

I'm all for the EEA by the way, I think it's absolutely insane to substantially damage your economy for a very marginal decrease in immigration, which is what will end up happening. Insane, yet politically unavoidable now, I suspect.

But then I'm also hugely for Remain, so no surprises there.

What about accepting restrictions on immigration from future accession countries, e.g. The U.K can control numbers from new members but has to accept freedom of movement on current members? I don't see how a Norwegian or Swiss model is possible without FOM. And remember, the Swiss are currently in limbo too after voting against Freedom of Movement, so the EU will probably have to give both countries the same type of deal, which will start everyone wanting to cherry pick the "right" sort of EU migrants if leeway is given.

Of course the UK did have the ability to control EU migration and delay the Eastern European countries freedom to work in the UK in 2004 but it (along with ROI and Sweden) decided to open the markets to these countries earlier than everyone else...

There's not really much point knowing what Remainers want though. Whatever it is it will be a compromise and by defin ition they won't be delighted.

I am more interested in what the preferred option is for Leavers. They are the all beit marginal majority and they are the ones who are unhappy with the status quo.

So what does 'getting our country back' mean to them? What other than having the cake and eating it, would be the optimum?

*Albeit

oops, sorry

you're unlikely to see a clear picture emerge though, because as you said it'll be a compromise, and each Leave voter may place the cursor in a slightly different place between the two extremes ("full immigration control", and "full access to the single market")

... wanders off thread

for me WTO.

I saw a good summary today. There are 5 options.

1. Leave the EU, but remain a member of the EEA (often referred to as the ‘Norwegian model’);

1. Leave the EU, rejoin EFTA, but stay outside the EEA (often referred to as the ‘Swiss model’);

3. Leave the EU, but join an EU customs union (often referred to as the ‘Turkish model’); 4. Leave the EU, but negotiate individual trade terms (often referred to as the ‘Canadian model’); or 5. Leave the EU and fall back on WTO trade terms.

I suppose there is 6 too which is ignore the vote and Parliament votes to stay int he EU but keep the people's wishes under review - we are legally entitled to do that if we want to. I doubt that will happen and seven which is call a general election in October with the people voting on the basis of which parties want to keep them in or take them out of the EU but that's unfair as it's a second referednum in effect and I suppose option 8 which is a second referendum on which kind of non EU we want - 1 - 6 above and option 9 which is a straight identical referendum which would be very unfair on the leavers and would not happen.

Lasvegas I'm interested to hear your reasons behind opting for such an economically destructive policy.