FYP.

We offer free trade which will be beneficial for EU and UK. EU ministers say no and commit their citizens to job losses and lower incomes. Unelected bureaucrats destroying the lives of those they pretend to represent. I'm sure the lobster and champagne will still be flowing for them though.

Come on don't be boring - what change in any of these metrics would cause you to change your view on Brexit?

- Unemployment - currently 5.4%
- GDP/Capita - $38,160
- no fall in immigration for x years - 355,000 last year
- inflation - 1.6%
- real GDP growth - 2.2%

Would year on year negative growth for 5-10 years be enough?

Apparently not.

The EU will offer a trade deal in due course. If the UK doesn't accept it, the EU will simply be reverting to the tariff and non-tariff rules applying to countries without a trade agreement.

How can a brexiter possibly blame the EU for this? You were told that this would be the procedure before you voted to f-ck up the country.

If the UK Govt chooses to retaliate with tariffs on cars and food, they will be the ones destroying jobs and crushing the people with higher prices.

If the French keep using terms like 'punish', then they show their colours loud and clear.

If Theresa May keeps saying that she is happy to crash out of the EU in chaos, she deserves all she gets.

You go first. What would the stats have to be like for you to change your mind and become a Beleaver?

I'll start the bidding - 25 year ppp GDP / capita growth exceeding same in eurozone.

All problems with GDP calculation and GDP != utility accepted.

To be even more generous to remainers, I'd take just the average of the 5 largest countries, and ignore the ethical problem mentioned of DE gaining at the expense of the bottom.

Ok then, if you're in a club and they talk about punishing you when you express the view you want to leave, you think that's a good club? Would you be glad you joined or not?

Btw that's a decent measure of success, and something I'd bet was a favourite, not the lower limit.

I'd take some more inflation if we're buying local ethically reared well hung farm shop steak instead of Hungarian horse. That with fewer games consoles and cigarettes is nicer life but technically high inflation.

Also I'd pay something for more decentralised supply from a strategic national security kind of POV

You are in a club that offers full membership (contract, obligations) and a sort of halfway drop-in guest membership with reduced obligations. Would it be understandable that the club will aim to make the full membership option more appealing overall?

This is literally the problem the EU faces now, they can't allow the limited membership to be a superior deal, otherwise there won't be any full members (or club) left.

"punish" sits OK with you then?

OK gotcha.

Making sure that limited membership is not a superior deal than full membership is obviously necessary and ok with me. Punishment is not part of this consideration.

Where is the punish? The UK won't be a member, it gets what the members feel they want to give it. If she doesn't like what is offered, May says she will just let the UK crash out in chaos.

No she didn't, how does irrational hyperbole help the discussion? She said no deal is fine. It is. The FX change more than covers WTO tariffs. Trading with ROW more than covers them again.

What's up? It just looks like crippling risk aversion. I'd vote against being part of a culture of crippling risk aversion even if GDP were a little lower with certainty!

One reason I think it's difficult to tie the leave argument to KPIs is that it logically dominates in almost every scenario that causes that result. Similarly, remain KPIs are either 'good' but worsening and we all hate ourselves, or bad and worsening and we all hate ourselves. There was no upside there.

You do know that the Art. 50 negotiation covers citizens rights, simple movement into the EU for British citizens etc? The UK is trying to simultaneously conduct trade talks (which might not actually be acceptable to the 27). There is also some debate about the UK's position in the WTO.

If Britain crashes out of the EU without an Art. 50 agreement, you might not even be able to travel through the Eurotunnel to Paris.

Of course.

They may decide not to apply the same visa exemptions they do to other developed and middle income countries such as the USA, Brazil, Canada, South Korea, Mexico, Japan, Colombia etc and make us get visas in advance as they do for citizens of India, Sudan, Russia and other countries perceived to be an overstay risk.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visa_p...isa_exemptions

It's their choice, that's what sovereignty (in this case pooled) looks like. And who would want to go somewhere, against the will of the receiving nation, but as part of some "right" they were enforcing against it?

But that citizens of British Overseas Territories who are not EU citizens are on the same list as the Americans rather than the Nigerians may be a clue as to which way they'll go on that.

The biggest upside will be if the brute force reality was that the EU and the UK were too incompatible.

The EU may could now be freed up to have better integration and sort out it's economic woes. Suppose over the next 10-20 years the EU grows significantly. The UK gets a smaller share of that bigger pie and also makes some gains in world trade. Could that ever be recognised as the UK being better off than if they had stayed?

As per the above, I think we will be best off if the EU does very well. We don't need to race past it to be much better off.

I'm talking about the technical aspect. The rights of a UK citizen to go anywhere on the continent is based on EU membership. If that ends without agreement we have no rights.

I see Terry is going meet Trump shortly. Pretty certain she will be told to stfu about Vlad doing bad stuff if she wants any kind of trade agreement.

Pretty sure remaining included plenty of absurd low-probability possibilities that would easily balance those concerns.

Lots of status quo and omission bias in being keen to remain.

Lol at UK rushing to get a trade deal with Trump and hoping said deal will compensate for the loss of EU trade.

UK does a LOT more trade with the EU than with the US. No trade deal will change the fact UK is much closer to Europe than it is to the US.

Trump might sign a deal with UK without looking at it closely but lol at counting on Trump to sign a pro-UK deal.

Given Trump's business history I can't see a use for a trade pact other than wiping your arse on it.

Is the amount of trade we currently do a good indication of the success of deals we could do, or is it more a consequence of the deals we have done?

Stop kidding yourself.

It's an indication that UK is geographically closer to Europe than to China or to US and currently a member of the EU.