Support NeoGAF

[Acorn]

That mentality had to have come from somewhere you know.

Ha quite.

 

[chadskin]

The Swiss are smart enough to not mess with the EU over a migration quota:

Switzerland skirted a direct clash with the European Union over immigration curbs on Friday (2 September) when a parliamentary panel rejected the government’s threat to impose unilateral quotas on foreigners next year in favour of a compromise.

The lower house committee drafting legislation on the politically sensitive topic instead proposed giving local people hiring preference as a way to ease pressure on domestic job markets without infringing too much on EU free movement rules.

The compromise bill, criticised by the far-right Swiss People’s Party (SVP) as too vague and a betrayal of voters’ demand for quotas in a 2014 referendum that must be implemented by February, now moves to the full lower house for debate.

“We rejected that the government should be able to decide measures that violate the free movement of people,” committee member Kurt Fluri of the pro-business Liberals party told reporters.

He said most members of the committee wanted to preserve bilateral economic accords that enshrine the principle of free movement in return for enhanced Swiss access to the EU’s common market, which takes most exports from the Alpine republic.

These accords will be jeopardised if the Swiss unilaterally restrict EU immigration.

http://www.euractiv.com/section/fut...ash-with-eu-over-immigration/?nl_ref=19858183

 

[Linkstrikesback]

The Swiss are smart enough to not mess with the EU over a migration quota:

http://www.euractiv.com/section/fut...ash-with-eu-over-immigration/?nl_ref=19858183

Yes, but you forget, they're not Great.

The EU will be sure to bend over backwards for the might of Great Britain. Probably only in the process of laughing, but still.

 

[Royal_Phalanx]

The Swiss are smart enough to not mess with the EU over a migration quota:

http://www.euractiv.com/section/fut...ash-with-eu-over-immigration/?nl_ref=19858183

This is why direct democracy is bad. Representatives need to protect the country's interests against an ill-informed mob. Hopefully the government is smart enough to compromise with the 48%. Sadly I think they'll go 'FUCK IT LEAVE THE SINGLE MARKET' because those of us who want a close relationship with the EU are being utterly ignored.

 

[GeordieMark]

People believe that the Good Ship Blighty is a dominant Man of War that is being depressingly moored to the shores by unscrupulous and untrustworthy harbour masters, when in reality it's an ancient schooner with a hole in it.

Except it isn't is it? We aren't a mighty battleship, but we certainly aren't a rubber dingy either. There is a little gang of drama queens on here making out the end is nigh, but we tend to do pretty well for ourselves for a small island. If we are really that bad, fuck knows how you'd class the majority of other nations. Is Italy a dude drowning wearing one deflated armband? Spain a brick sinking to the bottom?

Let's try to stop the alarmism and hyperbole. Reading GAFs thoughts on Brexit is like reading the Daily Mail in an alternate universe where it is a lefty paper.

 

[RedSparrows]

Except it isn't is it? We aren't a mighty battleship, but we certainly aren't a rubber dingy either. There is a little gang of drama queens on here making out the end is nigh, but we tend to do pretty well for ourselves for a small island. If we are really that bad, fuck knows how you'd class the majority of other nations. Is Italy a dude drowning wearing one deflated armband? Spain a brick sinking to the bottom?

Let's try to stop the alarmism and hyperbole. Reading GAFs thoughts on Brexit is like reading the Daily Mail in an alternate universe where it is a lefty paper.

It's certainly not a dinghy, no, but people are frustrated with the essential triumphalism they perceive as being expressed via the Leave vote. It's evidently there, and is fucking dumb as fuck.

That said, yes, this thread is a wee bit dramatic

 

[KDR_11k]

I recently got a shipment from the US, that reminded me of something: Free trade deals only eliminate the customs duty, in the EU you still have to pay VAT on imports from outside the EU. Currently buying from the UK does not cost extra VAT here because the VAT was already paid in the UK but with it leaving the EU that would no longer count.

 

[illusionary]

I'm expecting very little of it at this point, but that promised debate is still scheduled for Monday.

http://calendar.parliament.uk/calendar/Commons/All/2016/9/5/Daily
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/131215

 

[Acorn]

I'm expecting very little of it at this point, but that promised debate is still scheduled for Monday.

http://calendar.parliament.uk/calendar/Commons/All/2016/9/5/Daily
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/131215

Meh.

Just gonna be Brexiteers crowing and maybe some mp asking for another vote. Accomplishing nothing but becoming an easy article for Sarah Vine to shit out.

Pass.

 

[kmag]

Except it isn't is it? We aren't a mighty battleship, but we certainly aren't a rubber dingy either. There is a little gang of drama queens on here making out the end is nigh, but we tend to do pretty well for ourselves for a small island. If we are really that bad, fuck knows how you'd class the majority of other nations. Is Italy a dude drowning wearing one deflated armband? Spain a brick sinking to the bottom?

Let's try to stop the alarmism and hyperbole. Reading GAFs thoughts on Brexit is like reading the Daily Mail in an alternate universe where it is a lefty paper.

Do we?

Pre joining the EEC in 1973 we were listing with a massive hole at the waterline. People forget exactly what a state this country was in the 70's, the sickman of Europe, relying on IMF loans. Now it wasn't just the EEC then the EU which pulled us around, we had North Sea Oil and the selloff of nationalised companies which funded the painful mostly callous reconstruction. But this idea of British exceptionalism is pretty fucking misplaced. The Empire was a long time ago, as was the benefits of having the largest navy afloat in the age of sea and being the first industrial nation. We listed along for quite a while post WW2, sans a couple of blips in the 60's.

We've made a great deal of hay out of being the world's (the US mainly but Asia as well) gateway to Europe. The City of London and our mostly foreign owned manufacturing base have built large parts of their business around that. We've largely manipulate the EU in ways which benefit our strengths particularly in financial regulation. We're a massively unbalance economy propped up by vast amounts of national and consumer debt, with crumbling infrastructure, stubbornly poor productivity and huge pockets of deprivation which successive governments have just ignored. And that's before we even get into the outright stupidity of a nation with an aging population with defined social benefits and a below workforce replacement workrate blaming the failures of the governments they continually elect on immigration instead of looking at the big picture. But hey control has been taken back, mind the iceberg.

 

[EmiPrime]

Well said kmag.

 

[Royal_Phalanx]

Comprehensive research on the UK's relations with the EU:

https://www.cer.org.uk/sites/default/files/smc2016_26april2016.pdf
http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/cp469.pdf
http://cep.lse.ac.uk/BREXIT/

 

[Acorn]

Do we?

Pre joining the EEC in 1973 we were listing with a massive hole at the waterline. People forget exactly what a state this country was in the 70's, the sickman of Europe, relying on IMF loans. Now it wasn't just the EEC then the EU which pulled us around, we had North Sea Oil and the selloff of nationalised companies which funded the painful mostly callous reconstruction. But this idea of British exceptionalism is pretty fucking misplaced. The Empire was a long time ago, as was the benefits of having the largest navy afloat in the age of sea and being the first industrial nation. We listed along for quite a while post WW2, sans a couple of blips in the 60's.

We've made a great deal of hay out of being the world's (the US mainly but Asia as well) gateway to Europe. The City of London and our mostly foreign owned manufacturing base have built large parts of their business around that. We've largely manipulate the EU in ways which benefit our strengths particularly in financial regulation. We're a massively unbalance economy propped up by vast amounts of national and consumer debt, with crumbling infrastructure, stubbornly poor productivity and huge pockets of deprivation which successive governments have just ignored. And that's before we even get into the outright stupidity of a nation with an aging population with defined social benefits and a below workforce replacement workrate blaming the failures of the governments they continually elect on immigration instead of looking at the big picture. But hey control has been taken back, mind the iceberg.

Just need to read The Secret and put out positive vibes man!

 

[RedSparrows]

Not that this was what was being said, but it does strike me that any success the Brexiters appeal to as an example of how 'Britain can do it!' comes with a recent, 50 year, history of being intimately bound up with Europe...

 

[chadskin]

Juncker will reportedly declare in a speech on September 14 the four freedoms, including the freedom of movement, are non-negotiable: http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/so...en-nach-dem-brexit-grenzen-auf-a-1110672.html

He's said to have the backing of Martin Schulz, speaker of the EU parliament, as well as of Manfred Weber, head of the largest parliamentary group European People’s Party, and the EU parliament intends to pass a resolution to support Juncker's position.

I kind of expect a Juncker-esque quip in his speech a la 'freedom of movement means freedom of movement'.

 

[oti]

Juncker will reportedly declare in a speech on September 14 the four freedoms, including the freedom of movement, are non-negotiable: http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/so...en-nach-dem-brexit-grenzen-auf-a-1110672.html

He's said to have the backing of Martin Schulz, speaker of the EU parliament, as well as of Manfred Weber, head of the largest parliamentary group European People’s Party, and the EU parliament intends to pass a resolution to support Juncker's position.

I kind of expect a Juncker-esque quip in his speech a la 'freedom of movement means freedom of movement'.

At this point I wonder what that will bring. It's good that Juncker sticks to the EU's guns and I appreciate that he does. On the other hand he pretty much is the manifestation of the "old EU" Cameron was lobbying against to an extreme degree.

That said, four freedoms or GTFO.

 

[Phantast2k]

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/09/01/world/europe/britain-brexit-eu.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur

 

[daviyoung]

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/09/01/world/europe/britain-brexit-eu.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur

Yeh. I mean this country hasn't had to negotiate anything for 40 years, it's going to be a bit rusty.

 

[Trumpets]

Any of you lot going on the 'March for Europe' in London today?

 

[2MF]

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/09/01/world/europe/britain-brexit-eu.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur

I found this part very interesting:

Some wonder how useful access to the single market would prove in the long run, even if it could be negotiated. That is because Europe’s market is not written in stone but is the sum of various European laws, many of which are updated regularly.

For example, the passporting rights prized by London’s financial sector are based on at least nine separate pieces of European legislation, any of which can be amended.

When Britain quits the bloc, it will have no vote on how those laws are updated or how new ones are framed, and legislation could easily be skewed to favor competitors in Dublin, Frankfurt, Milan or Paris. That fear has prompted British banks to press for legal agreements to prevent unilateral European changes to any new rules on market access — a clear sign of the risks they face.

“The single market is dynamic and not static,” said Mr. Grant, adding that countries like France and Germany “would say, ‘We will listen to your views, but we will write the rules.’ ”

 

[PJV3]

Yeh. I mean this country hasn't had to negotiate anything for 40 years, it's going to be a bit rusty.

These people can't even build a bloody airport/runway, what we really need is series of public inquiries into article 50 while they work out what they want and hire some people.

 

[-Plasma Reus-]

Juncker will reportedly declare in a speech on September 14 the four freedoms, including the freedom of movement, are non-negotiable: http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/so...en-nach-dem-brexit-grenzen-auf-a-1110672.html

He's said to have the backing of Martin Schulz, speaker of the EU parliament, as well as of Manfred Weber, head of the largest parliamentary group European People’s Party, and the EU parliament intends to pass a resolution to support Juncker's position.

I kind of expect a Juncker-esque quip in his speech a la 'freedom of movement means freedom of movement'.

Juncker is doing good work.

 

[kmag]

I found this part very interesting:

Yep. Even full 'access' means losing rights to write the rules. Rules which the UK financial industry had largely written themselves. A feat accomplished mostly by buying the influence to do so by proactively arguing for enlargement then immediately allowing the citizens of the accession countries the ability to freely move to the UK, a move which solved two problems at once: 1) it stopped the push to enact stricter financial services control 2) it fuelled the UK's need for cheap labour to maintain growth.

Members get to write rules, members get the veto. The UK can ill afford to immediately lose financial sector access to the single market, and it would have to mirror EU legislation to maintain access even under a bilateral agreement (there's absolutely no way the EU would allow a 3rd party country a veto over its legislative ability even for one sector)

 

[Geeker]

I found this part very interesting:
Some wonder how useful access to the single market would prove in the long run, even if it could be negotiated. That is because Europe’s market is not written in stone but is the sum of various European laws, many of which are updated regularly.

For example, the passporting rights prized by London’s financial sector are based on at least nine separate pieces of European legislation, any of which can be amended.

When Britain quits the bloc, it will have no vote on how those laws are updated or how new ones are framed, and legislation could easily be skewed to favor competitors in Dublin, Frankfurt, Milan or Paris. That fear has prompted British banks to press for legal agreements to prevent unilateral European changes to any new rules on market access — a clear sign of the risks they face.

“The single market is dynamic and not static,” said Mr. Grant, adding that countries like France and Germany “would say, ‘We will listen to your views, but we will write the rules.’ ”

This is basically Norway except that we survive because the oil and gas cant be "legislated" away. Good luck UK

 

[kmag]

Slightly different facet to this, but I found a really interesting article from a brexiteer written pre-referendum which exposes some of the issues with the "fuck it, WTO rules it is"

he general thrust of the WTO Option argument is that: “Were the UK to leave the EU, it would continue to have access to the EU’s markets, as World Trade Organisation rules prevent the EU from imposing unfair, punitive tariffs on UK exports”. In reality, the WTO rules only afford very limited protection against discrimination, and then only in respect of tariffs - which are no longer central to trade matters.

As the WTO site itself says, “by their very nature RTAs (Regional Trade Agreements — as is the EU) are discriminatory”, and, under WTO rules, an amount of discrimination against third countries (and that would include the UK) is permitted. The WTO observes:
“Modern RTAs, and not exclusively those linking the most developed economies, tend to go far beyond tariff-cutting exercises. They provide for increasingly complex regulations governing intra-trade (e.g. with respect to standards, safeguard provisions, customs administration, etc.) and they often also provide for a preferential regulatory framework for mutual services trade. The most sophisticated RTAs go beyond traditional trade policy mechanisms, to include regional rules on investment, competition, environment and labour.”
The crunch issue here is the “preferential regulatory framework”. Unless goods seeking entrance to the EU Single Market (i.e. British exports) conform to the regulations which comprise the framework, they are not permitted entry. Thus, the assertion that, if the UK left the EU, “it would continue to have access to the EU’s markets …”, is simply not true. And ,  to spell it out,  if it’s not true, it’s false.

http://leavehq.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=128

Of course even this analysis which ends with a we'd need to quickly agree a bilateral MRA and Customs agreement with the EU, ignores the other elephant in the room about the 'WTO option' which is the schedule setting negotiations which if the example of Russia is anything to go by will take a decade or so.

 

[Zaph]

Yep. Even full 'access' means losing rights to write the rules. Rules which the UK financial industry had largely written themselves. A feat accomplished mostly by buying the influence to do so by proactively arguing for enlargement then immediately allowing the citizens of the accession countries the ability to freely move to the UK, a move which solved two problems at once: 1) it stopped the push to enact stricter financial services control 2) it fuelled the UK's need for cheap labour to maintain growth.

Our position in the EU is/was so cushty 😟

 

[kitch9]

For the precise reason Tony Blair mentioned today:

https://euobserver.com/tickers/134883

Civil servants are currently crunching the numbers for various Brexit scenarios. If they find the most realistic one (i.e. no access to the EU single market) would lead to a disastrous impact on the UK economy for decades to come, it may very well change public opinion, especially if the messengers of these findings are not David Cameron and George Osborne, but staunch Brexiteers like Davis, Fox and Johnson.

I don't think a reversal on the vote is particularly likely but it's also not completely impossible.

Tony Blair is a deluded fool who almost makes me believe the Rothchild conspiracy. I can't see any other way someone would behave as he did/does whilst still cracking that Joker smile.

 

[Royal_Phalanx]

Yep. Even full 'access' means losing rights to write the rules. Rules which the UK financial industry had largely written themselves. A feat accomplished mostly by buying the influence to do so by proactively arguing for enlargement then immediately allowing the citizens of the accession countries the ability to freely move to the UK, a move which solved two problems at once: 1) it stopped the push to enact stricter financial services control 2) it fuelled the UK's need for cheap labour to maintain growth.

Members get to write rules, members get the veto. The UK can ill afford to immediately lose financial sector access to the single market, and it would have to mirror EU legislation to maintain access even under a bilateral agreement (there's absolutely no way the EU would allow a 3rd party country a veto over its legislative ability even for one sector)

And Joe from the pub cost us these benefits by voting to leave the EU to 'take back control'.

 

[jelly]

So, G20 next week.

Before boarding an RAF plane to eastern China, she told reporters: "The message for the G20 is that Britain is open for business, as a bold, confident, outward-looking country we will be playing a key role on the world stage.
"This is a golden era for UK-China relations and one of the things I will be doing at the G20 is obviously talking to President Xi about how we can develop the strategic partnership that we have between the UK and China.
"But I will also be talking to other world leaders about how we can develop free trade around the world and Britain wants to seize those opportunities.
"My ambition is that Britain will be a global leader in free trade."

Mrs May's talks with President Obama follow the US leader's warning that the UK would be at "the back of the queue" for a trade deal if it voted to leave the European Union.

Don't we sound just a little pathetic. As if we are on even footing with China, that relationship is just going to get worse. Don't protect you steel industry, yes sir Mr China.

 

[Koren]

As if we are on even footing with China

I keep feeling that EU (or USA) can't even defend themselves against China (e.g. for intellectual properties), partly because cheap labor in China helps western economies and it's a possible huge market, so it must be a knightmare for independant countries...

 

[PdotMichael]

How about open your ports for opium?

 

[tuxfool]

How about open your ports for opium?

This time the Dragon eats St. George.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

How about open your ports for opium?

Or take another leash out on Hong Kong, mayhaps?

 

[Usobuko]

How about open your ports for opium?

This time the Dragon eats St. George.

Lol.

 

[Burai]

So, G20 next week.



Don't we sound just a little pathetic. As if we are on even footing with China, that relationship is just going to get worse. Don't protect you steel industry, yes sir Mr China.

Not necessarily. Decent ties with China are possible so long as we dismantle workers' protections and make Britain a tax haven for foreign companies looking for a gateway into Europe. Potentially a China > UK > EU trade deal could work out better for them than their current direct deal with the EU.

It all depends how low we're willing to go. We can make Brexit a success but only if we move the goalposts so far that the working man will be longing for the good old days of the unelected bureaucrats and open borders.

 

[kmag]

So, G20 next week.



Don't we sound just a little pathetic. As if we are on even footing with China, that relationship is just going to get worse. Don't protect you steel industry, yes sir Mr China.

The simple truth in trade negotiations is the bigger the economy the better the deal it sets for itself*. The largest economy sets the boundaries and forces concessions on the weaker economy. There's a reason China and the US can't come to a deal, or the EU and China can't come to a deal or there's not a proper deal between the EU and Japan or there's been no proper deal with the US and Japan despite all the efforts put in to negotiate them. In those cases neither side has the comparative heft to force it through.

The UK as the 6th largest economy in the world has decent advantage when it comes to most of the rest of the world, unfortunately that'll probably be undercut by a number of factors.

• Sheer desperation to conclude deals to replace the gaping EU hole
• Lack of experience in these matters
• The simple fact that as an individual Economy the UK is 6th but falls to about 14th when you start looking at the trade blocs everyone else is in.

*the only exception to this are countries like Australia and Canada who have large specific natural resource deposit or highly valued commodities (NZ lamb and timber would fall in this scenario)

 

[Dougald]

From the latest Private Eye

 

[Halph n Halph]

Juncker will reportedly declare in a speech on September 14 the four freedoms, including the freedom of movement, are non-negotiable: http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/so...en-nach-dem-brexit-grenzen-auf-a-1110672.html

He's said to have the backing of Martin Schulz, speaker of the EU parliament, as well as of Manfred Weber, head of the largest parliamentary group European People’s Party, and the EU parliament intends to pass a resolution to support Juncker's position.

I kind of expect a Juncker-esque quip in his speech a la 'freedom of movement means freedom of movement'.

It would be interesting to know what the political and business leaders really think when he starts his salty posturing. Britain leaving the single market completely will hurt us, but it will also impact the countries who do business with us.
If we meet an impasse over freedom of movement it won't be ideal.
I can see why some people are saying we should just leave the single market immediately.
If Juncker is saying the four freedoms are non negotiable, What's the point in wasting everybody's time and energy trying.

 

[EmiPrime]

From the latest Private Eye

Really good issue this fortnight, loved the "Public Servants, Private Paydays" special.

 

[Simplet]

It would be interesting to know what the political and business leaders really think when he starts his salty posturing. Britain leaving the single market completely will hurt us, but it will also impact the countries who do business with us.
If we meet an impasse over freedom of movement it won't be ideal.
I can see why some people are saying we should just leave the single market immediately.
If Juncker is saying the four freedoms are non negotiable, What's the point in wasting everybody's time and energy trying.

Salty posturing? This is just Juncker reiterating the founding principles of the UE. Of course the freedoms are non-negotiable, how many times does it need to be said?

 

[Halph n Halph]

Salty posturing? This is just Juncker reiterating the founding principles of the UE. Of course the freedoms are non-negotiable, how many times does it need to be said?

The founding principal was a common market. That's what we voted to join in 1975.

 

[Kabouter]

The founding principal was a common market. That's what we voted to join in 1975.

Not true. The founding principle of the EU is the eventual federalisation of the countries of Europe as a means to ensure peace. The coming together on the basis of equality of all peoples of Europe, who retain their own culture whilst transcending the divisions that have caused so much suffering throughout European history. It is a principle that has sadly been abandoned as nationalists and reactionaries have increased their power especially in recent times, but it is the founding principle nonetheless.

 

[Joni]

The founding principal was a common market. That's what we voted to join in 1975.

Freedom of movement was first mentioned in the Treaty of Paris, written in 1951. It was literally there in the start-up for the European Coal and Steel Community. It is in literally the second major document ever written for the EU. The text on freedom of movement is largely the same since the Treaty of Rome, in 1957.

 

[kmag]

The founding principal was a common market. That's what we voted to join in 1975.

Freedom of movement of workers was in the treaty of Rome back in 57. Hell it was there for Steel and Coal workers back in the Treaty of Paris in 51 when the EEC was just the European Coal and Steel Community. You had a European Parliament and legislative powers at the point the UK voted in.

This notion that the UK didn't know what it was getting into is just silly. It was able to veto all of it at each stage.

 

[Halph n Halph]

Not true. The founding principle of the EU is the eventual federalisation of the countries of Europe as a means to ensure peace. The coming together on the basis of equality of all peoples of Europe, who retain their own culture whilst transcending the divisions that have caused so much suffering throughout European history. It is a principle that has sadly been abandoned as nationalists and reactionaries have increased their power especially in recent times, but it is the founding principle nonetheless.

Freedom of movement was first mentioned in the Treaty of Paris, written in 1951. It was literally there in the start-up for the European Coal and Steel Community. It is in literally the second major document ever written for the EU. The text on freedom of movement is largely the same since the Treaty of Rome, in 1957.

Freedom of movement of workers was in the treaty of Rome back in 57. Hell it was there for Steel and Coal workers back in the Treaty of Paris in 51 when the EEC was just the European Coal and Steel Community. You had a European Parliament and legislative powers at the point the UK voted in.

This notion that the UK didn't know what it was getting into is just silly. It was able to veto all of it at each stage.

I stand corrected. I honestly believed that the right to work and live in any other EU country came about in the early to mid nineties.

 

[Royal_Phalanx]

No common market without free movement of people. And, unlike a lot of my fellow citizens, I appreciate the benefits free movement grants me. The prospect of having to apply for a visa to live and work in every EU country like any third country national is on the table.

 

[Calm waterfall]

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/09/01/world/europe/britain-brexit-eu.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur

The U.K. is not getting any kind of unique deal. It's delusional and naive to think that May's governemet will.

 

[Audioboxer]

The U.K. is not getting any kind of unique deal. It's delusional and naive to think that May's governemet will.

Of course we are, we have taken back the term "special snowflake" from the alt-right and dawn it with pride. We are special. The global scene bows to us. Deal with it.

 

[Theonik]

I stand corrected. I honestly believed that the right to work and live in any other EU country came about in the early to mid nineties.

No the same scaremongering went on now that went on then in fact. Only things are different these days. Had remain won you'd probably have seen continued campaigning from people that wished to leave till the end of times.

 

[oti]

The U.K. is not getting any kind of unique deal. It's delusional and naive to think that May's governemet will.

I think it will be unique. The UK can't just use the Norway model, only Norway can use the Norway model due to their oil. I don't think the UK would be particularly fond of the Swiss model either. Many Swiss aren't particularly fond of the Swiss model themselves.

It will be a unique mish mash. As much as Juncker is shouting right now, Germany, France and Italy will lobby towards that unique solution. Maybe the UK will get freedom of movement light, which will make Joe from the Pub happy for no comprehensible reason whatsoever but it will come with something in return, like no Bank Passport or something like that.

Whatever the case, the UK will be far worse off than it was as a member of the EU.