We shall see how these threats pan out. To me, they look like desperate attempts to prop up a failing institution, rather than serious statements of policy.

Why do you want a treaty with a failing institution?

Actually, the migrant camp agreement is between UK and France, not UK and EU. (Hard to find the reference now since 90% of the results are related to brexit when you search and I don't have much time)

You are right but:

> “We will not continue to guard the border for Britain if Britain is no longer in the European Union.”

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/mar/03/calais-borde...

How many other countries police their egress borders though? When I cross a country line, I fully expect to be greeted by the border guards of the country I'm entering, not the one I just left.

Exactly. That was a favour France was doing the UK as a sign of good will, internally risking huge amounts of political capital. It seems leaving the EU will reduce the amount of good will France is ready to spend for Britain.

We are simply not in the same camp anymore.

I know about that, which sorta validates the gp post. This isn't a EU thing but UK-France thing which shouldn't matter if the UK is or is not in the EU and France threaten to cancel the agreement if the Leave campaign wins.

It seems it matters. It seems that having a hugely conflicting refugee camp in your territory is something you are prepared to do for a close ally, but nothing you will risk for a comercial partner.

The EU was more than a market for the UK. You'll eventually see that.

> Why does the UK think they deserve a trade deal? Just because?

Well, there's a four-hundred-year-old "special relationship" between the two that Obama unilaterally has decided doesn't mean anything.

> When you resign your Tennis Club membership, do you complain that you are not allowed to use the showers, and to play in the courts? Those are automatic things, which come by leaving the club. You also spare the monthly rate!

Um, the EU is hardly a tennis club.

> Well, there's a four-hundred-year-old "special relationship" between the two that Obama unilaterally has decided doesn't mean anything.

You'll keep your special relationship. You'll simply not get a new trade agreement. There is already one with the EU, which you are leaving. You are also getting out of all the rest of the EU agreements.

But don't worry: maybe you get a trade agreement with the US after all: you are more than welcome to start negotiating dupes (or improved versions) for the agreements than you consider interesting, but it does not follow that your potential partners must agree, not even that they have any interest whatsoever in negotiating with you, which is what you are implying. Maybe they have, maybe not. For starters, a new agreement is definitely extra work, which some may just not want, or maybe even not be in a position to dedicate resources to.

You are now free to fight for your interests. The rest too.

> Um, the EU is hardly a tennis club.

The analogy applies at the tennis club level or the galactic empire level: out of a club is out of a club. It is not "out of the bad things but keeping the good things". The club got you those good things. Now go fight for them on your own. Hey, maybe you get an even better deal!