Politics is not always rational. It is also in the interest of the survival of the EU to deal with the UK in a heavy-handed manner. If a precedent is set that shows leaving the union is all upsides with no downsides, why would other countries remain? IMO, France has the greatest risk of leaving next, and without France, the whole EU might collapse. The kid gloves are definitely going to come off in the negotiations: I have an inkling that's why the 'Leave' campaign is delaying the invocation of article 50.

People keep saying this, but punishing the UK for leaving could easily give further fuel to the French leave campaign. And of course an exited Britain could extend an olive branch to France.

After a 10% reduction in real income for the Brits just one day after the referendum? Fat chance.

That 10% is just the market reacting to it's failed prediction.

But the prediction was that the status quo would continue.

What does "real income" mean to you? Income in USD?

The only sensible way to measure income is with purchasing power, and that's far more complex than an exchange rate (since many of the services and goods originate in the UK anyways).

> People keep saying this, but punishing the UK for leaving could easily give further fuel to the French leave campaign.

Giving the same deal that they have right now is what will give further fuel to leave. Why should I stay when I can have a better deal leaving?

Sure - but the converse - punishing them for leaving - confirms that the EU is a political hegemony whose purpose is to usurp sovereignty, rather than a mutually beneficial union of member states who are members by choice.

That would provide perfect ammunition for nationalists everywhere.

See:

http://newobserveronline.com/brexit-contagion-germany-fears-...

> Sure - but the converse - punishing them for leaving

In what world is punishing having a worst deal that they have now because they don't have the duties?

And yes, you talk about mutual beneficial union, that is not what UK wants

Do you have read your link? Because it says that the contagion will happen if there is a good deal with UK. Just the contrary you say

> I have an inkling that's why the 'Leave' campaign is delaying the invocation of article 50.

Seriously. Do you even know what you're talking about? Only our elected government (who were on the remain side), can invoke article 50, and it's up to them to decide when.

Hopefully the whole EU does collapse.

> Do you even know what you're talking about

As a matter of fact, yes I do. Boris Johnson has come out and said there is "no need to rush", and he was on the Leave side.

> Only our elected government (who were on the remain side), can invoke article 50

That's just a roundabout way of saying "The Tories", innit? Cameron is a lame duck, and if the Leave wing of the Tories wanted him out tomorrow, he'd be out tomorrow.

And Boris Johnson isn't in any position of power currently. It's not up to him yet.

A new trade deal will likely lead to higher car cost in England.

Which car company in the UK could take the market share from Germany?

Seems like a seller market to me.

It is in the EU's interest to make that deal less favourable for the UK than the current situation. Making a point about the benefits of the EU membership is really important right now.