Maybe. No one knows.

So, worst conditions than now

No [0].

There are quite a few ways in which that might be considered better, or at least a step in the right direction.

[0] http://static1.squarespace.com/static/56eddde762cd9413e151ac...

Can you give us the source for that chart because it is very curious what they say.

Look at Norway and Switzerland

Norway and Switzerland are brilliant examples of success outside of the EU.

Switzerland has some of the highest quality of life you can get.

They also have higher per capita gdp

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=per+capita+gdp+of+norwa...

Switzerland is part of EFTA which is one step above the EEA [0] as-is my understanding. It would apparently take longer to negotiate this, however there is some political will for the UK to join [1] so it's not something that's impossible given a bit of time and exploration of each countries incentives.

Longer-term it might be better if the UK diversifies more, and begins to trade less with Europe, and more with booming Asian economies or countries which share its language.

Obviously in the short-term there will be a lot of noise: FUD and posturing.

[0] https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CmBqSu-WgAEFHSa.jpg:large

[1] http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/european-economic-area_switzerla...

Now look the treaties and duties both of them have.

Both of them are part of Shengen Area, UK no. And one important thing for the leave campaign

This chart is wrong in at least one line (probably many more): Norway pays about the same per capita as the UK does/did (source: interview of the german treasury secretary, Schauble).

So while the Norwegian model is a valid option - it does not save the UK a single Euro.

Alright, I asked ASI to correct the numbers if they are wrong.

I did also read the Telegraph's article about Michael Burrage's book on this [0] which said something similar, however I trust their ability to report less than the ASI:

  > Our free access is not free access at all. Arguing for the single
  > market on the grounds that you can avoid a 3 per cent tariff
  > by actually paying 7 per cent fee is mis-selling on a scale
  > that dwarfs the PPI scandal.

[0] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/13/not-only-can-brit...

It's the Adam Smith Institute's research on the EEA Option:

http://www.adamsmith.org/evolution-not-revolution

My mostly uninformed gut reaction is that such an outcome is unlikely. The EU would probably /need/ to be too punitive to anyone attempting to leave to allow that; otherwise it risks everyone opting for that deal.

The outcome that I hope for is that Article 50 is not invoked, and that instead everyone in the UK Government is replaced in a general election of no-confidence.

What would be simply amazing is if some scheme for making multi-nationals pay taxes and environmental impacts properly was enforced in the first world markets.

"The EU would probably /need/ to be too punitive to anyone attempting to leave" - Considering merkel just ruled out being punitive in negotiations I doubt it.

She has cars to sell.

It doesn't matter.

This is not basic utilitarianism, there is game theory involved. You have to be willing to take a loss on some deals to achieve the equilibrium you want.

The alternative is many many many people in Germany and france losing their jobs.

It's just not politically allowable, not to.

she has cars to sell in the UK but the rest of Europe not so much.