Winseer:
Dolph:
war1974:
me - I say out, however you have as much chance of this as getting a group of drivers to stick together and agree.
trade wont be affected its scaremongering simple as - immigration and benefits etc. well until we sort out people who think breeding is a career choice I cant see things becoming better on the benefits front.
whole heartedly agree that due to mass immigration we now have excess strain being placed on housing - schools - hospitals.
£55million a day sent to the EU could be used so much better but hey ho I cant see people having the balls to vote out so my argument as most others on here is null and void!
With all due respect, I don’t agree with text in bold.
The Pound is down heavily today (3c - a big move for a single day’s trading) but that’s against the USD. It’s down 1c vs the Euro.
0
A cheap pound will help us sell stuff to the rest of the world a whole lot easier, should we by then be “out”. An expensive Euro on the other hand, will hopefully encourage Brits to buy less Euro goods rather than encourage them to buy none of our stuff.
I can’t see where the downside risk to trade is going to come from…. If the pound had DOUBLED in price vs other currencies, then yes. We would be in the crapper make no mistake. But that’s not what’s happened, nor was expected to happen with Sterling though. 
A rapid decline of Pound Sterling will her UK economy more then it will help. Yes its good to a certain point, but better hope people don’t lose trust in British currency.
It might come in a form of no access to EU market unless UK follows EU rules.
"Margaret Thatcher was the first to realise that Britain’s specialisation in services – not only finance, but also law, accountancy, media, architecture, pharmaceutical research and so on – makes membership in the EU single market critical. It makes little economic difference to Germany, France, or Italy whether Britain is an EU member or simply in the WTO.
Britain would therefore need an EU association agreement, similar to those negotiated with Switzerland or Norway, the only two significant European economies outside the EU. From the EU’s perspective, the terms of any British deal would have to be at least as stringent as those in the existing association agreements. To grant easier terms would immediately force matching concessions to Switzerland and Norway. Worse still, any special favors for Britain would set a precedent and tempt other lukewarm EU members to make exit threats and demand renegotiation.
Among the conditions accepted by Norway and Switzerland that the EU would surely regard as non-negotiable are four that completely negate the political objectives of Brexit. Norway and Switzerland must abide by all EU single market standards and regulations, without any say in their formulation. They agree to translate all relevant EU laws into their domestic legislation without consulting domestic voters. They contribute substantially to the EU budget. And they must accept unlimited EU immigration, resulting in a higher share of EU immigrants in the Swiss and Norwegian populations than in the UK.
If Britain rejected these encroachments on national sovereignty, its service industries would be locked out of the single market. The French, German, and Irish governments would be particularly delighted to see UK-based banks and hedge funds shackled by EU regulations, and UK-based businesses involved in asset management, insurance, accountancy, law, and media forced to transfer their jobs, head offices, and tax payments to Paris, Frankfurt, or Dublin".
Carryfast 
)