[airesQ]

Why would the UK do badly outside the EU?

Well because 45%+ of its exports go to the EU.

And the EU is not just a trade deal. It is a single market, like the US is a single market, with a great degree of regulatory uniformity. Which means accepting laws from a central source (in the US it is Washington, in the EU it is Brussels).

What you think would happen to Texas were to secede? With border controls? With its internal regulation for its market? Paying tariffs to access to the rest of the US? No free-movement of people? And all of this, and we have Florida, right next to Texas that just remains in the US; why invest in an independent Texas if you can invest in Florida?

(Of course the EU is not like the US. The EU is a very thin federal layer compared to the US federal government. e.g. EU states go to war on their own all the time.)

The UK might get a Switzerland like deal. But that is very close to being a full-fledged member. That is not a hard-Brexit.

[mrec]

> Well because 45%+ of its exports go to the EU.

Implying that ~ 55% of its exports go outside the EU, and since the EU is a customs union, external trade incurs tariffs by default and members are prohibited from negotiating their own trade deals to change that. The 55% number is despite those constraints; it's not unreasonable to think that the proportion would be quite a bit higher if EU trade had tariffs and trade with the rest of the world didn't [1]. The 55% number is also rising steadily as EU growth lags behind the rest of the world. I'd be surprised if Brexit ends without free UK/EU trade, but even if it did I don't think it'd be the disaster many are painting.

Short-term things will be rocky given the uncertainty and adjustment pains; long-term things will be fine; medium-term could go either way depending on how the various parties behave.

[1] That's simplifying a bit, since the EU does have free trade deals with some countries, although notably not with the US or China or India or much of the rest of the Commonwealth. Also, some of the UK's trade with the rest of the world is currently routed through the EU, though given how cheap freight is these days that shouldn't be too hard to change if necessary.

[airesQ]

Geography still matters a lot. Japan [1] trades mostly with Asia, and the UK [2] with nearby countries (it trades more with Sweden than Canada; more with the Netherlands than China).

When it comes to trade deals, the UK does not have all that much leverage. And Brexit was (to some extent) a vote for protectionism (e.g. against TTIP).

[1] - http://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/visualize/tree_map/hs92/export...

[2] - http://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/visualize/tree_map/hs92/export...

[mrec]

Sure, but still, 55% is more than 45%.

I agree that much of the support for Brexit had protectionist roots, though I think that was far more about labour protectionism than goods. Very few people in the UK have even heard of TTIP; it doesn't get mainstream coverage here. That may change once the UK steps out of the EU's trade-protectionist umbrella, of course; those trying to spin the result as a ringing popular endorsement of Extreme Globalization Turbo Max Pro are definitely being disingenuous.

[mjevans]

As a resident of 'Washington' I would prefer you qualify the capitol of the nation by either it's full name 'Washington District of Columbia' or the common short-hands there of 'Washington DC' or just 'DC'.

Please, stop confusing the state and the city liberated from all states in the nation.