An example of a good deal would be: UK companies get access to the entire EU market if they follow EU regulations and UK citizens get freedom to move in the EU, and in return the UK also implements those regulations and gives EU companies free access, and gives EU citizens freedom to move in the UK.
That's worse than what the UK had, because they wouldn't be part of the EU decision making process anymore and they'd still have as much immigration as now, and that's supposed to be the sore point. So I presume they wouldn't go for such a deal, but it's also hard to see the EU going for a deal this good.
I doubt the UK would go for that deal either, so it's debatable whether it's a 'good' deal if neither group (on the whole) is likely to be interested in it.
I'd suggest the deals made will be based on trade tariffs and product standards. Deals that required dealing with EU regulation or free movement of labour aren't likely to be popular in the UK.
If the EU drags its heels, the UK will probably use it's position as a member of the British Commonwealth to push for increased trade between Commonwealth countries whilst it waits for EU trade deals to get ironed out.
Well, the EU can't make such a deal without freedom of movement. All those countries the UK doesn't want EU immigrants out of? They aren't going to sign off on any deal without that.
And good luck running your NHS without EU doctors...
This! In the last years my country, Portugal, has been seing a mass exodus of highly qualified young people (many nurses and medical doctors) mostly to England. If there are many restrictions to move to UK, I don't know if they will start moving to central europe (as outside france, we do not have any cultural proximity to other countries)..
Either way, it's a lose-lose situation for both countries.
Yes. And I can tell you, as someone living in such a country, they're extremely hostile to the non-EU countries. And typically involve respecting EU naming rules (can't call it champagne!), food products held to much higher standards than EU manufacturers, and quotas.
Held to higher standards than EU manufacturers? That would be odd. The point is that in order to sell on the EU market, you have to meet the standards of the market.
> "they're extremely hostile to the non-EU countries"
Can you give me one example?
As for Champagne, its a product from the Champagne region of France (similar to how Prosecco is from Italy), I don't see why it's a problem to call similar products from elsewhere sparkling white wine.
If you're referring to Champagne, then the answer is to build up your own brand. If I was in the drinks industry and produced cola, I don't have the right to sell it as Coca Cola. It's the same thing with Champagne.
> "It will probably also have to allow in EU exports which could threaten parts of their economy."
Of course they'll have to let in EU exports, just like the EU will have to let in UK exports. Why? They're all members of the World Trade Organisation.
The EU is set up to allow the member countries to cooperate more closely, through lower trade barriers and suchlike. The idea that leaving the EU means zero trade is absurd.
Of course the UK must negotiate with all the other countries it wants to trade with as well, not just the EU. But look at TTIP, that kind of thing takes decades.
That's worse than what the UK had, because they wouldn't be part of the EU decision making process anymore and they'd still have as much immigration as now, and that's supposed to be the sore point. So I presume they wouldn't go for such a deal, but it's also hard to see the EU going for a deal this good.