I am a staunch remainer and even I don't think there will be such a cliff-edge. Reduce; possibly substantially; but completely disappear?

You just have to look at the wierd, genetic freak livetsock in countries like Germany to see why the best meat is sourced from this country. The high end market will stay. However, we might lose the lucrative dog food/kebab/burger end of the deal.

What I'm un clear about is if we have another referendum what is the government saying they can do to leave that they couldn't do the first time?
What ever suggestions are made why didn't they under go them them after leave won the first time round?

[Link]

The author a 'visiting professor from Princeton University' how interesting.

For someone, not my cup of tea, but an english entrepreneur directly affected by brexit with substantial business interests and many jobs, try Richard Bransome.

'Brexit will bankrupt the UK'

To quote from the article:

In 1999, Britain’s 'top academic economists' polled heavily in favour of the UK joining the eurozone.

At the University of California, Berkeley, economist Andy Rose published an article claiming countries that adopted the euro would exponentially increase their trade with each other, which would make them all more prosperous.

In 2015, after an important study had established that the euro produced no trade gains, Andy Rose published a mea culpa. He acknowledged that his earlier analysis improperly extrapolated from the experience of smaller monetary unions of mainly poorer countries, and did not apply to the eurozone. By then, the grim costs of the extended eurozone crisis were evident. The euro created no obvious benefits but carried all-too-real risks.

True, unlike the euro, open borders generate recognisable trade benefits. But the benefits are overstated, and the adverse distributional consequences are too often swept under the rug.

By much the same logic as Krugman used in his recent tweets, the Harvard economist Dani Rodrik explains that economic welfare changes only modestly when countries with extensive trade relationships increase or decrease the extent of their international trade.

Rodrik, therefore, tenaciously highlights the troubling fact that contemporary trade agreements disproportionately help the most successful.

“Trade agreements,” he writes, “are driven overwhelmingly by a business-led agenda. The implicit economic model is one of trickle-down: make investors happy and the benefits will eventually flow down to the rest of society. The interests of labor—good pay, high labor standards, employment security, voice in the workplace, bargaining rights—get little lip service.”

The EU is the world’s most advanced form of “trade agreement” and, hence, comes with all the ills that Rodrik underscores. Well-heeled lobbyists representing business interests influence nearly 75 per cent of EU laws.

Hey Steely....looks like you found why Richard B supports Remain.