Yes, I understand the theory.
However, with the UK being such huge net importer, i'm not sure that the cards are stacked in our favour and we're "falling out" with our largest and nearest customer and supply base and there is a fundamental argument, which EVERY politician has publicly ignored and that is IF the UK is successful in negotiating favourable trade deals with the rest of the world (outside the EU) and we cut our raw material costs substantially, where are we intending to sell our new low cost products ?

There is now way whatsoever that The EU will allow the UK to sell cheap products into the euro zone if these are made using "cut price" imported products with lower (or zero) import tariffs from India, China etc if they are deemed to affect trade within The EU.

So therefore, we MAY be able to import some cheaper produce from outside the EU, which will be advantageous for domestic "consumption" but, then what ?

I know there is the argument about German cars etc but, what do people really think will happen.
Just imagine if the situation were reversed, we would do anything and everything to "get even" but, we are not the major player in all this.

Given we bought 2.7 million cars last year , I'd guess 2 million from Europe , at say an average 20K each , that's 40 billion a year , so 800 million pounds a week

Are they going to bang big tariffs on our exports ?

Yes, that's how the Common External Tariff works in the absence of single market membership. Non-preferential countries trading with the EU currently face a 10% tariff on car exports. The EU do it with plenty of other countries and this is our default position until a trade agreement is set up, once we leave the single market. From this point, a trade agreement takes years, with each EU member (and even some regions) having a veto over it. The EU Canada free trade agreement commenced negotiations in 2009 and has only been signed in the last few months, having narrowly avoided a veto by the regional government of Wallonia.

The whole idea is that the EU is economically stagnant and it is the UKs interests to attempt to sell to the areas of the world driving economic growth - eg India, China, SE Asia, North America and Middle East.

You've actually just made a good point for leaving , so a region of a small European country can stuff up lucrative deals for everybody else ? , that great Innit

Fine they can stick tariffs on stuff , and we'll just do the same , no worries

I quite enjoyed TRESemme's media appearance.

Not for the fact she looks like John Major's animated corpse sister.

Not even the vague objectives.

Just the fact she actually answered a question, albeit not regarding the subject at hand.

Some hack slipped in a question about a two state solution & she actually said the Yes word.

It's a funny old world.

What are we going to sell to these nations, no really.
Which items do the UK produces that are better or more competitive than these places already source elsewhere.

You are either mistaking the UK for an advanced economic nation selling super advanced products that nobody else in the world manufactures or, that we are a bargain basement nation that produces things so cheaply that the rest of the world cant compete.
Which one are we ?

Bentley and JLR (yes I know they have foreign owners but the vast majority of their car's are made here) do more than ok in these markets.

The point is that we have a level of trade with other nations already.
IF we end up losing export trade to the EU, where do replace this lost business.

Yes, our exports have become a little cheaper (since the value of the £ dropped) but, if our trade with the EU falls, what is the next step.

The UK is the second largest overall net contributor after Germany, and I believe along with Germany we have only ever been a net contributor. This does give UK some leverage, but it also makes the EU bureaucracy very nervous about its own gravy train, and that is what will be handling the actual negotiations. If you're part of the EU bureaucracy your terms and conditions are likely to be far more lucrative than in domestic equivalents, also EU bureaucracy has never known anything akin to 'austerity' as the EU budget has been protected when domestic ones have been battered. The EU bureaucracy has also been very good at fighting off even modest reforms that threaten the gravy train, and this is the biggest threat ever.

Suddenly one of the EU's biggest and most lucrative revenue streams is under threat, and the potential for replacement is limited. Will the other net contributors step up to the plate? I doubt it, German and French voters aren't going to like that. Will the net beneficiaries be keen take a cut in their subsidy, doubtful, especially if they're facing a double whammy of no longer being able to export some of their unemployment to the UK in the form of low skilled labour.

The whole thing is also a challenge to the personal prestige of some of the EU hierarchy. People like Angela Merkel, Francois Hollande and Theresa May are significant world leaders, they head major world economies, they are part of part of the G20, France and the UK are the EU's only permanent members of the UN Security Council etc. But if you are a Euro-trash politician like Juncker then your non-EU claim to fame is being leader of a county with a population about the size of Manchester, with an economy that developed on the back of being a (former) tax haven.

There are some serious complications ahead, even if whoever ends up leading Germany and France by the end of this year see the sense in economic co-operation with the UK outside of the EU, there are others who don't want the gravy train to slow down.