1. I agree we'd be shunted down the pecking order, but I'd guess that 10 years down the road deals would all be done.
2. Some deals would be worse, some would be better. It would probably average out to be more or less the same as we have now in the end. I think that there are lot of laudable things about the EU and that a post Brexit UK would keep in place a lot of those things anyway. e.g. standards for manufactured goods. It would take a lot of time and effort to retool to a different standard so for most things keeping the present ones makes sense. There are outliers that need addressing, but there aren't many of them.
3. All? How much risk?
Yes we'd export less stuff to the EU post Brexit. I doubt that we'd lose 50% of our GDP essentially overnight though.
4. Big companies are going to do whatever they have to do to maximise their returns to their shareholders. If some of them move elsewhere that opens up gaps in the market here for smaller companies to exploit.
The only thing I read from the Remain supporters is "It'll wreck the economy" my argument is that it'll hurt the economy for a while but in the longer term having more control over our own affairs will benefit the economy in the long run. A smaller company can move faster in response to changing market conditions. The same should be true of a smaller country.
5. We don't need to renegotiate "sweet deals" - we need to negotiate deals that are "good enough" It'd be easy for example to implement an online visa system to allow the free movement of most people between the EU/UK. If you pass a CRB check or equivalent and pay the nominal fee, you're good. Cause any trouble while you're here and it's easy too for the authorities to revoke your visa. Voila we allow 'free movement of people in principle' and that should satisfy that checkbox on EU trading partners checklists.
6. For me this is about control. We take back full control over our laws, we are free to implement the good EU ideas/regulations/standards. Which is most of them. We can ignore the bad ones.
There are some really bad EU directives, and once bad laws are on the books they're much harder to change than bad UK laws would be.
Numbered for ease of reply
1. 10 years is a long time. A lot of permanent damage could be done in ten years
2. I think we might be talking about the wrong thing here. I might have been guilty of it as well but the result is not that the UK has a deal with Germany and a deal with France. We need to negotiate a deal with the EU as a whole. If say Romania does not agree to it, it doesn't get signed
Also your point on standards is interesting. If we accept the EU standard then it means we also accept any future changes to it without any way to influence it, or we don't accept it and diverge over time meaning we no longer comply. Adopting a standard while having no say over it seems like a second-rate position for a country to be in, no?
3. All would be at risk. How much risk would depend on the specific item in question, tariffs imposed, whether we continued to adhere to EU standards and general economic conditions such as how much, if any, the GBP devalued.
I doubt we'd lose 50% of GDP either, but how much would it take to be not worth the exit? How much would it take to be a significant problem? How much did GDP decline in the 2008 crash? I think even 5% would be a huge problem.
Of course we are still going to do business with the EU even without a trade deal because there are certain things that will be in demand even if they are more expensive. But it will be more difficult, more expensive, and less of it will happen.
And of course the moment our exports don't comply with EU standards we lose them all (in that category). Overnight.
4. No if big companies leave it doesn't open up anything. If Google, Goldman Sachs, IBM or whover is in Amsterdam instead of London it doesn't suddenly create a vacuum for a new search engine, or an investment bank or a consulting company in the UK. It just means the jobs leave. If Honda move their factory to Slovakia it doesn't mean we suddenly restart British Leyland. If there are gaps for small companies to exploit in the market then they should already be exploiting them. What's stopping them?
5. This seems like Brexiters wanting to have it both ways. We want to be able to stop immigrants but we're not actually going to stop immigrants. Just we want to be able to. But we won't.
6. No you can't pick and choose which standards you keep and which you don't if you want to still adhere to those standards. And you can't expect Europe to just stand back and watch a country pick and choose the good bits and take all the benefits while not taking their fair share of any burden too.
Even worse still the people who want to Brexit are the people who want to do away with lots of the stuff that you seem to see as being good. Bojo isn't going to implement some workers paradise in the UK while putting in place draconian measures to limit capitalist exploitations. He's going to bend every worker over, let business have their way with them and take his 10% off the top.