User blog comment:NewPolishMapper/UK is out of the land of Peace and Prosperity/@comment-6812733-20160628151621/@comment-6812733-20160628155347

What benefits does Norway even get? The Norway-model that Britain was thinking about means joining the EEA (European Economic Area) and EFTA (European Free Trade Association) in which you would have to still abide by the regulations by the EU but you have no vote in creating or changing those regulations (one of which has been that you can't sell a cucumber that has twisted too many angles to a certain direction).

To make it even worse, there are two things that have to be remembered. First, Norway pays a fee to remain in the EEA and EFTA which is dependant on the GDP of your country and in 2013 Norway paid 290 million euros for that fee. Now that might not sound alot for some, but it indeed is. The second and a great thing for Norway is, they have oil. Finland does not. Now we do have some uranium and gold but those have been sold off to foreign companies a long time ago so we hold no rights to them anymore, so there goes our only good exports that would make a profit for us. I digress again so I'll get back to the question at hand.

Since we'd have to pay to still be bound by the Union laws and regulations, I would most likely not negotiate at all and go full Fixit. But that is if we'd have competent government, which we do not have, so I only hope that Fixit would happen and EU actually fixes itself so that it wouldn't be a pseudo-federal state governed by the un-elected business puppets. That, I feel like, is the point of these exits: To fix the system that is broken.