Yup, and only naively accounts for the cash flow. It doesn't consider any of the downstream benefits of the single market, free movement, or coherent continental legislation which together will completely swamp the measly £140m/week net cash contribution we make.
The UK isn't a protectionist state, they'll do what they can to ensure global free trade. Firstly, to keep access to the EU's 'single market', and secondly to attempt agile free trade with other countries around the world.
It'll be interesting to look in 10 years and see who is more protectionist and less open.
But of course that means staying in the EEA for the moment at least; which means freedom of movement, EU regulations, but now with much reduced influence... CETA for example took 5.5 years to negotiate and of course it still needs to be ratified.
On the other hand if the UK leaves the EU and the EEA then under EU rules it will need to wait until it fully leaves before it can negotiate a CETA style trade agreement. In the mean time one could assume that UK / EU trade would follow WTO norms.
Freedom of movement is actually a fairly good thing, though.
> EU regulations, but now without (sic) much reduced influence
You are misinformed, please read '1. "No Say"' of 'The Case For The EEA Option' [0]:
The next level of argument surrounding “no say” is that
despite not having a vote in EU institutions, EEA countries
have some ability to protect their own interests from EU law.
They retain a “right of reservation” - a veto - as set out in
Article 102 of the EEA agreement and thus have the right
to opt out of new EU legislation. This is a right that the
UK as an EU member does not have.
That is just a single point against the 'no say' argument. There is a lot more discussed within that article, including how influence is generally exerted "upstream".
> Under EU rules it will need to wait until it fully leaves before it can negotiate a CETA style trade agreement.
Yet preliminary talks over global trade are already happening.
Trade agreements can be agreed faster than the length of time it takes to agree big complex EU-style agreements anyway [1].
> Freedom of movement is actually a fairly good thing, though.
It's one of the parts of the EU I like better, but isn't it one of the things the people voting Leave most disliked? Leaving the EU only to still have unrestricted immigration from eastern Europe seems like an outcome UKIP would consider a hollow victory.
