Britain and Europe: Making the break | The Economist purchase-rights icon BRITAIN has never been too keen on tying the knot with Europe. It sat aside in the 1950s as Germany, France, Italy and the Benelux countries forged a single market in coal and steel, which became a broader common market. It eventually joined, in 1973, largely because Europe seemed to be where the money was. Britons still think of their relationship with Europe as a transaction. But their feelings about the costs and benefits of membership have changed utterly. Europe is no longer the thriving economic club that Britain joined 40 years ago. The euro-zone crisis has exposed the lack of dynamism in much of Europe (though Britain itself is hardly booming) and the British also feel sidelined, as countries that use the single currency are pulled more tightly together. Britons have come to associate the EU with the uncontrolled immigration of Poles and other east Europeans, seemingly to every village. Although many political leaders are determined to stop it happening, a British exit from Europe is coming to seem ever more possible. If Britain falls out of the EU, it may find itself completely outside the single market.

It might try to stay in the European Economic Area (EEA), a free-trade club that also includes Iceland and Norway. Or it could leave both the EU and the single market, but attempt to recreate a free-trade relationship through bilateral agreements. In this article we explain what each would mean for British business and the economy. But, first, how could an exit happen? Almost by accident The likeliest trigger is a referendum. David Cameron, Britain’s prime minister, is under enormous pressure to call one from his own Conservative Party, which dominates Britain’s coalition government. Last year 81 Tory MPs voted for a referendum on Britain’s EU membership. “It’s moved very fast,” says John Redwood, a veteran critic of the EU. “People used to call me an extreme Eurosceptic. Now I’m a moderate.” Truly fervent Eurosceptics seek a referendum because they want to quit the EU. Other Tories want one to spike the guns of the UK Independence Party (UKIP), which campaigns for an exit. UKIP, a once-minor party that came second to Labour in two by-elections on November 29th, takes votes from all parties but most terrifies Conservative MPs.

If the party does well in the next European Parliament elections, due in 2014, the pressure on Mr Cameron will increase. He is already bending. In September the prime minister hinted that Britons might have an opportunity to give “fresh consent” to their country’s place in a looser union—a rather fuzzy suggestion that is unlikely to dampen calls for a starker question. Some Tory cabinet ministers now expect the party to include a promise of an “In-Out” referendum on Europe in its 2015 general-election manifesto. That might persuade Labour to follow suit—which is the second referendum scenario. Although the party is broadly pro-European, some Labour strategists have been urging Ed Miliband, its leader, to promise a referendum all the same, chiefly to pile pressure on Mr Cameron but also to stay on the right side of public opinion. “Whatever our position on Europe, we cannot be seen as the anti-referendum party,” a senior Labour figure says. The third scenario is already in play, thanks to the 2011 European Union Act. Passed by the coalition, this dictates that a referendum must be held on any new EU treaty that shifts power from Westminster to Brussels.

The EU is acutely aware of this obstacle, so where treaty change is envisaged, it is trying to focus it as narrowly as possible on the euro zone, of which Britain is not a member. But the EU’s creeping claim on its constituents’ sovereign powers suggests that this “referendum lock” could be activated. The next treaty change, which could take place in 2015 or 2016, will be the moment for Mr Cameron (if he is re-elected) to try to repatriate some powers from Brussels in the “new settlement” he seeks with Europe. If Britons voted to reject the revised treaty there would be redoubled pressure for a second referendum, on their membership of the European club. There is a fourth scenario: simple diplomatic miscalculation. A year ago, at a summit where they agreed on a fiscal compact, almost all other EU leaders banded together to sidestep a British veto. If that were to happen again on an issue that Britons care more deeply about, Mr Cameron may face irresistible pressure to call an early referendum. The early signs are that Britons would opt to push off.

YouGov’s latest poll on the issue suggests that 49% would vote to leave, whereas only 32% would choose to stay (the rest are unsure). One senior Tory, who wants Britain to stay in, says blankly that it would be impossible to win a referendum at the moment. The leaders of all three main parties, backed by business and trade unions, could try to woo Britons to Europe. But they would have plenty of opposition, and not just from other MPs. When Britain last voted on Europe, in 1975, every national newspaper except the Morning Star campaigned for an “In” vote. That will not be repeated. Britain’s two biggest-selling dailies, the Daily Mail and the Sun—combined circulation, 4.5m—are deeply Eurosceptic. What would make the vote unpredictable is that Britons cannot have what they really want. If offered a “detached relationship that is little more than a free-trade agreement”, according to the same YouGov poll, only 26% would still opt for the exit. The biggest group of respondents, 46%, would accept those looser terms. But continental leaders are unwilling to grant Britain full access to the single market without the costly bits.

Germany’s chancellor, Angela Merkel, says she dearly wants to keep Britain in the EU—but “as a good partner”. In the run-up to a promised referendum, Mr Cameron could win only trifling concessions. That might convince some Britons that life outside the EU would be difficult; but it might equally inflame Eurosceptic opinion and make an “out” vote more likely. Very well, alone If Britain walked away entirely—the most extreme scenario—it would quickly see some benefits. The country would no longer have to transfer funds to the EU to subsidise farm incomes or poorer regions. Treasury figures suggest it would be £8 billion ($13 billion) better off each year. Food could become cheaper. Under WTO rules, countries may slash import barriers unilaterally as long as they do not favour some countries over others. Britain could do this for agricultural produce. It would regain control over fishing rights around its coast. Some irksome regulations could be ditched, too. First to go (if the Tories are in power when Britain leaves) would be the working-time directive. This limits how long people can be at work without a break or a holiday and caps the working week at 48 hours.

The scrapping of the EU’s agency-worker directive, which gives temporary staff the same rights as regular employees, would be cheered by business, too. Britain would be free to set itself a less exacting target for green-power generation than it is bound to under the EU’s renewable-energy directive. That could mean cheaper power. London’s financial district would look to past glories. It thrived as an offshore centre for deposit-taking and loan-making in dollars long before Britain joined the EU. Outside the club, it would be freer to market itself as a freewheeling hub for emerging-market finance—a sort of Singapore on steroids. Free of the obligation to abide by ever-changing EU rules on alternative investments, hedge funds that have left London might be lured back. The burden of impending European Solvency 2 regulations on the insurance industry would become less onerous. Yet a bonfire of regulations would smoulder rather than blaze. Domestic and global commitments to greenery constrain Britain’s energy policy, for example. And EU regulations bite less hard than is commonly supposed. Britain already has one of the most flexible labour markets in the rich world (employees can opt out of the 48-hour week).

This helps to explain why the unemployment rate is as low as in America or Canada, despite a more sluggish economy. Product regulations would be harder to junk than labour laws. The British suppliers to Airbus, the Franco-German aircraft manufacturer, have to comply with exacting standards. But these exist not because of meddling by Brussels, but to ensure aircraft are safe. Similarly, a minimum standard of food safety stops a race to the bottom by competing firms. British ones would still have to observe Europe’s product regulations in order to export there. A separate set of regulations tailored for the home market would only add to red tape. That goes for the City, too. Global finance favours common standards, such as the Basel accords on bank capital. And, far from racing to the bottom, countries with large financial sectors are now as likely to create even tougher rules. The Bank of England has hinted that Basel is not strong enough. And some immediate gains would evaporate as special-interest groups redirected their attention from Brussels to Westminster. British farmers would lose £2.7 billion in EU subsidies once Britain left. They are a noisy lobby group, and it is unlikely that the government would hang on to all that cash.

The farming lobby would also try to stand in the way of lowering tariffs on food imported from beyond Europe, potentially depriving the government of a bargaining chip in trade negotiations with big emerging markets such as Brazil and India. If the benefits of leaving the single market are qualified, what of the costs? The price of exclusion is much smaller than when Britain joined in 1973. Tariff barriers across the world have been steadily lowered in trade deals brokered by GATT and its successor, the WTO. If import tariffs are weighted by the volume of trade in each product, the average faced by exporters from outside the EU into the single market has fallen to around 3%. Exporters routinely have to absorb cost increases of this size caused by a surge in the oil price or a jump in the exchange rate. Even so, the impact on industries such as food and textiles, where tariffs are much higher than the average, would be far from mild. British dairy exports would incur an import tax of 55% to reach the EU market, with tariffs on some items of more than 200%. Cheddar cheese would face a tariff of €167 per 100kg; the mark-up on Stilton would be €141.

Average tariffs on clothing would push up their price in European markets by 12%. Parts of Britain’s car industry would move out. British-based producers would face a 4% tariff on car-equipment sales to the EU, and there would be pressure to impose tariffs on components imported from it. Factories owned by carmakers with plants and supply chains in other parts of the EU would be most at risk. Vital car components might be held up by customs as they leave the continent. A cheap pound and a flexible workforce may not be enough to keep GM in Britain, for instance, even though it sells many cars there. The calculation would be slightly different for other carmakers. Only a small fraction of the 300,000 cars Jaguar Land Rover makes in Britain are destined for the EU market. A lot of Minis, made in Britain by BMW, are also sold outside Europe, where they attract an import tariff anyway. Much of what distinguishes a Jaguar from a Mercedes is that it is designed and made in Britain (as are lots of components). There would be little benefit, but huge costs to the brand, in shifting production elsewhere.

Japanese carmakers would suffer: most of their British output is sold in the EU, says John Leech of KPMG, a consultancy. But they cannot easily switch production to continental factories, and many of their supplies come from Japan. They would stick around longer than many think. Over time, though, the general drift of business investment would be away from Britain and towards the continent. That goes for finance, too. If London wants to be the regional hub for trading China’s currency, it will need to retain its position as the main centre for settling trades of cash and derivatives in euros. Some in Europe resent this: the governor of France’s central bank complained this week that euro deals should be done in euroland. Without the shield of single-market rules, London could lose out to rival EU centres. Financiers from today’s rising economic powers, in Asia and Latin America, are keener on access to a European market of 500m than on the light regulation that drew American banks to London in the 1950s and 1960s. TheCityUK, a lobby group, studied 147 siting decisions between 2006 and 2012.

It found that more than two-fifths of finance firms gave access to European markets as a core reason for choosing London. Although the single market in financial services is still a work in progress, “passporting rights” entitle investment firms, banks and insurers based in Britain to establish branches or provide services throughout the EEA. Aerospace is another industry that relies on frictionless trade with the rest of the continent. Britain has the world’s largest industry outside America, but it would lose ground to France. The high-tech bits of production, such as the making of carbon-fibre wing spars, could not speedily be replicated elsewhere. But suppliers of basic parts, such as metal brackets, would be vulnerable. Big manufacturers like Airbus prefer to keep supply chains simple. They might sponsor entry by new suppliers in the EU to avoid a customs barrier. These reallocations of fixed capital would take years or decades. By contrast, Britain and its erstwhile EU partners would have to decide quickly how people on the wrong side of newly erected barriers to the free movement of labour should be treated.

Around 2.3m people from EU countries were living in Britain in 2011, up from 1.1m in 2004; around 1.7m Britons have gone the other way. The rights of residency for such migrants would no longer be automatic. Forced repatriation would be damaging to all countries. The simplest solution would be to offer citizenship to all those resident in Britain at a particular date, in return for a similar offer to Britons living in other parts of Europe. Anticipation of such an amnesty would spur a rush to and from Britain in the run-up to its exit. As the drawbridge eventually rose, businesses would suffer. London’s growing tech cluster, as well as the City, relies heavily on the free flow of young workers from other parts of Europe. Another huge disruption would be to trade beyond Europe. Britain would swiftly have to negotiate bilateral deals with dozens of countries. The experience of Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland, which make up the European Free Trade Association (EFTA), a club of European refusers loosely linked to the EU, suggests it is usually possible to obtain similar terms to those won by EU negotiators.

The EFTA countries tend to rush in behind the EU, though in some cases—South Korea, for example—they go first. But the bigger club can win slightly better terms. “The EU is more powerful than we are,” says Didier Chambovey of Switzerland’s state secretariat for foreign affairs. A deal with Britain would be top of few countries’ priorities. Britain would have less diplomatic and military clout, too. For the Americans, a Britain that is disengaged from the rest of Europe would be a much less useful and influential ally. For NATO, a Britain that is semi-detached from Europe would weaken the ties that bind the continent and its defence to the United States at a time when those ties are already under strain because of slashed defence budgets and America’s strategic “rebalancing” towards Asia. Another likely casualty would be the budding Anglo-French defence treaty, seen by both countries as a way to help themselves continue to punch above their weight. Viking spirit, or Swiss rules? Although a complete exit from Europe is certainly possible, few British Eurosceptics want it. They view the common market as a pearl surrounded by a dismal encrustation of European bureaucracy and regulation.

What they would really like to do is pull back until Britain’s relationship with Europe becomes one based on free trade, with the minimum necessary regulation. In effect, they want to create the kind of Europe that British Conservatives fought to join in the 1970s. Once it became clear that Britain was falling out of the EU, they could grab at two halfway options: a Norwegian one and a Swiss one. Together with Iceland and Liechtenstein, oil-rich Norway is about as close to the EU as it is possible to be without actually becoming a member. It simply belongs to the EEA. The EU is broadly happy with the arrangement, partly because Norway pays into its coffers (indeed, it pays slightly more per head than Britain). A similar arrangement might well be obtained. Many businesses would hardly notice the difference. But a few would suffer minor irritation. Although EEA countries are part of the single market, businesses must complete customs and VAT forms when goods are shipped into and out of the EU. For big companies serving big customers, this is no problem. For smaller ones it can be a nuisance.

Moods of Norway, an echt-Norwegian fashion company (its logo is a tractor), has solved the problem by setting up a small subsidiary in Sweden, which is a member of the EU. The subsidiary handles customs clearance for the European boutiques that carry Moods of Norway’s clothes. Small, export-oriented British businesses would end up doing the same. If Britain were to join the Norwegian club, though, it would remain bound by virtually all EU regulations, including the working-time directive and almost everything dreamed up in Brussels in future. Once out of the EU, the country would have little say in the regulations and laws that would continue to bind its industry. It would be consulted by the European Commission but would have no voice in the increasingly powerful European Parliament, and no vote. In Euro-jargon, it would be a decision-shaper, but not a decision-maker. Officials and lobbyists would frequently be unaware of discussions about legislation that could affect British industry, except at second hand, through officials in a friendly nation. “We take our Scandinavian colleagues out to lunch and ask them what happened,” explains Petter Brubakk of NHO, Norway’s main business lobby.

It would depend on other countries to fight its corner, as Norway now relies on Britain to resist proposed EU legislation on offshore oil-drilling. It would be as though Britain maintained a golden fax machine linked to Brussels, which cost billions of pounds a year to run and from which regulations issued ceaselessly. It could ignore the faxes about farming and fishing: members of the EEA are allowed to run their own agriculture policies. But it would have to obey the others. The Norwegian option could well fail for domestic reasons. As soon as British MPs learn that Norway has to swallow almost every regulation that comes out of Brussels, despite having virtually no power to shape them, they will waver. When they also learn that Norway has to pay for the privilege, they may reject it outright. Britain might, however, seek a more distant relationship. It could steer clear of the EEA but join EFTA, which it helped to set up in 1960. Optimistically, it could come to look rather like Switzerland. Switzerland does business with EU countries through bilateral deals, and by routinely aligning its regulations with those made in Brussels. To an extent, it can pick and choose. In the same position, Britain could drop some irksome labour rules.

It could also move to co-operate more, and trade more freely, in some areas than in others. Switzerland has a comprehensive bilateral agreement with the EU covering trade in goods, but no equivalent agreement for financial services. Switzerland has got into the occasional trade dispute with the EU, over Gruyère cheese for example. Still, for the most part it has secured good access to European markets so far. Its firms have subsidiaries in EU countries through which they can trade freely. And non-membership of the EEA means Switzerland has remained partly aloof from financial regulations emanating from Brussels. But the Swiss have come up with their own, often extremely stringent, financial regulations, partly in fear of losing access to EU customers. And the country is not beyond the reach of Brussels. The Swiss are currently exercised over several European directives, including those covering finance, chemical factories and the movement of labour. Switzerland is hampered by the lack of an accord with the EU on financial services and by its lack of representation in Brussels. In the broader fight against protectionism and financial over-regulation in Europe, it relies on an informal alliance with another country that also has a big financial-services industry, as well as a valuable seat at the negotiating table: Britain.

In any case, it is unlikely that Britain could get similar treatment. The EU is already trying to muscle Switzerland out of its special niche and into an arrangement more like Norway’s, where EU legislation would be speedily taken up by the country. Relations have become more fraught since the EU expanded eastward. The EU used to be a club of Western nations which share a broad culture with Switzerland (many share a border with it, too) and tolerated its peculiarities. The club is now bigger and more bureaucratic, and includes east European countries which were forced to swallow much unpalatable stuff as the price of entry to the club. There is little chance that Britain, a far bigger country with a history of being difficult, would be allowed to squeeze in alongside Switzerland. And don’t come back No country has ever left the European Union (though Greenland, an autonomous dependency of Denmark’s, voted to leave in 1982). The halfway options of Norway and Switzerland were offered largely in hopes of tempting both to become full members one day. Britain would be travelling in the opposite direction, without a map. In this, as in so many other ways, leaving the EU would be a colossal gamble.

The British would doubtless try to negotiate a special deal with their former partners, using the argument that trade benefits both sides and that Britain is itself a large market for many. But the process could take many years (it took a decade for the much smaller Switzerland). Europe might well be more of a fortress with Britain outside. And even the country’s closest friends, who would rather keep Britain in to bolster liberal voices inside the EU, would be unlikely to be generous to a country that had chosen to leave. The most likely outcome would be that Britain would find itself as a scratchy outsider with somewhat limited access to the single market, almost no influence and few friends. And one certainty: that having once departed, it would be all but impossible to get back in again. EU Withdrawal EU Withdrawal EU Withdrawal What is EU Withdrawal? Since the establishment of the European Coal and Steel Community under the Treaty of Paris in 1951, no member state has ever left the European Union or its predecessor bodies. Although in 1982, Greenland - an overseas territory of Denmark and not a member state as such - did leave the EU, following massive opposition to the common fisheries policy and growing demands for home rule.

A draft treaty establishing a constitution for Europe, published in June 2003 by the convention on the future of Europe, made explicit provision for how a member state could go about leaving the EU. Article 59 stated that a member state must first inform the European council, which will produce guidelines under which the "Union" (the EU Commission) will negotiate a withdrawal agreement. This agreement is then subject to approval by the European parliament and the council of ministers. That member state would then cease to be subject to EU law either from the date stated in the withdrawal agreement or two years after the notification date. A former member state seeking to rejoin the EU would be obliged to go through the same admission process as any wholly new candidate country. Article 59 was not a controversial element of the draft treaty, but this constitutional treaty was never ratified. However, the Lisbon Treaty which came into force on 1st December 2009 does contain a voluntary withdrawal clause, which recognises for the first time that the member states may always withdraw from the Union if they so wish. Background The UK joined the European Union, then the European Economic Community (EEC) in January 1973.

The decision, taken by Conservative prime minister Edward Heath, was extremely controversial and caused widespread division. Labour's 1974 election manifesto promised a referendum on membership of the EEC. The party itself was deeply divided on the issue. A party conference held in April 1975 voted by a majority of around two to one to leave the EEC, with almost 3.7 million votes cast against membership (including the bloc votes of 39 of 46 affiliated unions). Those on the left of the party, notably Tony Benn and Michael Foot, were at the forefront of the anti-EEC campaign. In the event, prime minister Harold Wilson, who proclaimed a pragmatic support for membership, committed the government to campaigning for a "yes" vote to the referendum question, "'Do you think the UK should stay in the European Community (Common Market)?" Acknowledging the extent of divisions, he allowed ministers to campaign against the government line, and seven members of his cabinet did so. Nonetheless, on June 6th 1975, 67 per cent of those participating voted in favour of the EEC.

The majority of those who had campaigned against the UK's membership admitted defeat, and undertook to accept the decision. However, by the end of the 1970s, the anti-EEC faction had achieved dominance in the party, and it would be well into the 1990s before Labour's current pro-EU stance reasserted itself, although many on the "old left" are still deeply opposed to EU membership. The introduction of the Common Fisheries Policy was a highly divisive measure, which many sceptics argued showed the true nature of the EU, insofar as the disputes surrounding coastal waters and "quota hopping" that soon followed demonstrated the degree to which UK sovereignty had been subjected to EU law. For the Danish territory of Greenland, however, it was intolerable. The territory had voted in a 1972 referendum against entry by more than 70 per cent, but had since obtained home rule in 1979. Provisions for Greenland to withdraw from the EU were negotiated following a second narrow "no" referendum result in February 1982.

Following agreement of the Greenland Treaty of withdrawal on March 13th 1984, Greenland formally ceased to be part of the EU in early 1985, but retains trade privileges under its "overseas country and territory" status. From the late 1980s, a new strain of hostility to the EU began to develop. The EU had made very little progress during the 1970s and early 1980s in carrying out trade and economic unification, due to weak decision-making. The series of treaties from the 1987 Single European Act have addressed this, with the result that economic, monetary and political union have proceeded rapidly. In this context, many of the same fears expressed by the left in the early 1970s have re-emerged as concerns of the right. The Maastricht treaty proved to be intensely divisive for the Conservative party, with many, including the future leader Iain Duncan Smith, refusing to support the highly vulnerable Major government in ratifying it. Although many "eurosceptics" remained within the Conservative party, others left.

This issue remains the deepest fault-line in the party, and many grassroots and even parliamentary members are known more or less publicly to desire withdrawal. In 1997, the Referendum party, financed and led by Sir James Goldsmith, put up many candidates in the general election in protest at official Conservative line, and demanded a referendum on British EU membership. Although no candidates were successful, it is widely accepted that the party took votes away from the Conservatives, contributing to Labour's victory. In the aftermath of the election, however, which was followed shortly afterwards by Sir James' death, the party fragmented, with many of its supporters and candidates moving to the UK Independence party (UKIP). Winning three European parliament seats in 1999, and nine seats in 2004, and putting up large numbers of candidates in subsequent elections, UKIP is today the only mainstream political party in Britain actively calling for withdrawal from the EU.

The Coalition on coming to power in May 2010 pledged to ensure that the British government would be a "positive participant" in the EU, playing a "strong and positive role", with the goal of ensuring that all European nations were "equipped to face the challenges of the 21st century - global competitiveness, global warming and global poverty." Controversies The UK's withdrawal from the EU is a major political issue, but like capital punishment, it remains steadfastly popular with large sections of the public despite being something of a "dirty word" in Westminster-based political circles. The extent to which the notion is viewed as being on the margins of mainstream political debate is evidenced in the Labour party's frequent accusations that the Conservatives' sceptical or hostile position with regard to EU integration masks a desire to leave the EU, used as a slur. Both sides in this debate are prepared to use negative polemics about the other, given the seriousness with which each treats their case. The debate, in some ways, goes to the heart of the question of the UK's future place in the world - either as an independent power or as part of a larger bloc of powers. What each of these states would involve is hotly contested by the disputants.

Supporters of withdrawal claim that the EU is on an inexorable path towards full political union, in which the UK would be subsumed as simply a region, to the detriment of British freedom, democracy, history and culture. Many also object to Franco-German domination of the union, its apparent hostility to the USA, its alien legal system, its apparent resistance to the "Anglo-Saxon" economic model and its high-cost, strongly social-democratic social model. They argue that the UK would be impoverished politically, economically and culturally by being part of an EU "superstate". UKIP claims that leaving the EU would generate a £25 billion "independence dividend" in reduced contributions to EU funds. Supporters of the UK's membership of the EU argue that Britain would have little or no influence in the world on its own, and point to substantial economic benefits accrued and accruing from membership. They also deny claims made by their opponents about freedom, democracy and culture, pointing to the experience of EU integration to date. In September 2011, a petition calling for a referendum on EU membership, signed by 100,000 people, was handed into Downing Street.

The Commons subsequently debated a motion proposing that a national referendum be held on whether the UK should stay in the EU, leave the EU, or re-negotiate the terms of its membership. All three of the main parties urged their MPs to vote against the proposal, arguing that the middle of an economic crisis was not the right time to hold a referendum. The motion was defeated by 483 votes to 111. However, a campaigning group called the People's Pledge has said it aims to "force a referendum on Britain's EU membership" and to this end is planning to stage a series of public votes on the issue across the UK during 2012. Statistics Between 1977 – 2011, when asked ‘If there were a referendum now on whether Britain should stay in or get out of the European Union, how would you vote?’ those saying ‘stay in’ ranged between 26% in 1980 and 63% in 1991, our most recent indicator shows 49% say ‘get out’.

However, when asked ‘which of these — Europe, the Commonwealth or America — is the most important to Britain?’ – Europe has been the clear winner, peaking at 57% in 1993 compared with the USA which achieved a high point of 34% (2003), and the Commonwealth which reached 26% in 1986. When the 27 EU member states were polled in spring 2010, distrust of the EU was most prominent in the United Kingdom (64%) compared with Germany (51%) and France (50%). With regard to perceptions of the EU, in the 27 EU member states asked, the UK was also the only country whose “negative” image scores outweighed “neutral” or “positive” scores (negative image: 39%, neutral image: 38% and positive image: 19%).

In September 2011, when asked if ‘as a citizen would you say that you would be better protected in the face of the current crisis if the UK adopted measures and applied them individually?’ 60% in the UK said yes compared with France 34%, Italy 29%, Germany 27% and Spain 22%. Source: Ipsos MORI – December 2011 Quotes "Commissioners in Brussels dictate 75% of our laws. None can be repealed by Parliament. We cannot vote for those who make these laws – we cannot remove them. "The British people must decide through an immediate referendum if we stay in the EU or to come out and claw back independent power over our national life. We do not have to be ruled by this regime to work with our European neighbours who depend on us for their markets." UKIP - 2012 "The Government believes that Britain should play a leading role in an enlarged European Union, but that no further powers should be transferred to Brussels without a referendum. This approach strikes the right balance between constructive engagement with the EU to deal with the issues that affect us all, and protecting our national sovereignty." The Coalition: Our programme for government.

Brexit: All you need to know about the UK leaving the EU - BBC News BBC News Brexit: All you need to know about the UK leaving the EU By Alex Hunt & Brian Wheeler BBC News 12 December 2016 Close share panel Image copyright Getty Images This article is designed to be an easy-to-understand guide on what happens now that the UK has voted to leave the European Union. What does Brexit mean? It is a word that has become used as a shorthand way of saying the UK leaving the EU - merging the words Britain and exit to get Brexit, in a same way as a possible Greek exit from the euro was dubbed Grexit in the past. Why is Britain leaving the European Union? A referendum - a vote in which everyone (or nearly everyone) of voting age can take part - was held on Thursday 23 June, to decide whether the UK should leave or remain in the European Union. Leave won by 52% to 48%. The referendum turnout was 71.8%, with more than 30 million people voting. Find the result in your area Enter a postcode, council name or NI constituency Submit search for results Results in full What was the breakdown across the UK?

England voted for Brexit, by 53.4% to 46.6%, as did Wales, with Leave getting 52.5% of the vote and Remain 47.5%. Scotland and Northern Ireland both backed staying in the EU. Scotland backed Remain by 62% to 38%, while 55.8% in Northern Ireland voted Remain and 44.2% Leave. See the results in more detail. What has happened since the referendum? Britain has got a new Prime Minister - Theresa May. The former home secretary took over from David Cameron, who resigned on the day after losing the referendum. Like Mr Cameron, Mrs May was against Britain leaving the EU but she says she will respect the will of the people. She has said "Brexit means Brexit" but there is still a lot of debate about what that will mean in practice especially on the two key issues of how British firms do business in the European Union and what curbs are brought in on the rights of European Union nationals to live and work in the UK. What about the economy?

The UK economy appears to have weathered the initial shock of the Brexit vote, although the value of the pound remains near a 30-year low, but opinion is sharply divided over the long-term effects of leaving the EU. Some major firms such as Easyjet and John Lewis have pointed out that the slump in sterling has increased their costs. Britain also lost its top AAA credit rating, meaning the cost of government borrowing will be higher. But share prices have recovered from a dramatic slump in value, with both the FTSE 100 and the broader FTSE 250 index, which includes more British-based businesses, trading higher than before the referendum. The Bank of England is hoping its decision to cut interest rates from 0.5% to 0.25% - a record low and the first cut since 2009 - will stave off recession and stimulate investment, with some economic indicators pointing to a downturn. Here is a detailed rundown of how Britain's economy is doing What is the European Union? The European Union - often known as the EU - is an economic and political partnership involving 28 European countries (click here if you want to see the full list) .

It began after World War Two to foster economic co-operation, with the idea that countries which trade together are more likely to avoid going to war with each other. It has since grown to become a "single market" allowing goods and people to move around, basically as if the member states were one country. It has its own currency, the euro, which is used by 19 of the member countries, its own parliament and it now sets rules in a wide range of areas - including on the environment, transport, consumer rights and even things such as mobile phone charges. Click here for a beginners' guide to how the EU works. Media captionHow does the European Union work? So when will Britain actually leave it? For the UK to leave the EU it has to invoke an agreement called Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty which gives the two sides two years to agree the terms of the split. Theresa May has said she intends to trigger this process by the end of March 2017, meaning the UK will be expected to have left by the summer of 2019, depending on the precise timetable agreed during the negotiations.

Once negotiations officially begin, we will start to get a clear idea of what kind of deal the UK will seek from the EU, on trade and immigration. The government will also enact a Great Repeal Bill which will end the primacy of EU law in the UK. It is expected to incorporate all EU legislation into UK law in one lump, after which the government will decide over a period of time, which parts to keep, change or retain. What about the court challenge to the Brexit process? A court challenge to Theresa May's right to trigger the Article 50 process without getting the backing of Parliament was successful in the High Court. Downing Street has since appealed to the Supreme Court with a judgement expected in January. Downing Street says it intends to stick to its March timetable for the beginning of the two year exit talks. Even if the government's appeal fails it does not mean necessarily that there will be any delays to Brexit. It is expected that in those circumstances usual business might be cleared so a very short Act of Parliament could be brought forward to go through the Commons and Lords.

Although it is generally believed that the go-ahead would ultimately be given - because most MPs have said they would respect the EU referendum result - having to go through the full parliamentary process could prompt attempts to amend the legislation or add in caveats, such as the UK having to negotiate a deal which included staying the European single market after Brexit. Read a simple key points guide to the Supreme Court case. Who is going to negotiate Britain's exit from the EU? Image copyright Getty Images Image caption David Davis has been appointed Secretary of State for Brexit Theresa May set up a government department, headed by veteran Conservative MP and Leave campaigner David Davis, to take responsibility for Brexit. Former defence secretary, Liam Fox, who also campaigned to leave the EU, was given the new job of international trade secretary and Boris Johnson, who was a leader of the official Leave campaign, is foreign secretary. These men - dubbed the Three Brexiteers - will play a central role in negotiations with the EU and seek out new international agreements, although it will be Mrs May, as prime minister, who will have the final say. The government did not do any emergency planning for Brexit ahead of the referendum and Mrs May has rejected calls to say what her negotiating goals are.

How long will it take for Britain to leave the EU? Once Article 50 has been triggered, the UK will have two years to negotiate its withdrawal. But no one really knows how the Brexit process will work - Article 50 was only created in late 2009 and it has never been used. Former Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond, now Chancellor, wanted Britain to remain in the EU, and he has suggested it could take up to six years for the UK to complete exit negotiations. The terms of Britain's exit will have to be agreed by 27 national parliaments, a process which could take some years, he has argued. EU law still stands in the UK until it ceases being a member. The UK will continue to abide by EU treaties and laws, but not take part in any decision-making. Why will Brexit take so long? Unpicking 43 years of treaties and agreements covering thousands of different subjects was never going to be a straightforward task. It is further complicated by the fact that it has never been done before and negotiators will, to some extent, be making it up as they go along.

The post-Brexit trade deal is likely to be the most complex part of the negotiation because it needs the unanimous approval of more than 30 national and regional parliaments across Europe, some of whom may want to hold referendums. The likely focus of negotiations between the UK and EU In very simplified terms, the starting positions are that the EU will only allow the UK to be part of the European single market (which allows tariff-free trade) if it continues to allow EU nationals the unchecked right to live and work in the UK. The UK says it wants controls "on the numbers of people who come to Britain from Europe". Both sides want trade to continue after Brexit with the UK seeking a positive outcome for those who wish to trade goods and services" - such as those in the City of London. The challenge for the UK's Brexit talks will be to do enough to tackle immigration concerns while getting the best possible trade arrangements with the EU.

Some Brexiteers, such as ex-chancellor Lord Lawson, say that as the UK does not want freedom of movement and the EU says that without it there is no single market membership, the UK should end "uncertainty" by pushing ahead with Brexit and not "waste time" trying to negotiate a special deal. What do "soft" and "hard" Brexit mean? These terms are increasingly being used as debate focuses on the terms of the UK's departure from the EU. There is no strict definition of either, but they are used to refer to the closeness of the UK's relationship with the EU post-Brexit. So at one extreme, "hard" Brexit could involve the UK refusing to compromise on issues like the free movement of people in order to maintain access to the EU single market. At the other end of the scale, a "soft" Brexit might follow a similar path to Norway, which is a member of the single market and has to accept the free movement of people as a result. Ex-chancellor George Osborne and Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn are among those to have warned against pursuing a "hard" option, while some Eurosceptic Conservative MPs have put forward the opposite view. What happens to EU citizens living in the UK?

The government has declined to give a firm guarantee about the status of EU nationals currently living in the UK, saying this is not possible without a reciprocal pledge from other EU members about the millions of British nationals living on the continent. EU nationals with a right to permanent residence, which is granted after they have lived in the UK for five years, will be be able to stay, the chief civil servant at the Home Office has said. The rights of other EU nationals would be subject to negotiations on Brexit and the "will of Parliament", he added. What happens to UK citizens working in the EU? A lot depends on the kind of deal the UK agrees with the EU. If it remains within the single market, it would almost certainly retain free movement rights, allowing UK citizens to work in the EU and vice versa. If the government opted to impose work permit restrictions, then other countries could reciprocate, meaning Britons would have to apply for visas to work. What about EU nationals who want to work in the UK? Again, it depends on whether the UK government decides to introduce a work permit system of the kind that currently applies to non-EU citizens, limiting entry to skilled workers in professions where there are shortages.

Citizens' Advice has reminded people their rights have not changed yet and asked anyone to contact them if they think they have been discriminated against following the Leave vote. Brexit Secretary David Davis has suggested EU migrants who come to the UK as Brexit nears may not be given the right to stay. He has said there might have to be a cut-off point if there was a "surge" in new arrivals. What does the fall in the value of the pound mean for prices in the shops? Media captionShoppers will need to keep a close eye on how much they are spending People travelling overseas from the UK have found their pounds are buying fewer euros or dollars after the Brexit vote. The day-to-day spending impact is likely to be more significant. Even if the pound regains some of its value, currency experts expect it to remain at least 10% below where it was on 23 June, in the long term. This means imported goods will consequently get more expensive - some price rises for food, clothing and homeware goods have already been seen and the issue was most notably illustrated by the dispute between Tesco and Marmite's makers about whether prices would be put up or not in the stores.

However the current UK inflation rate is 1% so it remains to be seen how big an effect currency fluctuations have in the longer term. Will immigration be cut? Image copyright PA Prime Minister Theresa May has said one of the main messages she has taken from the Leave vote is that the British people want to see a reduction in immigration. She has said this will be a focus of Brexit negotiations. As mentioned above, the key issue is whether other EU nations will grant the UK access to the single market, if that is what it wants, while at the same time being allowed to restrict the rights of EU citizens to live and work in the UK. Mrs May has said she remains committed to getting net migration - the difference between the numbers entering and leaving the country - down to a "sustainable" level, which she defines as being below 100,000 a year. It is currently running at 330,000 a year, of which 184,000 are EU citizens, and 188,000 are from outside the EU - the figures include a 39,000 outflow of UK citizens. Could there be a second referendum? It seems highly unlikely.

Both the Conservatives and the Labour Party have ruled out another referendum, arguing that it would be an undemocratic breach of trust with the British people who clearly voted to Leave. The Liberal Democrats - who have just a handful of MPs - have vowed to halt Brexit and keep Britain in the EU if they were to win the next general election. Some commentators, including former House of Commons clerk Lord Lisvane, have argued that a further referendum would be needed to ratify whatever deal the UK hammers out with the EU, but there are few signs political leaders view this as a viable option. Will MPs get a vote on the Brexit deal? Yes. Theresa May has appeared keen to avoid a vote on her negotiating stance, to avoid having to give away her priorities, but it has seemed clear there will be a Commons vote to approve whatever deal the UK and the rest of the EU agree at the end of the two year process. It is worth mentioning that it looks like the deal also has to be agreed by the European Parliament - with British MEPs getting a chance to vote on it there. Will I need a visa to travel to the EU?

While there could be limitations on British nationals' ability to live and work in EU countries, it seems unlikely they would want to deter tourists. There are many countries outside the European Economic Area, which includes the 28 EU nations plus Iceland, Lichtenstein and Norway, that British citizens can visit for up to 90 days without needing a visa and it is possible that such arrangements could be negotiated with European countries. Image copyright Reuters Will I still be able to use my passport? Yes. It is a British document - there is no such thing as an EU passport, so your passport will stay the same. In theory, the government could, if it wanted, decide to change the colour, which is currently standardised for EU countries, says the BBC's Europe correspondent, Chris Morris. Some say we could still remain in the single market - but what is a single market? The single market is seen by its advocates as the EU's biggest achievement and one of the main reasons it was set up in the first place. Britain was a member of a free trade area in Europe before it joined what was then known as the common market.

In a free trade area countries can trade with each other without paying tariffs - but it is not a single market because the member states do not have to merge their economies together. The European Union single market, which was completed in 1992, allows the free movement of goods, services, money and people within the European Union, as if it was a single country. It is possible to set up a business or take a job anywhere within it. The idea was to boost trade, create jobs and lower prices. But it requires common law-making to ensure products are made to the same technical standards and imposes other rules to ensure a "level playing field". Critics say it generates too many petty regulations and robs members of control over their own affairs. Mass migration from poorer to richer countries has also raised questions about the free movement rule. Read more: A free trade area v EU single market Has any other member state ever left the EU? No nation state has ever left the EU. But Greenland, one of Denmark's overseas territories, held a referendum in 1982, after gaining a greater degree of self government, and voted by 52% to 48% to leave, which it duly did after a period of negotiation.

The BBC's Carolyn Quinn visited Greenland at the end of last year to find out how they did it. Image copyright Reuters Image caption Nicola Sturgeon says a new independence referendum in Scotland is likely What does this mean for Scotland? Scotland's First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said in the wake of the Leave result that it is "democratically unacceptable" that Scotland faces being taken out of the EU when it voted to Remain. A second independence referendum for the country is now "highly likely", she has said. What does it mean for Northern Ireland? Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness said the impact in Northern Ireland would be "very profound" and that the whole island of Ireland should now be able to vote on reunification. But, speaking while she was still Northern Ireland Secretary, Theresa Villiers ruled out the call from Sinn Féin for a border poll, saying the circumstances in which one would be called did not exist. How will pensions, savings, investments and mortgages be affected? During the referendum campaign, David Cameron said the so-called "triple lock" for state pensions would be threatened by a UK exit. This is the agreement by which pensions increase by at least the level of earnings, inflation or 2.5% every year - whichever is the highest.

If economic performance deteriorates, the Bank of England could decide on a further programme of quantitative easing, as an alternative to cutting interest rates, which would lower bond yields and with them annuity rates. So anyone taking out a pension annuity could get less income for their money. Though it's worth pointing out that annuity rates have been falling since before the vote anyway. The Bank of England may consider raising interest rates to combat extra pressure on inflation. That would make mortgages and loans more expensive to repay but would be good news for savers. However it is still too soon to say whether or not these warnings will prove accurate. Will duty-free sales on Europe journeys return? Image copyright Thinkstock Journalists and writers on social media have greeted the reintroduction of duty-free sales as an "upside" or "silver lining" of Brexit. As with most Brexit consequences, whether this will happen depends on how negotiations with the EU play out - whether the "customs union" agreement between Britain and the EU is ended or continued. Eurotunnel boss Jacques Gounon said last November the reintroduction of duty-free would be "an incredible boost for my business" but he later said that remark had been "light-hearted".

Erik Juul-Mortensen, president of the Tax Free World Association (TFWA) said after the referendum vote "it is not possible to predict how Brexit will affect the duty free and travel retail industry, and it is wiser not to make assumptions about exactly what the impact will be." Will EHIC cards still be valid? They are at the moment but no-one knows the longer term prospects for definite. The EHIC card - which entitles travellers to state-provided medical help for any condition or injury that requires urgent treatment, in any other country within the EU, as well as several non-EU countries - is not an EU initiative. It was negotiated between countries within a group known as the European Economic Area, often simply referred to as the single market (plus Switzerland, which confusingly is not a member of the EEA, but has agreed access to the single market). Therefore, the future of Britons' EHIC cover could depend on whether the UK decided to sever ties with the EEA. Will cars need new number plates? Probably not, says BBC Europe correspondent Chris Morris , because there's no EU-wide law on vehicle registration or car number places, and the EU flag symbol is a voluntary identifier and not compulsory.

The DVLA says there has been no discussion about what would happen to plates with the flag if the UK voted to leave. Could MPs block an EU exit? Could the necessary legislation pass the Commons, given that a lot of MPs - all SNP and Lib Dems, nearly all Labour and many Conservatives - were in favour of staying? The referendum result is not legally binding - Parliament still has to pass the laws that will get Britain out of the 28 nation bloc, starting with the repeal of the 1972 European Communities Act. The withdrawal agreement also has to be ratified by Parliament - the House of Lords and/or the Commons could vote against ratification, according to a House of Commons library report. In practice, Conservative MPs who voted to remain in the EU would be whipped to vote with the government. Any who defied the whip would have to face the wrath of voters at the next general election. One scenario that could see the referendum result overturned, is if MPs forced a general election and a party campaigned on a promise to keep Britain in the EU, got elected and then claimed that the election mandate topped the referendum one. Two-thirds of MPs would have to vote for a general election to be held before the next scheduled one in 2020.

Will leaving the EU mean we don't have to abide by the European Court of Human Rights? The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg is not a European Union institution. It was set up by the Council of Europe, which has 47 members including Russia and Ukraine. So quitting the EU will not exempt the UK from its decisions. However, the UK government is committed to repealing the Human Rights Act which requires UK courts to treat the ECHR as setting legal precedents for the UK, in favour of a British Bill of Rights. As part of that, the UK government is expected to announce measures that will boost the powers of courts in England and Wales to over-rule judgements handed down by the ECHR. However, the EU has its own European Court of Justice, whose decisions are binding on EU institutions and member states. Its rulings have sometimes caused controversy in Britain and supporters of a Brexit have called for immediate legislation to curb its powers. Will the UK be able to rejoin the EU in the future? BBC Europe editor Katya Adler says the UK would have to start from scratch with no rebate, and enter accession talks with the EU. Every member state would have to agree to the UK re-joining.

But she says with elections looming elsewhere in Europe, other leaders might not be generous towards any UK demands. New members are required to adopt the euro as their currency, once they meet the relevant criteria, although the UK could try to negotiate an opt-out. Who wanted the UK to leave the EU? The UK Independence Party, which received nearly four million votes - 13% of those cast - in May's general election, has campaigned for many years for Britain's exit from the EU. They were joined in their call during the referendum campaign by about half the Conservative Party's MPs, including Boris Johnson and five members of the then Cabinet. A handful of Labour MPs and Northern Ireland party the DUP were also in favour of leaving. What were their reasons for wanting the UK to leave? They said Britain was being held back by the EU, which they said imposed too many rules on business and charged billions of pounds a year in membership fees for little in return. They also cited sovereignty and democracy, and they wanted Britain to take back full control of its borders and reduce the number of people coming here to live and/or work.

One of the main principles of EU membership is "free movement", which means you don't need to get a visa to go and live in another EU country. The Leave campaign also objected to the idea of "ever closer union" between EU member states and what they see as moves towards the creation of a "United States of Europe". Who wanted the UK to stay in the EU? Then Prime Minister David Cameron was the leading voice in the Remain campaign, after reaching an agreement with other European Union leaders that would have changed the terms of Britain's membership had the country voted to stay in. He said the deal would give Britain "special" status and help sort out some of the things British people said they didn't like about the EU, like high levels of immigration - but critics said the deal would make little difference. Sixteen members of Mr Cameron's Cabinet, including the woman who would replace him as PM, Theresa May, also backed staying in. The Conservative Party was split on the issue and officially remained neutral in the campaign. The Labour Party, Scottish National Party, Plaid Cymru, the Green Party and the Liberal Democrats were all in favour of staying in.

US president Barack Obama also wanted Britain to remain in the EU, as did other EU nations such as France and Germany. What were their reasons for wanting the UK to stay? Those campaigning for Britain to stay in the EU said it gets a big boost from membership - it makes selling things to other EU countries easier and, they argued, the flow of immigrants, most of whom are young and keen to work, fuels economic growth and helps pay for public services. They also said Britain's status in the world would be damaged by leaving and that we are more secure as part of the 28 nation club, rather than going it alone. What about businesses? Big business - with a few exceptions - tended to be in favour of Britain staying in the EU because it makes it easier for them to move money, people and products around the world. Given the crucial role of London as a financial centre, there's interest in how many jobs may be lost to other hubs in the EU. Four of the biggest US banks have committed to helping maintain the City's position. But HSBC will move up to 1,000 jobs to Paris, the BBC understands. Some UK exporters say they've had increased orders or enquiries because of the fall in the value of the pound.

Pest control firm Rentokil Initial says it could make £15m extra this year thanks to a weaker currency. Others are less optimistic. Hilary Jones, a director at UK cosmetics firm Lush said the company was "terrified" about the economic impact. She added that while the firm's Dorset factory would continue to produce goods for the UK market, products for the European market may be made at its new plant in Germany. Image copyright Reuters Image caption Boris Johnson was one of the most prominent Leave campaigners Who led the rival sides in the campaign? Britain Stronger in Europe - the main cross-party group campaigning for Britain to remain in the EU was headed by former Marks and Spencer chairman Lord Rose. It was backed by key figures from the Conservative Party, including Prime Minister David Cameron and Chancellor George Osborne, most Labour MPs, including party leader Jeremy Corbyn and Alan Johnson, who ran the Labour In for Britain campaign, the Lib Dems, Plaid Cymru, the Alliance party and the SDLP in Northern Ireland, and the Green Party. Who funded the campaign: Britain Stronger in Europe raised £6.88m, boosted by two donations totalling £2.3m from the supermarket magnate and Labour peer Lord Sainsbury.

Other prominent Remain donors included hedge fund manager David Harding (£750,000), businessman and Travelex founder Lloyd Dorfman (£500,000) and the Tower Limited Partnership (£500,000). Read a Who's Who guide. Who else campaigned to remain: The SNP ran its own remain campaign in Scotland as it did not want to share a platform with the Conservatives. Several smaller groups also registered to campaign. Vote Leave - A cross-party campaign that has the backing of senior Conservatives such as Michael Gove and Boris Johnson plus a handful of Labour MPs, including Gisela Stuart and Graham Stringer, and UKIP's Douglas Carswell and Suzanne Evans, and the DUP in Northern Ireland. Former Tory chancellor Lord Lawson and SDP founder Lord Owen were also involved. It had a string of affiliated groups such as Farmers for Britain, Muslims for Britain and Out and Proud, a gay anti-EU group, aimed at building support in different communities. Who funded the campaign: Vote Leave raised £2.78m. Its largest supporter was businessman Patrick Barbour, who gave £500,000.

Former Conservative Party treasurer Peter Cruddas gave a £350,000 donation and construction mogul Terence Adams handed over £300,000. Read a Who's Who guide . Who else campaigned to leave: UKIP leader Nigel Farage is not part of Vote Leave. His party ran its own campaign. The Trade Union and Socialist Coalition is also running its own out campaign. Several smaller groups also registered to campaign. Will the EU still use English? Yes, says BBC Europe editor Katya Adler. There will still be 27 other EU states in the bloc, and others wanting to join in the future, and the common language tends to be English - "much to France's chagrin", she says. Will a Brexit harm product safety? Probably not, is the answer. It would depend on whether or not the UK decided to get rid of current safety standards. Even if that happened any company wanting to export to the EU would have to comply with its safety rules, and it's hard to imagine a company would want to produce two batches of the same products. Thanks for sending in your questions. Here are a selection of them, and our answers: Which MPs were for staying and which for leaving?

The good news for Edward, from Cambridge, who asked this question, is we have been working on exactly such a list. Click here for the latest version . How much does the UK contribute to the EU and how much do we get in return? In answer to this query from Nancy from Hornchurch - the UK is one of 10 member states who pay more into the EU budget than they get out, only France and Germany contribute more. In 2014/15, Poland was the largest beneficiary, followed by Hungary and Greece. Image copyright Thinkstock Image caption The UK is one of 10 member states who pay more into the EU budget than they get out The UK also gets an annual rebate that was negotiated by Margaret Thatcher and money back, in the form of regional development grants and payments to farmers, which added up to £4.6bn in 2014/15. According to the latest Treasury figures, the UK's net contribution for 2014/15 was £8.8bn - nearly double what it was in 2009/10.

The National Audit Office, using a different formula which takes into account EU money paid directly to private sector companies and universities to fund research, and measured over the EU's financial year, shows the UK's net contribution for 2014 was £5.7bn. Read more number crunching from Reality Check. If I retire to Spain or another EU country will my healthcare costs still be covered? David, from East Sussex, is worried about what will happen to his retirement plans. This is one of those issues where it is not possible to say definitively what would happen. At the moment, the large British expat community in Spain gets free access to Spanish GPs and their hospital treatment is paid for by the NHS. After they become permanent residents Spain pays for their hospital treatment. Similar arrangements are in place with other EU countries. If Britain remains in the single market, or the European Economic Area as it is known, it might be able to continue with this arrangement, according to a House of Commons library research note .

If Britain has to negotiate trade deals with individual member states, it may opt to continue paying for expats' healthcare through the NHS or decide that they would have to cover their own costs if they continue to live abroad, if the country where they live declines to do so. What will happen to protected species? Dee, from Launceston, wanted to know what would happen to EU laws covering protected species such as bats in the event of Britain leaving the EU. The answer is that they would remain in place, initially at least. After the Leave vote, the government will probably review all EU-derived laws in the two years leading up to the official exit date to see which ones to keep or scrap. The status of Special Areas of Conservation and Special Protection Areas, which are designated by the EU, would be reviewed to see what alternative protections could be applied. The same process would apply to European Protected Species legislation, which relate to bats and their habitats. The government would want to avoid a legislative vacuum caused by the repeal of EU laws before new UK laws are in place - it would also continue to abide by other international agreements covering environmental protection. How much money will the UK save through changes to migrant child benefits and welfare payments?

Martin, from Poole, in Dorset, wanted to know what taxpayers would have got back from the benefit curbs negotiated by David Cameron in Brussels. We don't exactly know because the details were never worked out. HM Revenue and Customs suggested about 20,000 EU nationals receive child benefit payments in respect of 34,000 children in their country of origin at an estimated cost of about £30m. But the total saving would have been significantly less than that because Mr Cameron did not get the blanket ban he wanted. Instead, payments would have been linked to the cost of living in the countries where the children live. David Cameron said as many as 40% of EU migrant families who come to Britain could lose an average of £6,000 a year of in-work benefits when his "emergency brake" was applied. The DWP estimated between 128,700 and 155,100 people would be affected. But the cuts would have been phased in. New arrivals would not have got tax credits and other in-work benefits straight away but would have gradually gained access to them over a four year period at a rate that had not been decided.

The plan will never be implemented now. Will we be barred from the Eurovision Song Contest? Image copyright AP Image caption To participate in the Eurovision Song Contest countries need to be a member of the European Broadcasting Union, which is independent of the EU Sophie from Peterborough, who asks the question, need not worry. We have consulted Alasdair Rendall, president of the UK Eurovision fan club, who says: "All participating countries must be a member of the European Broadcasting Union. The EBU - which is totally independent of the EU - includes countries both inside and outside of the EU, and also includes countries such as Israel that are outside of Europe. Indeed the UK started participating in the Eurovision Song Contest in 1957, 16 years before joining the then EEC." Has Brexit made house prices fall? Image copyright PA As with most elements of the UK economy, not enough solid data has been published yet to accurately conclude the Brexit effect on house prices. Industry figures have pointed to "uncertainty" among buyers and sellers that could potentially change the housing market. So far, the most significant research has come from the respected Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors , which has published the conclusions of a survey of its members.

This primarily records sentiment among surveyors. It found that house prices are expected to fall across the UK in the three months after the referendum vote. However, the dip in prices is only expected to persist over the 12 months from June in London and East Anglia, surveyors predict. House prices were already slowing in central London, owing to the fall-out from changes to stamp duty rules in April. Separate figures from property portal Rightmove suggested the average asking price of houses coming on to the market in England and Wales fell by 0.9%, or £2,647, in July compared with June. It said that agents had reported very few sales had fallen through as a result of the vote. Many potential first-time buyers would welcome a fall in house prices, with ownership among the young falling owing to affordability concerns. Investors in property, or those who have paid off a mortgage and hope to leave homes as inheritance would be unhappy with a long-term reduction in value. What is the 'red tape' that opponents of the EU complain about? Ged, from Liverpool, suspects "red tape" is a euphemism for employment rights and environmental protection.

According to the Open Europe think tank , four of the top five most costly EU regulations are either employment or environment-related. The UK renewable energy strategy, which the think-tank says costs £4.7bn a year, tops the list. The working time directive (£4.2bn a year) - which limits the working week to 48 hours - and the temporary agency workers directive (£2.1bn a year), giving temporary staff many of the same rights as permanent ones - are also on the list. There is nothing to stop a future UK government reproducing these regulations in British law following the decision to leave the EU. And the costs of so-called "red tape" will not necessarily disappear overnight - if Britain opted to follow the "Norway model" and remained in the European Economic Area most of the EU-derived laws would remain in place. Will Britain be party to the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership? Ste, in Bolton, asked about this. The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership - or TTIP - currently under negotiation between the EU and United States will create the biggest free trade area the world has ever seen.

Cheerleaders for TTIP, including former PM David Cameron, believe it could make American imports cheaper and boost British exports to the US to the tune of £10bn a year. But many on the left, including Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, fear it will shift more power to multinational corporations, undermine public services, wreck food standards and threaten basic rights. Quitting the EU means the UK will not be part of TTIP. It will have negotiate its own trade deal with the US. What impact will leaving the EU have on the NHS? Paddy, from Widnes, wanted to know how leaving the EU will affect the number of doctors we have and impact the NHS. This became an issue in the referendum debate after the Leave campaign claimed the money Britain sends to the EU, which it claims is £350m a week, could be spent on the NHS instead. The BBC's Reality Check team looked into this claim. Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt warned that leaving the EU would lead to budget cuts and an exodus of overseas doctors and nurses. The Leave campaign dismissed his intervention as "scaremongering" and insisted that EU membership fees could be spent on domestic services like the NHS.

Former Labour health secretary Lord Owen has said that because of TTIP (see answer above) the only way to protect the NHS from further privatisation was to get out of the EU.

Question: To date, no full member of the E.U. has ever left, but which autonomous country within the union voted to leave in 1982, leaving in 1985?
Answer: Greenland