How? The idea was we send the money we give to the EU to something else. E.g. The NHS.
At the moment we are still giving money to the EU.
Until that stops, we can't give that money to anything else.
Of which the NHS might be a recipient.
Great.
Now lets take TTIP as an example. The EU was signing up a deal with the US and one thing that TTIP would allow was for businesses to sue government's.
So UK government imposes "a sugar tax" for health reasons.
Coca-Cola loses money.
Coca-Cola sues UK government for lost revenue.
UK government pays up or goes back on "sugar tax."
This was what the EU was doing and all came out thanks to whistle blowers.
This is why I want an accountable government I can vote out and not membership of the EU that wants "ever closer union" and continually takes more of our power as the electorate away.
TTIP: big business ‘could sue governments over tax on profits’ | Public Finance
Ah, so just completely missing the point then 
Ok, there's your favourite 'could' word..
Have you seen this document on the UK Government site relating to ISDS?
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/311247/bis-14-695-investor-state-dispute-settlement-faqs.pdf
"No ISDS challenge has ever succeeded against the UK. Despite the large number of treaties in force with ISDS clauses, there have been only two ISDS challenges brought against us."(94 treaties since 1975 so it's clearly not a new policy?)
Also, that scaremongering article you've linked to is focusing on the US/EU negotiations with the US demanding these.Do you really think that the US wouldn't demand the same treaty's when they come to negotiate our amazing future global trade agreements if they're so beneficial to their large businesses?
Not sure it misses the point, just addressing a specific 'benefit' of leaving the EU that was raised by another poster, now that any possible economic improvements have been brushed aside.
His point being that if is only our government making the rules, they are completely accountable to us, the electorate.Presently no matter how awful an EU ruling was, changing our government would not affect said EU rulings.
Yep. Thankfully whistle blowers revealed it and there was an outcry making it dead in the water.
EU as usual loving big business, and not accountable to people. Scary stuff.
Now you just need to make the final jump. Do you think our directly accountable government would be able to sign up to such a deal?
See the difference?
The US could swing it with the EU. They know they wouldn't be able to run something so dodgy with us.
I'd say your "possible" cancels out his "could" //static.avforums.com/styles/avf/smilies/clap.gif
Should it? Or would it? I'll get my coat 
I've got to say that's quite the assumption.I applaud your optimism, but how often does the Government really consider the wider implications to 'the people' over making deals?
If the rules have been in place since at least 1975 and the UK has never lost a challenge out of two that have been brought against us in the last 43 years, across the 94 treaties that have been signed and include it, is it really something that should be leveled at the 'dodgy' EU?I'm not saying there aren't other possible benefits to leaving the EU but I really don't see how this is one to get so worked up over?
Lol, touche although the, "any possible improvements in the economy" statement was referring to actual Leave voters who are now coming round to the fact that the country won't be better off out of the EU (not me) 
No idea what an accountable government is you vote for a party and they pass laws for 5 years that's it. Unless your a die hard political analyst