You're not going to be able to negotiate a better trade deal with Europe after leaving as preferential trade terms is precisely the thing that membership of the EU brings, and you're not going to have a better bargaining position with non EU countries because at best nothing has changed for them, though we could be much worse off as Blighty will no longer have the collective bargaining position that we get by virtue of EU membersip. We will however be free to import bendy bananas, liberated as we will soon be from the un-bending tyrany of EU regulation, so happy days.

So far the 'Out-ists' seem to struggle to come up with a sensible reason(s) for exit, other than seemingly saying, 'cause we want to'. Mine is irrational in that I simply don't like the way the EU is run and I think it needs a kick up the democracy buum.

Umm, in that case we ought to campaign for a referendum to leave Newbury Town Council

Well the model we have here with which to compare with the UK and the EU is NTC being cobblers and WBC being even bigger cobblers.

I'd quite like to live in a democracy again. Oh, and a border, with search lights and guards armed with laser guided nuclear bullets n barbed wire. Well, maybe not the searchlights, or the bullets, but you get the broad idea I'm sure. Bendy bananas and curly cucumbers would be a nice side benefit though! oh can can we get the Daily Mail in broadsheet as well? Classy!

The problem with democracy is scale. Moreover, democracy means your vote and influence declines as the pool of voters increase. The EU is less democratic for UK citizens, but is more democratic for the EU as a whole. Except of course, there is weighted power to the benefit of places like Germany.

I still take Blackdogs point that do I really want to see years of the Monster Raving Tories doing things their way for years on end, or would it be better to concede some power for a more inclusive EU governance.

Don't worry, soon be living in Corbynagrad.

One of the first things we'd have to do is negotiate various things with our EU neighbours.

Of course they'd be in no rush to do this, the UK probably more so, which puts us at a bit of a disadvantage.

I think you've described exactly how the Indian people felt when we offered them government - 'we' still had control. What we really have on offer, isn't yes or no to Europe. It's actually vote for a half membership of Europe or out. The other irrational want the Tory in's seem to have is still wanting Scotland to stay in the United Kingdom. If Europe takes no notice of us now it sure won't if we vote for half measures.

I doubt it; unless the Tories F-up.

carefull using your phone outside the EU: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03kl0xn

One question I would like answered is that of immigration. We are in economic terms doing better than our fellow EU states creating new jobs (there are more jobs in the UK than ever before) - and will need continued high immigration to maintain our relative economic success. Without the immigration our economy will slow.

Of course this may well the the case because of our exit from the EU - ie Brexit in itself will solve the immigration 'problem' because it will push our economy into recession and the jobs won't be there for the immigrants. However, this is not the picture the Out campaign paints - they claim that the UK economy will boom once the fetters of EU bureaucracy are broken. How can it boom without importing workers??

I simply cannot see how our exit will make any real difference to immigration except though recession - which I have to say I am not too keen on.

So you are saying that uncontrolled immigration is good for the UK and should continue?
Does this take into account our overcrowded roads, railways, schools, hospitals, doctor's surgeries and the housing shortage?

If we look at immigration at its widest, there are some very interesting considerations - worthy of note, in or out of Europe, but as a people on these islands.

I'd argue, right now, our biggest issue is actually emigration; virtual and actual, in respect of those doing 'top end' jobs. In other words, the clever stuff, the head office roles, writing computer code, coming up with the next generation of things we need. Equally, there is a large population that have chosen to take their pensions and capital and spend it where it's hot and sunny. Their choice of course, but its still a loss to our economy. In both cases, its damaging the foundation for future or continued success as a nation state.

Then, there is immigration. It we are really honest, most immigrants don't actually want benefits. Sure, a bit of help to start, but not a life on benefits. They want work, and that's what our residual industry and service sector firms give them. However, its the 'work' we British won't or don't want to do; hence the very real problem we have trying to get people off a life time of benefits. If we didn't have these jobs, we wouldn't be such a magnet, so there are some real attitude changes needed from us.

It's an interesting twist, but asking to stop immigration is also saying get far more off benefits and working. And sorry, its only the low grade jobs we have, remember we've lost the high grade ones.

In fact, it's this latter point that seriously worries me about a no vote; which right now is my preference. I'm not actually convinced that we have the skills or abilities necessary to make it on our own anymore. Once this generation has spent our national inheritance, there's nothing more.

I believe both your premise and you argument are flawed. We're spun this line about growth without challenge but it's nothing but a Ponsi scheme. We don't need growth, we need stability and sustainability. And the notion that immigration satisfies an escalating need for manpower is wrong because immigrants (or more properly ecconomic migrants) are also consumers.

Yes, there are many more jobs in the UK. That, as the Chancellor is beginning to discover is not necessarily a good thing; hence the unbelievable Tory twittering about wage growth not keeping up. Another illustration, our car and motorcycle industry employed hundreds of people and as their production rose, employed even more - all the investment went to Japan, where car for car they started to employ far less.

We need to understand that commerce shouldn't be a horse race, rather a marathon - it took more than one shirt shop to make Jermyn Street!

The whole capitalist economic scheme is a Ponsi scheme, but it's the one we currently live by.

Growth (increased GDP) can come about in two ways - the easy one being more people working - reliant on increased population. The difficult one is increased efficiency - people working smarter to improve their individual outputs - this was easier in the past, and we will continue along the path, but it's getting more and more difficult - for instance we no longer have as many millions of manufacturing jobs that can be replaced by machines or far Eastern sweat shop workers.

In reality we are using the simple solution to keep us out of recession - while this is the case we need immigrant workers.

As for immigrants also being consumers - whoopee! More consumers = more growth too.

But, by all means come up with an alternative to capitalism and sell it to the world, the world needs it (and a lot more birth control).

Not much hope then have we, Blackdog! What a dismal future our children face; especially now we aren't allowed the Empire.

Is there any real reason why the Duke of Westminster should own most of the Country?

A ponsi scheme is hardly a sound basis for a sustainable ecconomy, and while your ecconomic migrants increase GDP with the consumption and production that's not creating per-capita growth which is what your ecconomic model requires, so both the basis of your argument and its reasoning are flawed - and no, it's not my job to fix it, I'm an impartial observer here and undecided either way whether in or out is best, I just want to see someone put together a solid argument either way that isn't founded on prejudice, nostalgia, or fallacy, and I'm yet to hear that, and that's pretty poor when so much is likely to ride on the decision.

Swindon is a great example of what's wrong. They are celebrating 175 years since the iconic but defunct railway works opened.

We still need trains and will go on needing them. So we are investing millions in upgrades and replacements. However, where are these shiny new hi tech. trains designed and built? Why overseas of course!

Some say the works closed because of inefficiency and trades unions. Or in other words incompetent direction and management. Or then again, because we know the site was redeveloped and the scrap metals sold, some took a huge wadge; avarice of bankers.

I'm sure the railway museum had a shop where a few immigrants are needed on base pay to dosh out tea and wads to the old boys wandering round; but it's not the same!

It's not condoms we need, more a cure for avarice.