Have we been mis-sold a Brexit ? Should politicians be held to account ?

And were George Osborne's alarmist statements soundly based? (To speak of only one culprit.)

Another point I don't understand: If we are a net contributor now, why do Remainers say that being out is a financial disaster.

These weren't my reasons for voting Leave, by the way, for they refer to areas that I don't understand. However I did have reasons for my vote.

Hello Keith

Certain statements are relatively easily verifiable - for example, the net contribution the UK makes to the EU budget is relatively easy to ascertain - whereas projections are less easy to substantiate - George Osborne's comments for example. The figures on the UK's net contribution to the EU is around £133 million not the £350 million cited by Leave. That is a simple fact. This equates to around 30p per day for each of us in the UK. That can be verified by looking the figures from the Office of National Statisics. George Osborne's projections had some reasonable calculations to underpin them, but presenting these as more than estimates was not helpful to anyone. The UK pays far less than the vast majority of comparable EU members. However, the issue in play is that even if the UK triggers Article 50 we will still have to pay to be able to trade: it is not a zero game. Key point. The UK has to be able to trade with the EU on favourable terms to survive - that is a simple fact. We depend on the EU - 50% plus of our exports go to the EU whereas only 17% of the trade goes in the other direction That by definition means it is a delusional to believe the UK has a strong hand: it would be nice to think we have but the terms of trade mean we simply do not. To access the market that we all in some way or the other depend on, we have to pay to play - simple fact.

So, Leave's argument that we will save lots of money if we leave the EU cannot be correct. Just look at the figures for what Norway has to pay to trade - it will make you realise that we actually have a very good deal. Norway also has to accept free movement of labour and abide by around 70% of EU directives. Their contribution rates is also set to rise substantially. To cap it all, Norway has to belong to the Schengen zone, the UK does not. Norway are excluded from talks - they simply have to accept what they are given - simple fact. If Article 50 is triggered the UK will be in the same place as Norway, or worse, as the EU will now need to show the other states that you cannot expect to me a member of the EU club and not abide by the same rules because you think you are different or better.

The moral of this sorry story is that if you opt-out of something you need to have a better place to go to. As I believe Lord Sugar said, or words to that effect, you don't get a better deal by throwing you toys out of your pram and leaving the boardroom ( like a sulky adolescent ). The reality is that we should be staying in the EU club to carry on fighting our corner and get back in the ring when we've taken a fews hits to the chin. That's what grown-ups have to do and that is what wins respect around the boardroom table.

First of all thank you for taking so much trouble with your reply. You are undoubtedly better informed on economics and political matters than I. So are a number of Leavers whose views make sense to me.

Secondly some general comments:- I'm not too impressed when emotive language is employed (needed?) to bolster arguments. Your very username 'Informed', 'Democrat' flags up in my mind P. G. Wodehouse's warning "If a man comes into your house and talks about how honest he is, then it's time to count your spoons". I might be misquoting and misattributing here. So far Google only reveals "The louder he talked of his honour, the faster we counted our spoons" from Ralph Waldo Emerson, so Wodehouse probably got it from him.

By the way, is the EU democratic in the way it is managed?

Without any wish to be rude, I will point out some examples of emotive language: "it is a delusional to believe", "like a sulky adolescent", "what grown-ups have to do". For the reason given above this sets up a resistance to accepting your other, more germane points.

Note that I didn't quote a figure for our net contribution to the EU or compare it with others'. It does seem agreed that the figure is positive, which suggests that the balance of advantage is arguable. We might lose something in our trade terms with Europe but won't it be easier to trade with the rapidly developing economies elsewhere? I don't know.

Long enough but I'll finish by saying that I love Europe, sus paises, ses langues, seine Kulturen. I cannot like the EU - it is bureaucratic, control-freak, one size fits all and undemocratic. It is a once good ideal gone hopelessly wrong. There is some sign that its countries (which I like) are in a mood to reform it, but little sign that its rulers (whom I didn't elect) will or even that they'll see the need.

Keith