I will remind you what my position on Brexit was, and is. I haven't "lost" anything, nor will I personally.

We will ALL lose as a result.

My responses on the use of the term "elite" were directed to the examples given and not to any wider context. Expanding the context simply as a way to try to make cheap jibes appears very juvenile to me. Just the kind of thing that might be expected of a playground bully.

The way "elite" is being used today reminds me of the way the term "gay" has changed in my lifetime. When I was a kid it meant carefree and happy. Today it means something completely different.

"Elite" has always meant being the top strata of a group. The SAS being a group of elite soldiers. Thus a wholly positive term.

Today it is used, by some anyway, as a negative term to indicate a kind of shadowy class who conspire together to organise society for their own benefit, mainly through globalisation.

This to me is just further confirmation of how widespread the belief of conspiracy theories has become.

There have always been the wealthy, and the super wealthy, who are able to exercise more influence than the average person. Do they conspire? Perhaps, but that's why we have a democracy to make laws that limit their opportunities.

The only people that really worry me are those who can influence opinions. They aren't "elite" at all. They are the press barons and our foreign adversaries meddling on social media. That's where we are under attack and where we should be focussing. It's them who are raising the spectre of the "elites" to lay false trails for us to follow. We need to wise up.

Thank goodness for the beacon of light that remains our most steadfast protection from all of this. Which is, of course, the BBC.

I will remind you what my position on Brexit was, and is. I haven't "lost" anything, nor will I personally.

We will ALL lose as a result.

My responses on the use of the term "elite" were directed to the examples given and not to any wider context. Expanding the context simply as a way to try to make cheap jibes appears very juvenile to me. Just the kind of thing that might be expected of a playground bully.

The way "elite" is being used today reminds me of the way the term "gay" has changed in my lifetime. When I was a kid it meant carefree and happy. Today it means something completely different.

"Elite" has always meant being the top strata of a group. The SAS being a group of elite soldiers. Thus a wholly positive term.

Today it is used, by some anyway, as a negative term to indicate a kind of shadowy class who conspire together to organise society for their own benefit, mainly through globalisation.

This to me is just further confirmation of how widespread the belief of conspiracy theories has become.

There have always been the wealthy, and the super wealthy, who are able to exercise more influence than the average person. Do they conspire? Perhaps, but that's why we have a democracy to make laws that limit their opportunities.

The only people that really worry me are those who can influence opinions. They aren't "elite" at all. They are the press barons and our foreign adversaries meddling on social media. That's where we are under attack and where we should be focussing. It's them who are raising the spectre of the "elites" to lay false trails for us to follow. We need to wise up.

Thank goodness for the beacon of light that remains our most steadfast protection from all of this. Which is, of course, the BBC.

Maybe you haven't noticed it yet but we have lost, and are continuing to lose, skilled people. Try booking a dental appointment! We have lost the confidence of others in us and our vision of our place in the world.

Unless and until a new trade deal kicks in we won't know if we have lost access to security arrangements and the ready exchange of information, yet alone tariff free access to our largest market. So we have already lost certainty.

No laws were ever made by others. Either we participated in their writing or we enacted our own. The EU is a collaboration and not a dictatorship. Those that claim otherwise are simply scaremongering.

Our immigration has always been controlled, except for illegal immigration which isn't going to be impacted just because we have left the EU. Indeed that could easily get much worse if France withdraw their co-operation as they are very likely to.

There was no prospect whatsoever of us adopting the Euro. Scaremongering again.

Nor were we ever a "lap dog" to the EU. We are equal partners with others. However there is every prospect of us becoming a vassal state to the USA if things go as I anticipate they will. No trace of equality in that relationship.

Scaremongers and then complains about scaremongering.

Cyclops was less one eyed than this.

British ministers would often make bill proposals only for the civil service to tell them that legally it was impossible due to the supremacy of EU law in the UK.

That's absolutely and definitively unacceptable.

The fight for rational immigration laws which protects the primacy of the British in their own lands continues.....internationalists are responsible for disfigurements like Savile Town and the increase in crime levels over the decades since mass immigration.....we see certain sections of London currently enduring knife murders like it's a fad.

Leaving the EU was only the start.

It certainly needed amending.

Scaremongering about future EU intentions was the hallmark of the leave campaign as any objective analysis shows.

Pointing out what the response so far to us intending to leave has been and adding what many experts, with more knowledge than anyone on here have, have forecasted isn't scaremongering at all. It is being truthful and objective.

The primacy of EU law is restricted solely to the matters covered by the Treaty of Rome and is always subject to interpretation by the UK courts. The principle, as I understand it, is that UK law must be compatible with EU law in these areas. I fail to see what is the problem with this. Harmonising legal approaches between co-operating friendly states makes perfect sense to me and it's just more scaremongering to suggest there are any significant issues.

To associate immigration with crime and then believe that leaving the EU is going to make any difference is nonsensical.

Immigration from the third world is likely to increase as a consequence of us leaving. We will doubtless have more folk arriving from the Indian sub continent and less from eastern Europe. Polish people are mostly Christians. People from pakistan and Bangladesh mostly Muslims.

Once we are out why would France help stem the flow of illegals? They will want them off their hands asap. What will we do if we intercept boats mid channel? I can imagine thousands of north african and middle eastern migrants crossing the mediterranean, arriving in Greece or Italy and then being rapidly shunted across Europe and helped on their way to us.

We need immigrants and, in my opinion, leaving the EU is likely to decrease our control over who comes rather than improve it. Time alone will tell if I am right. Sure a points based system helps get the skills we need, but we already have an effective one in place, but this doesn't impact the illegals anyway.