Well, Me Red, 'change costs money'? The first example that came to my mind was the building of canals. That was a change, and it cost loads of money, but before too much time it sparked the industrial revolution and lots of people got very rich. The country, as a whole, definitely benefited.

My expectation is that Brexit will enable the UK to react to, and exploit, world changes, and opportunities, more quickly than it could do as part of the EU. In the long run we will all get richer.

The negotiations conference yesterday was a revelation. People against Brexit say the UK has more to loose than the EU. In terms of trade, if we move to World Trade rules, the EU has more to loose than the UK. They sell more to us than we do to them. Then there is the matter of £11 billion a year that the UK contributes to the EU as a member. The EU will lose a lot of UK cash when we leave.

Why do you think the EU wants to take the UK's money contribution out of the negotiations before they discus trade? Because if they don't their weak position is even weaker.

The EU, by it's very nature, is inflexible. 27, soon to be 26, have to say 'yes'. to get anything done. It is one, amongst many, of the reasons I voted to leave. Had the EU been more flexible David Cameron would have gotten some real reforms before the referendum. They weren't, he didn't and we voted leave. Now the EU insists that we give them a load of money before we discuss a trade deal. I hope that David Davies continues to say no. Who in their right mind would agree to buy something without knowing what they were buying?