Martyn Sadler

You've made some serious points and made them well. But ultimately the decision wasn't based on the economics of staying or leaving, because as you suggest the arguments are complex, and there's a strong case to be made for saying that the free trade aspects of the EU are a good reason for retaining membership. Certainly that's what I thought in 1975 when I voted to remain in the (then) Common Market. But since Maastricht the EU has begun to evolve into a Super State, with all the characteristics of being a distinct state and Merkel and Macron now, for example, saying that the EU needs its own defence force. In the long term I just don't think that is viable and I think the history of Europe shows that it isn't. Trying to tie the distinct nations of Europe into larger state entities ultimately leads to breakdown, as we saw in the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia. Brexit is just one early indicator of that trend but there are others on the continent and beyond Europe. So my reason for voting Brexit is that I don't believe in the EU. I could be wrong and I hope I am, but I'd rather be on the outside looking in, than on the inside trying to get out if things go as I expect.

In that case I would be very happy to see you demolish those 40 points one by one.

You are an eternal optimist!

There still seems to be a substantial amount of local news on the BBC website. But do you think the BBC website should be funded by the TV licence, which was created long before the Internet and therefore was never intended to be used for this purpose?

That's a great relief! It would be totally unfair to expect Mandelson and Kinnock, or any other current or former EU employees, to pay tax in this country on their EU earnings or pensions. I'd spent quite a lot of time worrying about them having to pay their share of tax, and I'm glad to see my fears were unfounded. The Spectator article is certainly worth reading.

If you believe that, you'll believe anything. Acosta is a polemicist. He doesn't ask tough questions, he asks questions to promote his own ego, and if CNN want to keep him they should give him his own show to rant and rave to his heart's content against Trump. But having him in the White House Press Corps would have been like Fox News employing Sean Hannity as its White House correspondent in the Obama years. If there is one thing you should have learned over the last few years, it should be not to dismiss Trump's ability to win a Presidential election.

So poor old Acosta can't now claim to be a martyr. Interesting to see whether he continues to be a complete pain in the ass in future White House press conferences. And if retaining the Senate is a disaster, I suspect Trump won't lose too much sleep over it. Meanwhile the Democrats in the House will spend most of their energy trying to nail the President, as people like Adam Schiff appear to suggest they will. If they do, I'm not sure it will go down too well with American voters.

It would be interesting to see the geographical and age distribution of that particular constituency.

I think I'm right in saying that Hillary Clinton won the vote in Orange County in 2016 and the trend since the 1990s in that part of California has been in favour of the Democrats, so the dam was likely to break at some point. There's no doubt that the Democrats are now the party of affluent America, whether on the east or west coast. Those voters will tend to consume liberal news media and will absorb liberal cultural and behavioural values with a tremendous amount of peer pressure, for example in universities and other liberal institutions. So it's hardly surprising they cast their votes along with the herd. When you refer to those people being "well-educated", I think you'll find that most college graduates, far from being encouraged to question what they are taught, are actually dissuaded from questioning the prevailing conventional wisdom.

Given the changes in demography in California I think that is probably the least amazing amazing fact I've seen for some time.

To win an election you only have to be more popular than your opponent in the key battleground states. Current polling questions may give interesting insights but they don't determine the outcome of the next election.

Are there any generals or officers at the highest level who report to and owe their loyalty to Mr Juncker and the European Commission primarily, rather than their own national government?

I suppose the word you're looking for is 'Deplorables'.

I'm sure Macron would appreciate the joke. But on this website we seem to be deficient in humour.