Not a European, but I'm hoping for an exit. The EU is trying to control every aspect of governing to any country it touches. The EU was only suppose to a be a trade-zone, not a way to shove their policy down everyones throat. Trying to control immigration, provide a failed currency that is bankrupting states such as Italy, Greece, and Spain, and just proving to be an epic failure. In fact, the only continent with lower growth than the EU states is Antartica... Hoping they vote out. 

In, I'd rather deal with what the EU put in front of us than have our circus of a Government, our politicians must be the most comical group the world has ever seen. I'm nowhere near convinced by what the leave campaign are pushing and tbh it reminds me of the Scotland vote where national pride was used as a platform to push a campaign while many questions still remain.

We'd still have to adhere to EU laws in order to trade with them and so on, we won't have a say on any EU decision even if it affects us in some way, the financial sector which is the only remaining force in the UK will relocate HQs into EU, added charges and taxes on goods traded will prop up for consumers and businesses. We're not the self sustaining force we were in the golden years either, sorry but I'll stick with the EU.

The are actually a number of differences, examples are travel within the EU zone is made far easier with out the tedious problem of visas and so on, EU actually protect the rights of people in each of the individual countries, a number of regulations are also in place to protect consumers, the trading and business rules in place makes business easier among EU members this is significant as the main economic force in the UK (the financial sector) prefer the current set up and would rather relocate if we'd leave and as you imagine that would impact the economic situation.

Why would we setup deals with countries we technically already have deals with? :P 

If the UK left the EU, would it be able to rejoin in the future?

A few people have asked this question - and the answer is yes. BBC Europe editor Katya Adler says the UK would have to start from scratch with no rebate, and enter in to accession talks with the EU. Every member state would have to agree to the UK re-joining. But she says with elections looming elsewhere in Europe, other leaders might not be generous towards any UK demands.

The mechanisms for re-joining the EU are set out in the Lisbon Treaty. According to Article 50: "If a state which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49."
And Article 49 states: "The applicant state shall address its application to the Council, which shall act unanimously after consulting the Commission and after receiving the assent of the European Parliament, which shall act by an absolute majority of its component members. The conditions of admission and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the Union is founded, which such admission entails, shall be the subject of an agreement between the member states and the applicant state."

New members are required to adopt the euro as their currency, once they meet the relevant criteria, although the UK could try to negotiate an opt-out.

If you want a united Europe, then leaving the EU will be a step back.

But looking at Britians past in the eu, they've always did what they wanted and didn't comply with the rest of europe. That's sad.

And also something to listen to...

Voted Leave.

The bottom line is just democracy. I don't want my country being governed by laws made by unelected guys in Europe. The ability to kick out people who make bad decisions, so those decisions can be reversed, is absolutely essential if you want to remain a free country.

As the conservative MEP Dan Hannah cleverly quipped the other day: "If the EU applied to join itself, it would be dismissed immediately for being completely undemocratic."

No-one understands macroeconomics well enough to know. They all feign certainty based on their general worldviews.

Go back and watch various economists debating issues in the past, in cases where we retrospectively know what the outcome ended up being.

I remember seeing a few Nobel Prize winners debating something like government spending after the recession. The US didn't really cut government at all. Whereas the UK did quite a lot. Half of these economists supported 1 policy, the other half supported the other. Now fast forward 5 years and see what happened. UK and US growth are almost identical! It made absolutely no difference what they did.

Well on the trade issue, yes if you're part of a bigger body you have more negotiating power. But that's hardly the end of the issue. The other part is: how much more regulations do you have to follow to be a part of that bigger body? Most people I speak to on the issue say that essentially what happens is that it just relocates where the costs are. You can get a slightly better deal at the negotiating table. But the cost of getting to that negotiating table has been increased.

The other point to keep in mind is that it's not just the cost of trade IN vs the cost of trade OUT. It's the cost of trade IN vs the cost of trade OUT + the £20Bn membership fee. So the cost of trade could be reduced by £19Bn inside the EU and it would still work out cheaper to leave.

The irony is that many are voting thinking about immigration and the freedom of movement act, yet if we leave we need to draw up an agreement with the EU for trade and with that may come them saying 'agree to the freedom of movement act' (like Norway does), making the immigration part completely pointless.

Not the only irony either.