Left a comment which apparently needs to be moderated.

Oops did I say something wrong?

Nuffink to do wiv me guv ... I never touched it!

Booker is right in that the sums of money, the contribution to the EU and the servicing of the deficit are so close it makes no sense to argue about it. Unless that is you can, on behalf of the 'out' campaign, offer some ideas on how to deal with the deficit.

I am not an expert on the Lisbon Treaty, but I feel that an Art. 50 exit might be almost impossible. My reading is that following an announcement of the intention of the UK to exit the EU, negotiations will follow, but any final agreement is subject to prior consent by both the European Parliament (Art. 218(3), note iv), and then the Council (from which the UK would be excluded) by majority voting (based on Art. 238(3)(b)).
It seems to me that an agreement would be very difficult to achieve on this basis, given that the great majority of the EU Parliament members and Council members would be opposed to a UK withdrawal. I am sceptical that an Art. 50 agreement would be possible (they want our money). I would welcome comment on this.

What a shame that a single blog by yourself Richard is worth reading more than the entire Daily Telegraph with the exception of the Booker column. But then that is why I am a regular reader of yours and have been so for around 7 years.

It's the quality of readership that counts, not the volume. But we still get about 3,000 unique visitors a day, which is not too bad for a blog. However, it cannot be said that the forum, as a platform for debate, has been a success. We have some ideas on that, possibly migrating comment to Facebook. Peter and I are thinking about this and we may come up with something over Christmas.

Yes, but it would hardly be in their interests to do so.

I have decided after a long time of reading to add my two penn'orth.

Previously posted elsewhere.
"The whole issue of the eu and our compliance with it seem to me to fly in the face of logic and common sense, why would any sentient entity spend variously cited at between 100 and 300 billion in compliance to achieve 90 billion in trade and losing the right to self determination on the way. It doesn't add up does it. We don't need to be in the eu to trade with it especially as we have a large trade deficit with it."

I find it mildly irritating that the eu contribution is always cited, most people don't see beyond this, it's small change in comparison to the compliance and implementation costs.
Without invoking article 50 there will be no meaningful renegotiation whatsoever. The movers and shakers are aware of this but hide behind headlining that they are standing up for the British people.
Sadly, I'm having to wake up to the Myrtle concept.
My escape plan would, broadly, be invoke article 50, maintain the "net" contribution for the duration of disengagement followed by an incremental year on year reduction. The greatest danger I see is a spite reaction that on previous observation they seem quite capable of.

Welcome to the forum.

I like the idea of maintaining the net contribution ... thus repatriating the balance, spending it in the same areas until such time as we develop new policies. That would particularly apply to the regional policy and the CAP, and help enormously in bringing farmers on-side. If they were offered, for instance, a ten-year guarantee of system continuity, with a gradual phase-out to a new system, that would neutralise objections from an important and relatively powerful group.

Call it the price of freedom.