So after 1750 posts we seem to have narrowed down the argument to its basics.
ECONOMICS : As Swale rightly observes, there will be a mass of costs which will arise with brexit both in putting it into affect and in the post brexit universe. It may well be that the net annual cost (after rebate and inwards receipts from CAP etc) no longer payable to Brussels will be absorbed by the incremental costs of the post brexit management of the functions previously carried out by the EU - but at least they will be carried out by British labour - if there is enough qualified to do it, which is a huge IF - and so our social security costs will fall.
Lets call that a breakeven.
TRADE : Unpredicitible outcome, but most likely to be initially negative connotations which should improve longer term as the new trade relationships bed in.
SOVEREIGNTY : perhaps the key determining factor for a number of reasons - not least of which is the fact that noone did, nor now does, clearly understand the economic issues outlined above. The fact remains that the EU is NOT what the Great British public originally voted for. It has evolved from being a trade area, like EFTA, ANZFTA or SICA, into a quasi-federal state, with, it must be said, the complicity of successive British governments. People do not want this degree of integration and so voted by a voting majority against continuing to be part of it.
Those people are prepared to pay the price in potential economic retardation and cash flow to preserve the independence and sovereignty of the UK. Whether they quite rationalised it this way is a moot point, but in effect we have (or have commenced the process to) "bought ourselves out of the system" by sacrificing the economic benefits of membership at the high altar of sovereignty.
Time will tell if this decision was long term advantageous, but can you put a price on "Freedom". Are today's idealistic brexiteers following in the footsteps of William Wallace regardless of the price: or are they simply a petty bunch of disenfranchised racists seeking to find a cause to blame their personal ills on, rather than examining their own limitations?
The truth may well lie somewhere in between those two polarised views, but all the arguments about whether we are better off in or out from a financial perspective is sort of irrelevant. We have traded finance off against freedom. Arguments can be promoted on both sides of the trade off but the simple truth is we dont know and wont maybe ever know if it is the right decision.
So by all means Tricky and Swale argue about angels on a pinhead until the cows come home. You will doubtless both go to your graves (as will I) without knowing whether the decision was right. It is very much a pragmatism v principles argument; head v heart and will always remain that.