Which is where we will continue to disagree.
I am not a big fan of dictatorships and people making decisions for me or overly regulating me.
Those annoying experts can be so incomprehensible at times. 
Indeed. Jargon can be incomprehensible.
You know there can be a difference between smart and correct? Between informed and right? between expertise and indisputable.
Yes we expect that experts will have all the answers to everything in their field and in terms of what is in the public's best interests they will know it better than any member of the public. Its why they are employed in the role. Some times though on the bigger issues, they need input from the public they both represent and are employed by.
'Experts' thought we were going to vote to stay in 
'Experts' wanted us to join the Euro
'Experts' 'believed' Saddam had WMD's and was ready to use them in 45 minutes
'Experts' said attacking all these countries in the Middle East would be a good thing
Experts did not necessarily thought "remain" would win, but they did warn you about the consequences.
Experts were divided, with some suggesting the Euro, others not, IIRC. There was no agreement.
Experts certainly didn't believe Saddam had WMDs. This is just wrong.
Experts certainly didn't all suggest attacking all those countries in the Middle East was even remotely a good thing. Quite the opposite, in fact.
You probably need to do your homework.
What are you talking about? There wasn't a shed of preparation from the 'experts', as they were all sure we'd stay in. Across the spectrum the result is described as a "shock". You seem to be just disagreeing for the sake of it.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-live-updates-brexit-polls-how-to-vote-what-happens-to-uk-economy-ifs-niesr-lse-a7093111.html
This is just the "final warning" of these three institutions. There were quite a few of such warnings and to miss all of them you need to have been avoiding the media like the plague for the last six months at the very least.
There are many, many other examples.
We've never said we were talking about all 'experts' and if we were, plenty of 'experts' said we'd be better off coming out of the European Union.
"Plenty", in this case, was what Financial Times somewhat charitably labelled a "sizable minority". They say around 75% of the financial experts warned against the effects of leaving.
So we are talking about a majority a lot larger than the 52%.
Again, you seem to be disagreeing for the sake of it, British 'Intelligence' produced a report with the WMD claim.
Hans Blix, the UN Chief Inspector at the time, claims that to this day, neither the US nor the UK have presented their evidence to him. See Wikipedia for more (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_and_the_Iraq_War).
He and his team provided a report presented well before the invasion, providing evidence of the contrary, however, something that could hardly be ignored by the two countries.
Are you deliberately ignoring this? Or, for that matter, deliberately ignoring the recent findings re Mr Blair?
And again... Multiple 'experts' made these claims. And yes, some 'experts' claimed it would cause disaster. Are you just picking and choosing with the benefit of hindsight as to who you see as 'experts'? 
As for the rest, "attacking all those countries in the Middle East" is such a generic phrase that it's utterly pointless. Which countries? When? IIRC, while the Gulf War was widely supported, the Iraq invasion never was.
Your ignorance shows. It's quite painful, in fact. How old were you at the time of these two wars? How much did you read and watch about them at the time and how much did you have to look up now?
Did I say "powerful crooks should have more power"?
Again, try discussing the topic at hand, preferably without putting words in my mouth.
Not in as many words, but it's what you are asking for.
And you are doing it again.
OK, then you must have completely fooled me. What are you asking for?
Look, if you can't remember the discussion, you should probably stop posting. Try going back and rereading the thread before posting more nonsense.
For the last time Odeon, we have not left yet!!! And we won't know the results of leaving until we have left (if we do) and seen the plan in action for at least a couple of years and made the trade deals. A bunch of rich people have lost a lot of money in a short space of time because they were so arrogant as to think that the British people wouldn't dare vote to leave. But the long term is far more important and we can only speculate for now.
We're not talking about the affects of leaving, I said that 'experts' believed we were going to stay.
Blix is one 'expert', as I said, the 'experts' with British Intelligence produced a report claiming that Saddam had WMD's. So again, you are cherry picking what 'experts' and just using the ones that you wish. Some 'experts' believed the tripe about Saddam's WMD's and some knowingly lied. And again you resort to your Captain Hindsight character. We're not talking about 2016, we're talking about 2003 before the Iraq invasion. For all I know, you could have been in favor of it and waited until the Chilcot Report was released to then join the crowd, now it's been officially confirmed.
Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine, Yemen, Libya, Syria... I never said that the Iraq war was widely supported, I said that 'experts' said attacking these countries would be a good thing, as we love democracy so much. I never said how many, and what does the majority have to be to be all 'experts', wouldn't that have to be 100%, or wait 75% is the rule you've made, what about 74%? But not 52%? Cause that isn't a real majority....
Really Odeon, you're making some claim that I would have had to be an adult at the time of the first Gulf War? Does that mean you cannot comment on WWII because you weren't even born? Surely as a fan of hindsight you would agree we can actually learn far more after the events?
I've read through, I want to know what your stance is please? Just sum it up short and sweet if you would.
ponds from now on.