Where's the actual, physical, demonstrable harm to you of being in the EU?
I didn't say there is any physical, demonstrable harm to me. That's not the reason I voted to leave.
Would be the ability to travel without visa or delay to many countries, use your phone without roaming charges while you're there and claim compensation if your flight is delayed on the return?
Incredible as it may seem, people travelled between the UK and mainland Europe before the EU was formed. They continue to travel between the UK and non-EU countries. It can be done. The other matters I'll leave to the UK government to negotiate. If they continue, fine, if not it's hardly the end of the world and the electorate will have the opportunity to dismiss those who fail to enact their wishes (a luxury they do not have with the EU).
Please explain to me why the UK should have unfettered access to those markets after Brexit?
There's no reason at all why it should. However, once again as incredible as it may seem, the UK conducts quite a large chunk of its financial business outside the EU, with the USA for example, where common sense agreements rather than political dogma prevail. One would like to hope that a similar philosophy would be present in the EU as they negotiate an agreement to see smooth trade and commerce between their remaining members and their nearest and arguably most important trading partner. But that, of course, cannot be guaranteed, particularly as they are so insistent that anything they agree to must not give the UK a competitive advantage. That's their call.
Being an EU member is a trade off between having the advantages of membership in exchange for sacrificing certain democratic control. I perfectly understand the Remainer viewpoint. EU membership does provide some undoubted advantages and the question for the electorate in June 2016 was do they prefer to hang on to those advantages and are willing to sacrifice the controls they have, via their Parliament, over many issues previously the Bailiwick of Westminster. Unfortunately, when Leavers make their views known they are generally dismissed as "meaningless waffle" (or similar). That's because the facilities provided by membership are known (for so along as the EU sees fit to retain them as they are) whilst those provided by non-membership are necessarily speculative. But as is now hopefully becoming clear, the question put to them was purely binary. There's no "half in, half out". The EU will, quite understandably, not countenance that and it should have been obvious when people voted that it was never a realistic option.
It seems the Bill has now passed its final hurdle and bar anything untoward happening (the SNP are rumbling about judicial reviews because they say, the Scottish Parliament has not given its agreement to our withdrawal) then we leave next week. Instead of carping on about how terrible it's all going to be, individuals and businesses would do better to get on and make whatever arrangements the have to in order to carry on. Nothing stays the same forever.