buctootim

You're right Wes, I hadn't noticed. Which ones have they decimated?

Europe's top civil servant was appointed by the elected Heads of Government. Did you vote for Sir Jeremy Heywood?

Still going over your head I see. The current deals exist because they are mutually beneficial. Developing countries provide a market for our goods and in turn supply things we cant produce, like some foods and raw materials. Industrialised country deals are far more difficult because they compete in the same industries. You want a free trade deal with China? Good luck with that. They export far far more to us than we do to them and have already decimated British industry. Removing tariffs should finish a few more off. Same with Japan, tariffs are the reason they have factories in Britain, without them they have no incentive to do so. Currently we have free access to 79 markets, including our neighbours and biggest trading partners. On day 1 we will have zero.

Yes Ive heard of them Wes. What do you think our first priority as a free and glorious nation with our trusty sword of valour be? How long will it take us to get say the first five free trade deals? How long will it take to get to the 50 deals the EU already has? 30, 40 years? How much trade which is currently free will be subject to tariffs using WTO rules in the meantime? How many businesses will leave Britain as a result? You are quite easily the least informed person posting on this thread. Most make good points at least part of the time. I genuinely cant remember the last time you posted anything which wasn't certifiably stupid.

Thank God for Wes, the voice of common sense. All these years we've just been exporting to the EU when we could have been selling to China the US and the rest of the world. Im off to email Glaxo, Jaguar Landrover, Rolls Royce areo and BAe.

Thats like an Allegro advising a Jag not to race him.

You can demonise anyone and anything. We give over £12bn a year to the UN and other agencies. Just a big bureacracy innit. We'd be better off on our own making our own deals mate.

Thats a mark of how far to the right this country has gradually lurched. Thatcher used to be seen as hard right - but she would never have considered half the things the Tory party have done in the past few years. I genuinely fear we will end up like America - an economy which delivers healthy economic growth, but it goes almost entirely to the top 1% (mainly the top 0.1%) and very low levels of social mobility. How can one of the richest countries in the world have neo-natal death rates higher than Costa Rica?

Way to go. Deflection and change of subject. Back on topic. You said net spend wasn't a relevant metric. I said it was a better metric than absolute spend. Period. No-one said it was feasible to keep everybody hostage for ever playing for zero wages.

I agree that there are many dimensions to it and that all lists are a partial picture - but if you are going to have one ranking list list net spend is a better indicator than absolute spend.

No, you need to read the posts and the responses rather looking for an opportunity to make what you think is a smart remark but misses the point. I didnt say it was a feasible option for Saints to retain everybody. Simply that its bleedin obvious to anybody - or should be - that somebody who builds a £1m house and keeps it is better off than somebody who sells it and spends £500,000 on a cheaper one - regardless of how high or low that puts you in some table.

Of course it is. More relevant than absolute spend anyway. Team A sell 11 players for £230m - lets call them for argument something random like Shaw, Schneiderlin , Clyne, Chambers, Walcott, Bale, Chamberlain, Mane, Wanyama, Lovren and Lallana. They buy replacement players for £182m and get 20th place on the spend table. Team B keep Shaw, Clyne, Chambers, Walcott, Bale, Chamberlain, Mane, Schneiderlin, Wanyama, Lovren and Lallana all their best players that they developed or bought cheap and supplement them with £100m of additions lets call them Forster, Romeu van Dijk, Hobjerg, Tadic and Bertrand. They are a lowly 33rd on the spend table. Who's got the best team?

...and he lives under the bed. Danger.

Ha very droll. Ever heard of the Tory Reform Group Wes?

"In the big scheme of things what difference does three points make?" err dunno Paul - the difference between promotion and not? Its not surprising the team don't turn up some weeks if the manager thinks losing three points once in a while doesn't really matter.

Its been announced there will be a bill presented to Parliament to repeal the EU accession treaty. Ken Clarke has already said he will vote against and the Government only has a majority of 12 (10 with Clarke). What do people think the chances are the legislation passing? Regardless of whether you are leave or remain and whether MPs should or shouldn't be bound by the referendum, I just can't see the Government getting sufficient numbers.

Its not mostly university students. It includes people on language courses and dodgy made up colleges with no real tuition set up solely to get people visas.

I wonder why....

You think 300,000 students doing bar work and waitressing will have no effect and that when they finish college the 100,000 who successfully apply to stay every year will all suddenly be middle class?

How many players have the club categorically stated they aren't selling because we're going for Champions League, and then sold them a week or so later?

Not really true. If you apply for a student visa you have almost guaranteed success rate, and it brings the right to work with it too. There are almost no checks on how many (if any) hours you study and after three years the right to apply for permanent residence is again almost automatic.

Can icebergs be rotten? - unless they're lettuce. "This is just the tip of a very rotten lettuce" doesn't have the same ring to it though. I didn't rate Black and would have preferred we kept Sammy Lee - but having said that what he did was fairly minor - advising who could be approached about promising players. No tapping up. Against the rules but not heinous.

Referenda are held up as objective democracy but the answer you get depends on the question you ask and when you ask it. If people had been asked do you: 1. Want to leave the EU entirely 2. Leave the EU but remain in the single market 3. Stay in the EU Then you would have got a different result, certainly the vote for 1 would be well less than 50%. If the question had been do you want to 'Stay in the EU' or 'Quit the EU' you would have got a different result too because 'stay' is more powerful than 'remain' and 'quit' is more negative and implies failure more than 'leave'. I'm not saying the result was unfair - but it is much more subjective than it appears at first sight.

In which case I would have quoted both of you.

Wes! At least you're consistent - you've effed up again. I was replying to Johnny so your assumption I was referring to points you made is a little odd.