Wes Tender

A particularly alarmist piece. I love the assessment from the Financial Times journalist that the payment could range from 24.5 - 72.8 billion Euros. It is good to have these financial forecasts tied down so precisely. I can understand that as the second biggest net contributor to the EU slush fund, we would leave a massive hole in their finances and that there will be howls of anguish from both the other net contributors who will have to stump up more and the net beneficiaries who will not want the portions on their plates to diminish. Equally, as the article points out, there will much outrage in our Red Tops if the sum we have to pay is deemed to be excessive. I have already been amused by a media suggestion that we pay nothing and what could they do about it; invade us? There is a lot of posturing about whether either side holds the whip hand and suggestions that we will not be able to negotiate single market access without stumping up huge wodges of cash would also be an act of self harm by them when we retaliate, so common sense should prevail. But it seems OK for them to threaten this sort of action, but they don't like it when we suggest that we will make our tax regime much more attractive to inwards investment and be prepared to walk away with no EU deal rather than a bad one, whilst arranging several bilateral trade deals with numerous other World partners in the meantime. But just as this article paints a doomsday scenario that the exit talks could sink Brexit, there was a very good programme on the box last night on Brexit that suggested that events in other EU member states in the next two years could result in the collapse of the EU before we have even left.

You mean the Brexit which hasn't even begun the process to come into effect yet? There is a long list of likely and unlikely things that may or may not occur when that time comes. Learn from the numerous dire things that were predicted to happen immediately following a referendum vote to leave the EU and didn't. Wait and see, is my advice although I realise though how much you would like there to chaos, so that you can say that you told us so.

As you say, nobody can say what long dead people would have done now in changed circumstances. Better to leave it there then, instead of employing useless conjecture based on his thoughts so long ago.

Daily Torygraph actually. But is senility creeping in, Charles? I clearly suggested that you looked in the mirror. As the word was not capitalised, it referred to the reflective glass object usually hung on a wall.

That statement is as old as I am. If you read this article by Heath in the Not Independent many moons ago, although he claims that Churchill would not have been a Eurosceptic, there are certainly parts of the piece that are open to some degree of interpretation, or capable of challenge on the basis of how the European project has altered since the article was written. http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/a-euro-sceptic-churchill-never-1365239.html Heath says that In other words at the time of the Zurich quote he had envisaged a united Europe, but without us, as we would have been part of a bloc including the Commonwealth. As events unfolded and with the independence of much of the Commonwealth, he seems to have been acquiescent to the notion of joining the European Economic Community, The Common Market. So was I at the time. After all, it was only as the name suggested, a trade arrangement. But attempting to presume that he would have been content for us to have been part of the EU with the loss of sovereignty that we have suffered, the subjugation of our laws to the ECJ, and no control over our borders, is fanciful in the extreme. I suspect that he would be turning over in his grave.

Whatever happened to Wes?

You really ought to have a look in the mirror, you hypocrite. Mind you, when it comes down to playground style insults, Shurlock is in a league of his own.

Spending hours trawling the internet? I deduce from your rather stuffy, old fashioned style of articulating your points, together with this assertion, that you aren't really very up to date with modern technology. It takes but a few moments nowadays to Google whatever information one seeks to support one's stance in a debate. It shouldn't be a surprise to you that those points will be supportive of my views, as I'm hardly like to post those that oppose them, am I? But congratulations on the arrogant inference that those views were somehow unrealistic or unwise. Perhaps you would care to debate the areas in them where you disagree with the points they make. As you say, the road to wisdom is indeed not easily navigated, as you prove so ably yourself. As for the fall in the value of the pound and the possibility of a rise in inflation, I don't recall there being much fuss being made about it either way on the pre-referendum thread. I have already indicated that there are benefits to our exporters from the fall in the value of the pound, but as others have posted subsequently, the currency tends to rise and fall in value depending on all sorts of criteria other than our Brexit, like what happens in America that effects the dollar and events in the EU or Eurozone that effects the Euro. You yourself even acknowledge these factors a few posts hence. Regarding inflation, let's wait and see how that goes, shall we? In any event, it is unlikely to end up at the level that it had been in past decades and I would expect that once we have left the EU and begin to increase our economic prosperity as a result, any increase will be reversed. Inflation in the Eurozone is on the way up too, by the way. http://www.tradingeconomics.com/euro-area/inflation-cpi Regarding your last paragraph, yes, I confirm that I was referring to the referendum in connection to we Brexiteers having won and to the future regarding the comment about us having to wait and see. So no double standards, but an inability on your part to comprehend a simple post covering two positions which you were unable to separate. You offered to suggest a remedy for the limited self-awareness you believe me to possess - a serve handicap you call it, whatever that is. New Balls! As I am also a generous helpful sort too, I'll offer in return a cure regime for your arrogant smugness and superiority complex. Is it a deal?

I misunderstand nothing in what you wrote, Charles; you misunderstand what I wrote. When I accused the so-called experts of getting it wrong, I was referring to the various agents of Project Fear, the CBI, PwC, the Chancellor of the Exchequer with his Treasury forecasts, the IMF, etc. All of their short term post referendum forecasts were wrong (and even the Bank of England has revised their forecasts too). My only mention of the Bank of England was to point out to you that Carney's pessimistic stance was challenged by his predecessor Lord King, whose opinion on Brexit was much more upbeat. However, even their "real thing" economic experts aren't immune to errors of judgement, as admitted by their chief economist:- https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-05/britons-to-throttle-back-spending-in-2017-boe-s-haldane-says As Haldane says, economic expertise has taken a knock during and after the Referendum Campaign. Here's some more light reading for you on the subject:- http://www.cityam.com/258614/brexit-has-humiliated-britains-failed-economic-soothsayers http://www.cityam.com/258170/why-economics-profession-remains-blind-benefits-brexit Interestingly, Carney doesn't agree with the BoE's chief economist over whether any admission was due that they had been overly pessimistic about the short term consequences of a leave vote in the referendum. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-11/carney-defends-boe-s-actions-on-brexit-disagrees-with-haldane In any event, Carney took those necessary steps, made some adjustments, pulled some levers, did what one would have expected of him to steady the ship. After all, it is his job, and he knew perfectly well what was required even before the result of the referendum was known. Many would say that his reduction in the interest rate was totally unnecessary. The fall in the value of the pound was generally welcomed by many as it was deemed to be overvalued. However, Carney comes in for a lot of criticism for adopting too high a political profile during the referendum and of talking down the economy. In your subsequent post, once again you are getting your knickers twisted somewhat. The winning bit referred to the referendum, the wait and see stance to your posts claiming that Brexit had beggared our future and that of our children.

So in your opinion, it is possible that the Guardian's economic reporter might have misunderstood the report, whereas you interpreted it with absolute clarity. Perhaps you should apply for a job there with your liberal elite soul-mates. Although not useless, you admit that the report was not very useful in assessing whether Brexit will be beneficial to the economy. I think that most readers will have contextualised the article as I did, and see it as largely contradicting PwC's earlier report on how we would be adversely effected economically by the decision to leave the EU. I doubt that there will be more than a handful of nerds who will bother to read God knows how many pages of the report, so they rely on the so-called experts to precis it for them. Regarding my assessment of the balance between what we might lose in terms of trade from leaving the EU and what we will gain from trading with the wide world, I believe that we will retain substantial access to trade with the EU (which is in theirs and our best interests) and that any trade with the EU we lose will be more than adequately compensated for by the increase in trade outside of the EU. Even by falling back on WTO trading tariffs, I still believe that we will be better off. No doubt you will be champing at the bit to produce no end of "evidence" from the Remoaner camp "experts" to disparage this viewpoint. Yes, effect, not affect; a typo. Whilst you are nit-picking, I'll retaliate. Unless you are a Yank, then we Brits look under the bonnet, not the hood. Like you, and most of the electorate, I also take economic forecasts with a pinch of salt. Whole swathes of the electorate are now cynical of economic experts as a result of Project Fear. I don't need to keep fighting the good fight, as my side has won. Time for you and the rest of the Remoaners to wave the white flag and accept it. Finally, as you never tire of labelling me a kipper, I'll carry on reminding you until it penetrates, that I am a Conservative, dear boy.

So to paraphrase your post, what you are saying is that the Guardian, the rag of the Liberal Elite Remoaners, has misrepresented the PwC report to paint a picture which is favourable to the Brexit position. Then you go on to explain that the forecast is effectively useless anyway, in that it ignores the effects of Brexit by excluding the impact of trade and investment flows, whilst suggesting that our future prosperity depends on us arranging world trade deals with the developing economies, or did the Guardian make up that bit? Do you know for a fact that they used the Solow-Swann model? Also apparently, you confirm that the model they have used reaches the same conclusion that I arrived at as a layman, that we will suffer a short term small reverse, but will prosper in the mid to long term. According to you, they reach this conclusion based solely on demographics, education, capital investment and technological progress and ignore the massive economic benefits we will derive from arranging trade deals with the most strongly developing economies of the world and from attracting high quality immigrants. If we will do so well without those two aspects, just think how much better we will be once they take affect too! This all seems to point to why these forecasts from economists are dismissed by the electorate and why they have become cynical towards them, as if what you claim is the case, then the PwC forecast is pretty well meaningless. And yet, the Remoaners on here orgasmed at the publication of every single forecast of economic Armageddon by outfits like PwC and the CBI, before the referendum. Where were you when you could have disparaged those reports then? Oh yes; you were using them as a stick to beat the Leavers.

*Yawn* So you're retreating in rather bad grace from arguing the toss over the last few posts where you were losing the argument. I acknowledge that although much credence was given to the forecasts of the dire consequences from PwC and the CBI by the Remoaners in the run up to the referendum, now that their predictions for the immediate repercussions of a vote to leave have not materialised, you are happy to dismiss their revised longer term forecasts as being largely irrelevant and of suspect reliability. In case you hadn't noticed, the title of the Thread is "Post EU - the way forward" So how do you figure it that forecasts regarding our potential economic prosperity post-Brexit are largely irrelevant to the debate? As you finally admit, their forecasts did not model in the factors of Brexit, but the PM has made it clear that we will be leaving the single market and the customs union and the forecast for our prosperity relies on our ability to sign many trade deals with the fastest developing markets, which we would only be able to do outside of the customs union. Of course, if there was doubt about the position of our access to the single market, then their forecast ought to have had a best case/worst case scenario, something that they should have learned following their worst case forecast of the post referendum repercussions. But you stick with your pessimistic Remoaner predictions and I'll stick with my optimistic position and time will tell who is right. There are a lot of things that you Remoaners have been wrong about already these past several months.

For one who prides themselves on their comprehension, you come across as remarkably inept and I congratulate you for the continuation of the straw man argument. Where did I say that this report voicing optimistic bright prospects for our future outside of the EU was the same as saying that our prospects would be brighter outside of the EU? It was you insinuating that either we would be better off in the future had we voted to remain in, or alternatively worse off having voted to leave. The report made no conjecture about that, as I pointed out. (See below). I'm afraid that you appear to be tying yourself in knots, me old mucker. I also repeat for the benefit of your comprehension, I had also previously stated that long term forecasts were inevitably unreliable. I note that your usual bluster doesn't oppose my arguments that two of the points in the report favouring our future growth outside the EU both possibilities having been improved by our Brexit.

Ah, the timely entrance of the Remoaner-in-chief, the usual disparaging insults preceding the main thrust of his post in an attempt to make him seem more clever than he actually is. The problem is, that you accuse me of lacking comprehension of the article I linked, then proceeded to use it as the basis of a straw man fallacy. Well done. Of course, I never suggested that Brexit will CAUSE the UK to be the fastest growing economy in the G7, did I? There was nothing wrong about my comprehension of the article, but you have reached conclusions on it that weren't expressed in the article. You argue that we might actually perform better remaining inside the EU than we would outside, and yet the caveat underlying the forecast of our future progress towards our economic growth depends they say on our ability to arrange the bilateral trade deals with the rest of the World, which we would not be able to fix as an individual member state of the EU. The article makes no argument that we would be better off remaining in the EU and this is Of course, if your memory is as sharp as your ability to comprehend things better than anybody else, you will recall me saying in other posts that we would face a brighter future by replacing any trade lost from leaving the EU, with trade deals with the growing economies of the World. If I recall correctly, you gave these sentiments your two thumbs up. You attribute some of the advantages we will hold in future to our EU membership, for example the inward immigration we have faced as a result of freedom of movement of peoples forced on us by membership. However, we will obviously benefit far more from immigration that we can control, rather than having to take anybody holding an EU passport, regardless of their lack of skills or abilities. As it is, we discriminate currently against the employable cream of those fast developing countries by having to limit their numbers as immigrants, because of our membership of the EU

Charles, where in my post above have I changed my view that "wait and see" was the best policy? Thanks for reminding everybody that you were one of the main cheerleaders for taking the dire forecasts of the so-called experts as being the gospel truth, whereas I took the more measured approach that as many of the same people had been wrong about whether we should have joined the Euro Zone, it would be wise to take their forecasts on the EU with a degree of cynicism. The irony doesn't register with you at all that you were prepared to be so adamant that the dire economic forecasts (put out even before the referendum was held) had credibility because of who it was that was making them. Now that over seven months have passed since the referendum, you don't have the humility to admit that you were wrong to have placed so much store in what they forecast, even though they have tacitly admitted that they were over-pessimistic. You were prepared to take the word of the current Bank of England governor over his predecessor's view, those of the Chancellor of the Exchequer pre-referendum over a predecessor of his. I suppose that it suited you to follow the opinions that best suited your prejudices. And then follows the bigger irony, the accusation that a cynical approach taken to ignore those forecasts was arrogant, followed by the ultimate arrogance typical of the Remoaners, that everybody who voted to leave must be senile or thick. This is old hat from the time of the referendum itself, churned up once more by the biased BBC. Most of the MPs have accepted that as a majority of the electorate voted to leave the EU, they will abide by their wishes. Quite why the Beeb can't seem to get their heads around that concept is beyond me, but not unexpected.

25 years ago today we signed the Maastricht Treaty and began our journey along the road to a Federal United States of Europe. As the electorate was not given the opportunity to vote on this major change to the original Treaty we had signed to join the Common Market, it marks the time that Eurosceptic dissent began to grow in the Conservative and Labour Parties and also resulted in the formation of the fledgeling UKIP Party. It has taken a long time to arrive at the stage where the demands for a referendum on our membership of the EU had become unavoidable, but happily we are now well on the way to regaining control of our own destiny. Just to inject a note of optimism into our future prospects, PwC follow the Bank of England in revising their forecasts from the doom and gloom to the cautiously optimistic. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/feb/07/uk-g7-economy-trade-pwc-brexit-us I have naturally been sceptical of future economic forecasts, but had expressed the opinion that after a short-term reverse, we would prosper from bilateral trade deals with the emerging World economic powers. PwC in conjunction with the CBI leading up to the referendum was a major player in project fear and now seems to be in the process of a volte-face. For those like Chapel End Charlie who hung on every word uttered by these so-called economic experts and bleated about how we Brexiteers were ruining the futures of your children and grandchildren, it appears that there is the possibility that we might be responsible for actually improving their future prospects.

His name Manolo Gabbiadini scans really well with the "Glad all over" Dave Clark 5 song. He'll score for fun now (he'll score for fun) Just wait and see (just wait and see) Another Saints striker (another Saints striker) Brought from Italy (from Italy) He's Man-o-lo Gab-bia-dini Si, Ma-no-lo Gab-bia-dini Ma-no-lo Gab-bia-dini you'll be just fine

A very fair summary. I think that Gabbiadini will prove to be a very astute buy judging by his performance on Saturday. He will probably solve much of the problem we have had with finishing up front and seems to be the sort of player who could form a decent partnership with our other forward players. Now that we don't have the fixture congestion for the rest of the season, we can play a more settled team, but our recent form reflects the loss of key players through injury. I do wish that others on here who blame Puel for bad results would make some sort of allowance for this, which is not something that he can be held responsible for. We have had awfully bad luck with injuries, arguably more so than any other team at our level.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/business/city-red-faces-on-brexit-fears-dtd5szmg2 Even economic "experts" can get it wrong sometimes. But they were making forecasts (guesses) based on criteria that was fluid, capable of being influenced by several factors which were beyond their control. They would have been better served by predicting a range of possibilities ranging from a best case scenario to a worst case one, but it suited their project fear agenda to go for the bleaker picture following our vote to leave the EU and now their credibility has taken a knock.

Remoaners aren't known for realism or hard-headed practicalities, as has been proven by their forecasts of the dire repercussions immediately following a leave vote being so wrong; but most would admit that there are pressures on the EU to arrange mutually beneficial deals with us, or risk losing business to countries outside of the EU once we have left the single market. After all, whatever we agree with the EU, it will not include the uncontrolled movement of peoples, the payment of vast sums of money to them, or the subjugation of our laws to the ECJ. Naturally they will not be very happy with that, but we will and that's what counts.

Either it still doesn't penetrate with you, or you are trying to cover your embarrassment at having quoted McGrory as a reliable source for quotes from the leavers, including Farage.

Thanks for posting that from Open Britain. It gives another opportunity to post the link to their spokesman James McGrory's car crash interview with Andrew Neil. His duplicity in taking remarks out of context, or abbreviating quotes is a master class in propaganda spin. http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/11/watch-james-mcgrorys-car-crash-interview-sunday-politics/ But if you think that linking to somebody like that is a credible response, then more fool you.

Easy to see from your usual sneering snidery that in reality you are secretly seething at how well it all been going recently for the Brexit side. The dire consequences forecast by the so-called experts of project fear have largely failed to materialise, May has made it clear that we will go for a clean Brexit, leaving the single market and the customs union and meanwhile several countries have expressed a willingness to enter into trade deals with us. By the time we actually leave the EU, the EU might well have been weakened by the collapse of the Euro, and other member states becoming ever more inclined towards following us out of the door. Our bargaining position will be considerably enhanced by the EU's need to continue trading with us on the one hand and our ability to make alternative trading agreements outside of the EU on the other. The official Labour Party opposition is in complete disarray and Minor Fart/Tiny Tim of the Lib Dumbs believes that he roars like a lion, but his piffling Parliamentary representation of just 8 MPs means that he squeaks like a mouse. It's all going so much better than expected.

I see that Sam Gallagher scored again for Blackburn. Shame that we can't get him back until the end of the season.

This part of the pre-match commentary appears pertinent:- Puel in his post match interview claimed that injuries made it difficult to have picked a different team, when I arrived at the stadium I was fairly bullish that we were capable of beating Arsenal, but when I heard the team selection, my first reaction proved to be right; we were going to get tonked. 10 changes to the team was farcical. The whole of the defence changed from Wednesday apart from Stephens, who himself was a debutant for Van-Dijk and not even an experienced goalkeeper behind them. We needed to have mixed some experience into defence, or some real steel into midfield, but the midfield consisted of midgets, who were bullied off the ball. It needed the likes of Romeu or Davis to close down the space that Arsenal need to function at their best. Also, it was clear that without Bertrand, Cedric or Yoshida, we would be done for pace by Walcott and Oxlade-Chamberlain from any balls over the top of the midfield. Clearly Arsenal had the quality to be able to field a second string comprising of players who would make our first team. Had we not lost so many players to injury, we could have fielded a rotation team much more able to have given them a match. After the ease with which Arsenal scored their first two goals, I console myself that they didn't score the six or seven that I expected. We did have some opportunities to have scored a couple ourselves, their defence looking shaky and in particular Ospina looking very dodgy, but we didn't have the fire-power to convert our chances. The only pluses I can garner are that we now don't have the match commitments that Man Utd do before the League Cup final and it is crystal clear that we desperately need a CB and a striker before the transfer window closes. Whether there was any benefit in Puel being able to assess the potential of Gardos, Lewis or Isgrove during the match is a moot point, as it won't have done their confidence much good.