Wes Tender

Charlie himself posted the dire warnings of those so-called experts on a virtually daily basis. His memory has become very selective in his old age. He's also probably forgotten about the £9 million propaganda leaflet issued to every household by the Government and signed by the Prime Minister, recommending that the best option for our future was to remain a member of the EU. What percentage of votes would have increased the Leave majority had that not been sent?

The will of the people is that we leave the EU. Article 50 is merely the procedure to bring that about. If negotiations result in us not leaving the EU, there will be hell to pay from the electorate at the next election. Negotiating access to the single market and thereby having to accept the four principles is not an option. Having a second referendum on the terms of our negotiations is a nonsense, it would be difficult to establish any sort of consensus on whether the deal went far enough or too far, what people felt about the alternative solutions, what the majority were prepared to accept and what was unacceptable. For example, you would accept a Swiss or Norwegian model, whilst I certainly wouldn't. A bilateral decision such as in the referendum was relatively straightforward, whereas the variety of positions that would need to covered by a referendum on the terms we had negotiated with the EU would be far too complicated.

The nation is divided right down the middle over this issue anyway, but the majority electoral decision is to leave the EU. What would be the bad thing, would be to ignore the will of the majority, would it not? My position has always been that before Article 50 has been triggered and negotiations begin, it is far too early to make assumptions about the outcome. All this pessimistic bluster about how badly things might turn out, is no doubt comforting to you, so that you have the prospect of having been proven to be right, but the majority of the predictions from your so called experts of the immediate repercussions of a post Brexit vote which you were so keen to support, have been proven to be so much hot air.

I don't see why a reciprocal agreement to accept the current status quo would be a problem.

I'm a pragmatist. Somewhere down the line, the EU member states that have the most to lose by making our access to the single market difficult, will soon realise that it is too costly to them in terms of falling exports and the resultant loss of jobs. Most other countries outside of the EU that have access to the single market don't have to pay for it, nor do they have to accept freedom of movement of peoples, so why should we? We will benefit by leaving the customs union in order that we will be free to arrange our own trade deals with the rest of the World. What would you propose, bearing in mind that we will be leaving the EU?

Good. A clean Brexit discarding membership of the single market and leaving the customs union is what we need to do. We certainly shouldn't pay anything for access to the single market and free movement of peoples and subjugation of our legal system to the ECJ are red lines for us anyway.

Sherlock, please.

And a Happy New Year from Lest End, Shatlock. The fault of negotiations with the EU must partly lie on Rogers' shoulders as Cameron's main Civil Service advisor on EU affairs. However, I agree that because of the bone-headed obstinacy of the EU leaders, it was unlikely that they would allow the sort of concessions and reforms to EU policy that would have encouraged the electorate to vote to stay in the EU. Cameron should have realised this and his position was severely compromised when he had made threats that he would campaign to leave the EU if we didn't achieve those reforms and then attempted to dress up the meagre gruel the EU granted as substantial concessions, fooling nobody. Regarding your yokels and bumpkins jibe, it pleases me to note that you haven't made a New Year resolution to curb the arrogance typical of the wettest Remoaners like you, who delight in labelling Brexiteers as being a bit thick for wanting to leave the bloated dysfunctional EU. As pointed out many times before, resorting to these infantile insults demeans your credibility as well as indicating that sometimes a nerve has been struck. Do please continue with it, as it doesn't bother me, but makes you look juvenile. You really are very naive to believe that the ethos of the Civil Service would dictate that Rogers or indeed any other Civil Servant would be totally unaffected by their own personal beliefs and enthusiasms.As advisers to the Government, there is naturally going to be a bias towards their own personal beliefs; it is human nature. You say that it is likely that Rogers played a key part in keeping the UK out of the Eurozone. No doubt you will be happy to furnish any evidence of that, or will you suggest that as he is a Civil Servant he should not make public utterances on policy (unless they are deliberately leaked out of spite). Without any evidence to support your statement, it is pure conjecture. I'm very much looking forward to the events of 2017. Not long now to the triggering of Article 50 and then the fun can begin in earnest. During the two year negotiation period, there is plenty of scope for events in other EU member states to drastically change the political landscape, particularly within the Eurozone. Exciting times ahead.

Agree totally. Good riddance to him. We wouldn't want him anywhere near our negotiations post the triggering of Article 50, based on his pathetic attempt to negotiate concessions from the EU with Cameron before the referendum. Replace him with somebody who hadn't "gone native" on the EU gravy train. Although our mutual pal won't accept it, the lack of any substantial concessions on the issues that mattered contributed significantly to the victory of the leave campaign.

The wrist slashers need to take some consideration of various factors, the circumstances that helped bring about this defeat. We had suffered the most intense fixture list over the holiday period of any team in the PL, which didn't help. The defence was weakened by V V-D not playing because he rather stupidly got red-carded in the last match. The defence was also weakened by Cedric's injury very shortly after the start of the match. Additional cover would have been available but for long term injuries to Targett and Pied. Bertrand would have made a difference, but was also apparently injured. The attack is much weaker because of the long term injury to Austin. Despite all this, we looked the better side until the 70 minute mark and Everton only really became a threat when Lennon went off to be replaced by Valencia. However, despite Rodriguez and Long ending scoring droughts in the last couple of games, I am not confident that we can rely on either of them to go on scoring sprees to the end of the season, so we really do need to sign a striker in this transfer window. The sort of striker we need is in the Pelle or Lambert mould, somebody capable of being a big target man, able to hold the ball up, to bully defenders and stretch defences. Austin gave us that, but Long and Rodriguez don't. I'm afraid it isn't really worth mentioning Redmond in that category at all.

So we're supposed to believe that some union johnny relates verbatim to the Guardian what the senior Civil Servants think and then to believe further that they have not in turn put their usual lefty spin on it? Do all of the members of that Senior Civil Servants union think the same, or only some of them? What percentage, or only those who voiced an opinion to Penpusherman?

Oh look, a Guardian article, the fount of all veracity How did this appear in the media then? Did Penpusherman tell his cleaning lady, who obligingly relayed it on to the Guardian?

Weren't these issues discussed ad nauseum during the referendum campaign, or did I miss it? I realise that to your mind a reticence to rake over old coals equates to you concluding that I have no idea of the issues and how they will affect me as an individual, or the country as a whole, so I apologise if you're upset that I won't play ball. The trouble with remoaners like you, is your inability to recognise that those who voted to leave the sclerotic EU, did so motivated by the belief that we as a country would benefit economically, politically and socially by doing so. Your trite little list which has been pulled to pieces by other posters, illustrates which of us is the one who considers themselves to be the know it all; it is you. As always, it is the likes of you who is arrogant enough to claim some sort of moral superiority, as if nobody who voted to leave can have voted on grounds of social conscience, compassion for others and a belief that this course of action would be to the greater benefit of the country and the majority of the population. Talking about being sold pups and getting angry, the pup was sold to us as the Common Market. My anger goes back decades to when that project changed beyond recognition, as I have already intimated. I'm hardly likely to be angry now that we are breaking free of the EU and regaining control over our own future, am I?

I suggest that you take Badger's advice and wait and see what transpires. Most of the questions you ask are either totally spurious, based on conjecture, or have already been discussed in general terms, but some border on the hysterical, typical of "Project Fear", which was instrumental in losing the referendum for the remain side. Some of your questions are just plain daft, schoolboy debating society stuff. For example, you tell me what the odds are in a game of 27 against one. This isn't to be trivialised as a game, but the answer in the case of us leaving the EU is certainly not 27/1. What are the odds against Usain Bolt winning a 100 metres sprint against any number of people? Either do some research, or take a chill pill. Your stress levels must be through the roof, so I worry about your health at your age. As I said, I'm quite happy to wait as events develop. Roll on March, not long to go now.

Perhaps your advice would better be given to John B and Charlie Boy, as they have already decided what the outcome will be, even before we have triggered article 50. I'm quite happy to wait and see what transpires, and have said so previously. No doubt I will be content outside of the EU even if there is a short term economic reverse. Ultimately it will all work out fine.

Shatlock, Under the Treaties of Maastricht, Nice, Amsterdam and Lisbon, did the electorate vote for a federal Europe? Did they vote for loss of sovereignty? Did they vote for our legal system to be subservient to the European Court? Did they vote for unlimited uncontrolled immigration from the other EU member states? No, they didn't. Do you really believe that they would have voted for these things had they been the given the opportunity that they had a right to? Therefore it's a bit rich you rabbiting on about whether the electorate understood what they were voting for in this referendum when they had been denied a say in the political events that led to this situation. Presumably in your arrogance you will applaud the fact that the electorate was denied a say on those treaties, on the grounds that to your mind they were too thick to understand the implications of their actions. I am sure that like me, many of the leave voters will take a degree of satisfaction in witnessing the pathetic bleating of those like you, who are incapable of recognising the positive opportunities that will present themselves to us once freed from the overweening bureaucratic shackles of the EU that bind and hinder us. So carry on with the playground insults, but you should know that I derive a certain amount of Schadenfreude from it. Water off a duck's back, old boy.

When it's somebody on the Brexit side sounding positive about the benefits of leaving the EU, it is opinion based on nothing factual. But when it is a so-called economic expert spouting doom and gloom about the repercussions of our leaving, then it is accepted as the gospel truth by the remoaners. What is really dumb, is arriving at a conclusion about the effects of a decision taken by over half of the electorate who voted in the referendum, without allowing a reasonable passage of time to pass which would allow some basis for that opinion. It is reminiscent of all the woeful bleating by the same so-called experts when we decided not to join the Eurozone. It would have been interesting to have had this forum available to us then, so that we could look back at the tales of doom and gloom which would probably have emanated from the same posters who decry us leaving their beloved dysfunctional EU. There will only be blame aimed at the Government and Parliament if they do not deliver what the electorate voted for, a complete break away from the EU and the regaining of lost sovereignty over all of our own affairs.

Saw them three times live, the first at Portsmouth. Was it the Top Rank in Arundel Street? Anyway, "Pictures of Matchstick Men" was their first hit at the time. They were a great live act

Could it be that their deal started a couple of years before ours at £5.3m pa when we were getting peanuts from our local sponsor?

I marvel at the apparent lack of joined up thinking that leads you to conclude that annihilation is the route to you not having to read GM's posts, when there is the simple alternative solution of employing the ignore button instead.

A great result and well done the lads and Puel. As was expected beforehand, Bournemouth's open attacking style of play might well suit us and so it proved. When they scored so early on, I thought it might be one of those matches where the team could either lose by two or three, or fight back and get something out of it, and happily the team spirit was immense and having gained the equaliser we were determined to press for the win. In the first half, the midfield was outmuscled with Hojbjerg being guilty of misplaced passes and losing the ball too easily. Great to see Reed getting match time, but he also looked off the pace and tactically Puel's pivotal decision to bring on Davis tipped the midfield balance in our favour. Bertrand was really effective up the left flank and was my MOTM, just ahead of Davis and Rodriguez. I'm delighted for J Rod getting a brace, his confidence from the simple tap-in boosted enough to try something spectacular for his second. He looked as if he had gained an extra yard of pace from the start and if he and Long can hit a vein of form together, we could be OK for goals, as there are other players in the team capable of contributing goals too. The team has earned their short pre-Christmas break and should come back with their confidence high and hungry to beat Spurs, which if they play like they did in the second half today, they are well capable of achieving it.

What was also noteworthy about the Lib Dumb vote on the motion committing to the triggering of Article 50 by March, was the fact that despite Minor Fart trying to make them the Party opposing Brexit, one third of their MPs rebelled and voted for the motion. I would hazard a guess that they were the three MPs whose constituencies showed a majority vote to leave the EU. Several Labour MPs representing constituencies who voted to leave and who voted against the motion, have had their names published for the guidance of their constituents come the next general election, unless they can campaign to have them deselected beforehand.

The boy Minor Fart is very quiet today. The Lib Dumb revival appears to have hit a brick wall at Sleaford.

The Telegraph is my newspaper of choice. But it isn't a matter of distorted or lying journalism where the discussion is about future prospects; it is about speculation and conjecture. These "genuine" points in that article are also in that vein, so excuse me if I cast a rather jaundiced eye over them, trite as most of them are. It doesn't surprise me at all that you consider the vote in Parliament as trivial, as many believe that it was a bit of a political master stroke. But debating about what will happen in a couple of years time is rather futile, so instead of guessing what might happen, why don't we all wait and see? As I say, many circumstances might change elsewhere in the EU before then, but one hopes that Labour will still be led by Corbyn. In your last sentence, did you mean Europhobe? There was only one Europhile Conservative in that vote, the dinosaur Ken Clarke.

Whoosh! So you took my response to be serious? Apologies if you require a to help you. I'll make allowances nest time.