Wes Tender

If you read the Guardian, the Times and the Not Independent, then naturally you will mainly see the sort of doom and gloom scenarios that you lap up, because their readership is comprised of Remainian Europhiles, you know, the ones responsible for project fear. Despite attempts recently by publications like those, and some MPs to infer that most who voted to leave the EU didn't realise that it also meant leaving the single market, most voters were perfectly well aware of this. Most also take the view that once Article 50 is triggered before the end of March, there will be time enough to negotiate much of our future relationship with the EU and if we have not agreed access to the single market on acceptable terms, then so bit it. Instead of us having our cake and eating it, that is the EU cutting off its nose to spite its face scenario. Two years is also plenty of time for events in other EU member states to totally change their political landscape too, probably to our benefit. The Euro might collapse before then and elections might throw up other Countries offering referenda on their membership. Great news, but not unexpected, that there was a massive vote for Article 50 to be triggered by next March. As a Conservative, I would relish an election either before 2020, or at the appointed time. There is no way that Labour would win it, much as that must irk you. There is significant support for Brexit in many Labour heartlands and UKIP seek to steal votes from them if they attempt to scupper it. Labour are very much between a rock and hard place

I'm sure that it will be possible to find figures to determine how much Prosecco we import from Italy, but could you kindly produce statistics on how much Fish and Chips we export to EU member states? Until I have these figures, it will not be possible to determine what a catastrophic effect it will have on our economy and our GDP. I wasn't that aware of the importance of our Fish and Chip exports and wonder whether our main Chip competitors in particular wouldn't welcome our departure from the EU so that their home grown producers could benefit as a result. In particular, the Belgians, French and Italians are noted for their chips/frites/French Fries/patati fritti, so we need to know how our export of chips has affected them. No doubt their higher unemployment rates have in part been caused by this situation.

What a load of waffling drivel. Why don't you try and debate the post, instead of cobbling together these pathetic platitudes and petty insults? It is obviously a waste of time refuting your points when you just twist what I say, or draw conclusions on what you think I meant. If what you assume to be my irritation makes your day, go and have a quiet w*nk. It might take you mind away from all of this angst you must be feeling. P.S. I await your response to Saint86's post. Nice to see a bit of optimism about our future prospects, once free of the EU straitjacket

Simplistically comparing the implications of the referendum with the lesser matter of past treaty amendments? Typical response from a self-appointed apologist for the Remainians; you totally miss the point and then infer that the point is simplistic, stupid or superficial. It wasn't a comparison. The treaties were a major factor in the growth of public dissent which led to the referendum, therefore they might be superficial to your mind, but they weren't in the minds of the electorate, as they proved when they voted to leave the EU that had brought about via those treaties the very issues that prompted them to vote to leave it. So then you suggest that my past voting patterns make it unclear whether I voted for the Conservatives at the time of Maastricht. I really don't know why you are confused about this, unless your ability to comprehend simple English has clouded the issue for you. I have stated categorically that I have always voted Conservative apart from one protest vote for UKIP at the European elections. As that election was in 2014 and Maastricht was in 1992, I can see why you were confused by the proximity of the two dates. Of course, had Major called a referendum on Maastricht as he should have done, I would have voted against it. I don't need to read about the European Communities (Amendment) Act, (which incidentally followed the Lisbon Treaty, not Maastricht) to know that the democratic imperative when Maastricht was debated required a referendum on the changes it brought about to the original treaty signed by us when we joined the Common Market. The same applied to the Treaty of Lisbon. Again, I don't need to be schooled about the original Wilson referendum on whether we stayed in the Common Market that Heath signed us up to, as I have already indicated that I actively campaigned on the doorstep for a "yes" vote. Finally, you continue to question my regards for our future generations and say that you don't believe them. Well, frankly my dear, I don't give a damn what you think. I'm not about to lose any sleep over it, as I am comfortable with my positive hopes and expectations for my children's future outside of the EU. For the record, I believe you to be rather condescending, patronising and self righteous, and those character traits don't allow you to accept that others can hold different opinions with just as much conviction and compassion as yours.

So what percentage of the British people affirmed their consent to the Treaty Of Maastricht? How many voted to accept the Treaty of Lisbon? It is a bit rich you bleating over the majority of the electorate who voted to leave the EU when they were not given an opportunity to vote on whether to join the EU. I'm getting rather tired of pointing out that the last referendum was to join a Common Market, not the EU, the Federal European project that it has morphed into without our blessing. You'll happily paint your bleak picture about the Government being set the difficult task of sailing the ship of state post Brexit, and ignore the course that previous governments have sailed towards uncontrolled immigration, loss of sovereignty and the subordination of our legal system. Nobody suggested that the referendum was akin to a Parliamentary election, reversible at the next election. But it was a referendum that took us into the original European project and it was one that will also take us out of it, much as you find that unpalatable. Regarding your usual "our future generations will suffer" diatribe, why don't you just wait and see? As I have pointed out several times before, you Remainians don't have a monopoly of care and concern for the future generations, although no doubt it comforts your ego to believe that you do. I am confident that my children and grandchildren will come to reap the benefits of our decision to leave the sclerotic EU and to trade with the rest of the World.

Easy to see when you are rattled. You always revert to puerile name calling and the inference that everybody who argues against you is clueless when pitted against what solely you consider to be your towering intellect. It really is very infantile.

It wasn't our first team either. Did you expect us to win before the match then?

Atrocious performance. Typical Saints, beat Arsenal, lose against the bottom teams. Confidence knocked just ahead of the Europe League match. What great timing. Just what is Redmond for? Also could do with Tadic back as soon as possible, because we lacked guile and somebody to run into the box with the ball at their feet. I thought that Redmond could do that, but he doesn't seem interested in doing it.

A really good belly laugh. Julia Hartley Brewer should have been a bit easier on her, as having admitted to voting Lib Dem in the past, she must be a Lib Dem supporter according to the Remoaners CEC, Plastic and Shatlock. But Sarah Olney believes that her victory in Richmond Park gives her a mandate to vote against Article 50. No, Sarah, I am afraid it doesn't, but if you believe that it does, then no doubt your MPs in three other constituencies where the Leave campaign received the majority of votes will have to abide by the wishes of their constituents and vote in favour of the triggering of Article 50, won't they?

Look, stop this, you are embarrassing yourself.

You and Shatlock seem to be experiencing considerable difficulty in understanding these quite simple concepts of tactical voting and matters of principle. Let me try to simplify them for you both. The first hurdle at which you fall is over this matter of whether voting for a Party tactically means that you are a supporter of theirs. The essence of your confusion is clear from your sentence attempting to summarise what I posted, "I voted for UKIP. My vote did not support UKIP" If you both read back slowly, you will note the clear distinction I made, that I am not a supporter of UKIP, although I voted for them once tactically. Secondly, on the matter of principles, I note that you had claimed that I had abandoned mine, whereas Shatlock doesn't, although he is mistaken as to what my principles are. I've said many times that I am a Conservative Party member and most of my principles politically are therefore aligned to theirs. UKIP really has only one main aim politically, to bring about our departure from the EU, which I have always again said was what I wanted. You two can continue acting dumb about such a trival matter as the semantics, but it's making you both look increasingly stupid.

Yes, that's right. The penny drops at last.

I voted tactically, that was the fact. You put your own little twist on it if it makes you feel better in yourself. You haven't told me how I abandoned my principles. Pray, do tell. Or are you going to wriggle out of that too?

I have no idea. You think that you're so bright, so why don't you tell me?

Wriggle, wriggle. So not worthy of a golden post is it, based on what you admit yourself to be a technicality, or in fact your interpretation of the meaning of "supporter" in a certain debatable context. My vote might have supported the UKIP success in the European Elections, but I am not a supporter of their party, but voted tactically as a Eurosceptic Conservative supporter. Clear? Which principles have I abandoned exactly? Please do explain. I have said many times before that I have wished to leave the EU ever since Maastricht. How has voting tactically in the European Parliamentary Elections for the party with the greatest potential to record an anti-EU protest vote compromised my principles? Surely it was the essence of a principled stand on the matter and produced the required result, the Referendum.

You mistakenly believe that if one votes for a party, one is a supporter of that party. When the vote is tactical, that is not the case. This article will put you right. http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/the-conventional-wisdom-about-tactical-voting-is-wrong/ Observe that in several instances it talks about supporters of a party voting tactically to give another party's chances a boost. If you wish to misinterpret that situation to conclude that those tactical voters then become supporters of that other party, then more fool you.

As I say, you never disappoint. Here you are once again grasping the wrong end of the stick. I would have thought that at your age, your comprehension of the English language would have been better, but let me correct you once more in the hope that cranial penetration might eventually occur. I voted once for UKIP in the last European Elections. I posted that I had and have never made any subsequent denial. That does not make me a supporter of them, does it? Read again about my mention of tactical voting. You won't need to read back very far to find it, if you can rouse yourself to make the effort. Regarding the 47,845 posts, I've told you 1000 times not to exaggerate. Embarrassed? Go on deluding yourself it is helps you get through the day I've posted up this part of the post above so that you don't need to trawl back to find it. Now kindly read it to yourself slowly, wait until you have mulled it over adequately and then try and tell me how you arrived at the conclusion that I was attempting to speak for everybody who voted the leave the EU, rather than just numbering myself among them. Or do you think that all of us who voted to leave the EU thought that we would be better off staying in it? By the way, what is Bretix, or indeed Britex that you have used before?

Says the guy on the internet forum who must spend hour upon hour trying to dig up statistics in order to score petty points. What you posted were statistics. It is in their interpretation that the gap widens between what is factual and what is often a slant on them to suit a particular agenda. The more complex the subject, the more scope there is for distortion of the conclusions to be drawn from them, as in this case.

What is interesting is the closeness in the MOTM poll between so many players. I had Bertrand as my MOTM for scoring one and assisting the other, but the way that votes were scattered for others in defence and the midfield shows how strong the team performance was last night. It is a strange situation when one looks at the team selection pre-match and believes that we do stand a chance with those players based on their recent performances, even against a team like Arsenal, despite them playing a few youngsters who I hadn't heard of before. At the start of the season, McQueen and Sims were unknown except to the followers of the academy and Reed was out of favour. Now they have joined Targett and J W-P as deemed to be able deputies or even first choice in Puel's rotation policy which allows us to put out decent teams to compete across several fronts, the PL, the European campaign, the EFL Cup and soon the FA Cup. Credit to Puel for believing in the youngsters and giving them the chance to prove themselves.

An absolutely brilliant win. A clean sheet at the Emirates too. No doubt all the pundits will say that Wenger made a mistake to make so many changes, but then so did we. Sims again showed some lovely touches when he came on and his reputation grows, as does McQueen's after a very solid performance. We had chances to have scored another two or three. I suspect that our win on Sunday gave us the confidence boost we needed and this win is a real fillip towards our next few matches. Looking forward to see who we get in the semis, but we could beat anybody on our day when we play like this.

Going really well. More of the same in the second half please. Lovely to see goals from Clasie and Bertrand. Boufal starting to click. Arsenal haven't been allowed the space to penetrate our defence and really haven't managed to break fast and get behind us.

I'm really glad that I apparently get right up your nose. I gain some satisfaction and amusement from your tetchiness, so it seems that we bait each other. You never disappoint me because every time that I show your points to be groundless, your response gives me even more ammunition. You failed miserably to assert that I didn't know the difference between the connotations of fuhrer in connection with a leader of a public service and The Fuhrer, so your insistence that you were likening Nuttall to a German Fire Brigade chief, makes you look stupid. No, I don't use my family relationships to excuse what you consider to be my prejudices, but I expect that you are peeved that it is feasible that my ancestry and widespread travel through Europe gives me a perspective and cultural understanding of many of the EU countries that matches or surpasses yours. Just to put you straight on a couple of other things where your comprehension is letting you down. One can vote for a Party in an election (once) without it meaning that you support them. Have you not heard of tactical voting? One can also support a party without blindly approving of its leader or every single policy that they espouse. I don't despise Cameron; at least he gave we Eurosceptics the referendum, Blair made a manifesto promise of one over the Lisbon Treaty and then reneged on it. Wind in your neck please over this other stuff, that I don't care if the country is dismembered, it is making you look shrill and ridiculous. I know it suits your blinkered outlook to believe that anybody who voted to leave your beloved EU did so out of blind malice towards their country, but I assure you that they and I were motivated by the belief that our country would prosper more outside of the EU than within it. You are the little Englander wanting to be tied to the failing European project's apron strings instead of seizing the opportunity to reach out to trade with the more dynamic nations of the World.

I enjoyed a celebratory bottle of Prosecco when I heard that the tyrant had breathed his last. Shame that he didn't meet a more brutal end like Saddam, Gaddafi, Ceaușescu, etc, but you can't have everything.

A load of fatuous blether from you as usual. I have never been a UKIP supporter, but I am grateful to them and Farage in particular for the great work that they did in getting us the referendum. They have been the catalyst for this sea change in British politics and I realise that you are a bit sore about them, even more so that your lot lost the resultant vote. Because we will now be leaving your beloved EU, I can understand that as a result you are venting your spleen towards them and lashing out at those you mistakenly think might be associated with them. When it comes to accusations of rank ignorance regarding the German language, I'm afraid that once again you are well wide of the mark. Having an Austro/Italian mother and an Austrian grandmother, having spent many a school holiday in both Germany and Austria, I am perfectly well aware that the word fuhrer is used to denote a leader of outfits such as the local fire brigade. However, when it came to your use of it in connection with Nuttall, you know damned well that Godwin's Law doesn't refer to a comparison with a German fire brigade leader and neither did you intend it to. I have read Spike Milligan's "Hitler, my part in his downfall" and as well as Dad's Army, I was a big fan of Allo, Allo. But if you think that it is hilariously funny to go around labelling people as Nazis just because you don't like their politics, and then think that is what constitutes humour, then you really have no idea. What it is, is juvenile 4th form stuff.

So you couldn't name any other German leaders who either used that epithet themselves, or who were commonly known as Führer, so Godwin's Law does apply. Just a thought; would ACM Dowding have found it amusing, trivialising one of history's greatest tyrants by comparing him to the British leader of UKIP? Methinks that it is you whose humour settings need adjusting, because if you think that was funny, your sense of humour is somewhat warped.