Wes Tender

Thanks for providing your usual diatribe in response to my post. I presume that you are aware that we are not permitted to arrange trade deals with external countries to the EU until we have left? I suggest that that will be the time to worry about whether India's position is just posturing, or whether there are more serious concerns. I'm afraid that in common with most Remainians, you just love to paint the blackest picture regarding our future trading relationship and are fond of a bit of hyperbole. What you are talking about here is 6-8% of British companies that export to the EU, not "British industry" as a whole. And even then, anybody who wished to be seen as balanced in their arguments will acknowledge that there are many faults with that trading arrangement, faults that have been discussed many times but which you will happily gloss over in your sweeping generalisations. You point out that it is sensible to trade with our closest neighbours, but nobody has suggested that we will cease trading with the EU, have they? Naturally we will continue to trade with them, but via the access to the EU single market that is enjoyed by everybody else who is not a member of it. You rightly point out that any barriers to free trade suit neither trading partner, but your argument suggests that the EU will cut off it's nose to spite its face by risking having reciprocal tariffs placed on their goods if they impose them on us. Your dismissal of trade with the rest of the World as making little sense due to the distances involved is a poor one, as containerisation and air freight both offer the same easy transportation solutions that are employed by us and the EU to export our products to the rest of the World currently. As for the rest of your post, it is the usual hot air deriding anybody who dares to challenge the doom-laden prophecies of the Remain position. Arrogant? Of course it all is. One only has to look at the language you have employed in this post.

Great trolling. Nobody can accuse Davis of not tracking back or lacking effort. Few in the team match his box to box energy.

So you're entitled to come out with shrill, completely over the top statements and claim that you base them on what some economists predict, even though those same economists had not only been wrong about the consequences of our not joining the Eurozone, but also about the immediate consequences of a Referendum vote to leave the EU. It is really quite ironic that you recognise that this is just a football forum, a place for expressing opinions, but whenever somebody dares to question yours, they are labelled as pompous and self-righteous. I have already acknowledged that you are entitled to hold the belief that voting to leave the EU will turn out to be a financial disaster, so why am I not entitled to believe that it won't be, without you jumping down my throat? As for the claim by Credit Suisse about this £1.2 trillion wiped off household wealth, even Guardian readers in their comments column are bemused by it and point out several glaring errors in the basis of the conclusions drawn by CS. The stock market post Brexit is doing just fine. The pound has fallen 18% or so, but that has its upsides too. This statement about the fall in the number of millionaires seems to be based on the fall in property values at the top of the market. Do you therefore feel some real sympathy for them? Ordinary people have seen the value of their properties rise. But I'm sure that you lapped up this report in order to justify your position.

Are we talking minds or bums here?

We won't miss you and the others that would obviously prefer to follow those players to their new clubs. I support the team through thick and thin and am very content that so far having sold many talented players, we have managed to replace them very well with players who then subsequently turn out to be in high demand too. But even if that policy falters at some stage, most true Saints fans will be still be there for the club and team.

You're entitled to believe that if you want, of course. No doubt you also believed that us not joining the Eurozone was the most stupid decision economically too. My belief is that after a short term reversal economically when we trigger Article 50, we will then negotiate as good a deal as we can with the EU regarding access to the single market and then begin to reap the benefits of bilateral free trade deals with the more dynamic countries in the rest of the World. The time will probably come within the next few years when even you will admit that it was the best thing that we had done in our recent history to turn around our countries economic fortunes.

Is it ever futile exposing these sorts of lies and one-sided propaganda? The assertions made by the Open Britain group which were based on quotations taken completely out of context are really quite scandalous and perhaps the threat of legal action against them by those who have been grossly misrepresented would rein them in. What is futile, is the main thrust of Open Britain's campaign, that we should remain a member of the Single Market, when it was made abundantly clear during the referendum campaign that the EU's insistence on freedom of movement of people as a condition of that membership made that unacceptable.

Thanks for bringing this part of the article below to my notice. It helps to debunk the first gloomy part of the article that you no doubt lapped up, showing that these so-called economic experts are often not infallible when it comes to crystal ball gazing.

We didn't lose, so how come you're on here posting your usual negative claptrap. There isn't any attacking play under Puel? You really are a troll of the highest order and that is quite some feat considering some of the competition you have on here.

Which makes your statement even more ludicrous if you believe that this was the most one-sided draw you have ever seen. This is just hyperbole running amok.

You've obviously not watched many matches. One sided perhaps, but the most one sided? Agree about Clot n' berk though.

A very good point against a team that is flying and brimming with confidence. One again, I think that Puel had it spot on tactically. Fast attacking teams like Liverpool need to be closed down and not allowed the space and time to play to their strengths. This we did very well, with Romeu and Davis in particular and Hojbjerg to a lesser degree. If the midfield was breached, the back four stood firm and put in a magnificent shift. There are not many CB pairings better than VV-D and Fonte, nor many full backs better than Bertrand and Cedric when it comes to pace out wide. Considering that both of them had only recently returned from injuries, they both put in a very good shift. Effectively though, to a large extent both teams nullified each other's efforts when the ball got to the final third of the pitch. Granted that Liverpool had more clear cut chances and could have scored had they been more clinical, but had that been us failing so miserably to put the ball in the net, there would have been many on here calling our strikers useless. There were a couple of really good saves from Forster, but again, a really good shot is one beyond the reach of a keeper of his standing. There were a couple of occasions when we put the ball clean through their midfield and ran towards their goal with a good chance to score had Austin had more pace, if Redmond had been more decisive, or if other players ran quickly into areas where they could receive a defence-splitting pass. Understandable that Long wasn't deemed ready to start the match and was probably held in reserve to bring on against tiring Liverpool legs, but one feels that those opportunities were just what he thrives on. On the Liverpool side, Mane was their equivalent threat and it was testament to our tactics that he really didn't get a look in. On a couple of occasions when he did break through with the ball at his feet, I was surprised and delighted to see that Virgil outpaced him both times and took the ball off him. Virgil also produced a couple of superb last ditch tackles in the box when their strikers were just pulling the trigger and for me was MOTM. After the Hull result, and with the returns of Bertrand, Cedric and Long, I think our confidence will have had a real boost. Liverpool's will have received a bit of a dent.

Speaking of Andrew Neil earlier, this really is excellent:-

You forgot the election of Corbyn as Labour Party Leader in two ballots Good times indeed

But I didn't suggest that you disapproved of Andrew Neil. I suggested that you disapproved of a mention of him. He is a very effective commentator and interviewer, but it seems that if one references something he says more than a couple of times, one must be besotted with him (just like Shorluck must be with Wittgenstein if he mentions him one more time. But if he were, then surely he would have spelled his name correctly in his last post ) Regarding the labelling, I have never attached those labels to you. I have only used Remoaners to those collectively who opposed the referendum decision. As it was a bilateral decision, posters on here fall into one or the other camp, as I do not recall any posts from people purporting to be fence sitters.

You never fail to amuse or disappoint with your usual arrogant, know it all responses. You Remoaners gleefully post up anything you can find to paint a black picture of the consequences of the vote to leave your beloved EU, then don't recognise the irony when subsequently acknowledging that these sorts of articles are purely speculative as you have just done. Of course, having trumpeted the shrill headline of doom and gloom, it would look a bit weak for the Financial Times to admit that really the entire article is based on conjecture of economic projections of entirely speculative future trade arrangements which haven't even begun to be negotiated with the EU or indeed the rest of the World. So are you admitting that the article is really pie in the sky and that the reality actually could turn out to be very much better than the Financial Times reports? Go on, I know how balanced and reasonable you would like to appear by accepting the possibility of the more optimistic scenario. I realise that you naturally ignore economists who take the more optimistic line like Patrick Minford, but here is his opinion on why the Treasury projections both in the short term (5 years) and the longer are flawed. http://brexitcentral.com/patrick-minford-treasurys-economic-modelling-brexit-proven-wrong-yet-failed-abandon-unjustified-pessimism/?utm_source=BrexitCentral+Mailing+List&utm_campaign=ad66c766ec-Mailchimp+bulletin&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_23a30e67d9-ad66c766ec-11208551 No doubt you will look at it objectively and with your vast knowledge of economics, post back your critique on how you have dissected the parts where his conclusions are wrong.

As usual you Remoaners choose to ignore the little words and nuances that suggest that some caution and scepticism is required about this sort of shrill, alarmist article.I feel certain that most of the Financial Times readership are intelligent enough to conclude that the article is based on conjecture, but maybe you are not. These are the sort of words that an objective person will pick up, plus the fact that the projected figures are over a five year period. I realise why you don't approve of a mention of Andrew Neil, as he so effectively demolished the last set of doom-laden forecasts put out by the treasury.

Of course the Times wants to give the impression that it believes that the documents are genuine. Apparently it is however the case that these "leaked" documents that they are making such a song and dance about were written by a consultant from Deloitte, unsolicited by the Government and not recognised by them. Therefore it seems to be a load of guff, a very poor effort at destabilising the Brexit process by putting out disinformation in an attempt to deceive the electorate. All very well the Times being so confident about the document, when they won't have the balls to publish the name of the author, so it should be filed under the heading of Chinese whispers. This tactic is only to be expected, and it is clear that the Remoanians will try anything and everything they can to persuade the electorate that Brexit is more trouble than it is worth, so that if it comes to a general election being called, this sort of thing will play on the minds of the waverers. Thankfully, most are sensible enough to take this sort of story with a giant pinch of salt and recognise that the financial meltdown prophesied immediately after the referendum vote to leave the EU never materialised, so they are now naturally a lot more cynical of similar propaganda from the usual suspects like the Times, Guardian and the Not Independent.

Like many of the Remoaners, you only like to see and hear what you want to. If you would care to read down through the article, this part throws a different light on things:-

I really do think that you have serious issues, me old mucker. This is a football forum and you seek to masturbate your ego over something so trivial? I didn't attach much importance to it, but you have an almost desperate need to prove yourself to anonymous posters, who I'm afraid to inform you don't give a damn.

You asked Batman where he had seen mentions of Trump having won the popular vote. I commented that I had seen some too. Who cares whether they were fake? I didn't make any claims about them, merely said that I had seen them. You mistook Duncan RG of having seen them, so perhaps you are a little confused, me old mucker. If you read back my post, I commented that subsequent reports had revealed that Clinton was likely to be the beneficiary of those uncounted votes, so what point are you trying to make? Super Moon affecting you, perhaps?

A few moments Googling it will bring up lots. That's not beyond your capabilities, is it, my old mucker?

There are several articles a few days ago claiming that Trump had now been found to have won the popular vote once all of the ballots had been counted. Subsequently there is now acceptance that most of the uncounted ballots are those that would favour Clinton.

Certainly. £50 on us not ending up with a Norway style deal?

Bang on so far? Obviously there has been a period of uncertainty; it didn't take a genius to predict that. But as we haven't even triggered article 50 yet, it is a bit early to claim that we will end up with a deal like Norway's, much as you would love it so you don't have egg all over your face. Once we're out, the benefits will outweigh the cost in five years or so, when we're free from the EU shackles and trading with the rest of the World.