Wes Tender

Regarding a weaker Pound:- https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/oct/16/let-the-pound-fall-and-the-economy-rise Regarding your assertion that food prices would increase post-Brexit:- http://libertarianhome.co.uk/2015/03/the-common-agricultural-policy-a-costly-protectionist-racket/

http://news-watch.co.uk/bbc-brexit-collection-strong-bias-against-leaving-the-eu/?utm_content=buffer7ddc8&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer Not the least bit surprised.

Because of our 34 shots on goal, there wasn't enough time in the programme to show them all.

Apparently it isn't our highest number of shots in a PL game since 2003/4. It is the highest number in any PL game http://www.goal.com/en-gb/news/2896/premier-league/2016/10/16/28532062/-?

A bit of a bore in the first half, with Burnley parking the bus and time-wasting, but once we had scored early in the second half, they had to come at us. Difficult to choose any player who had a poor game, apart from Rodriguez when he came on late in the game, the points all but guaranteed. But that is excusable and inevitable that he would be short of match sharpness. A special mention to Sam McQueen who deputised well for Targett when he had to come off injured and Targett himself had acquitted himself well up until then. Martina has grown well into the right back spot, so the defence looked mostly as solid as it has been since for the past several matches. What a shame that we lost our clean sheet run to yet another penalty, one which was apparently a bit soft according to some pundits immediately afterwards. Is this a record number of penalties awarded against us in this short number of matches? I gave MOTM to Romeu for another superb display, but Redmond, Tadic, Clasie, Van Dijk, Davis and Austin weren't far behind, Clasie probably putting in the best performance that I can remember from him. Where did all the doom and gloom merchants from a few weeks ago disappear to?

The reason I challenged the Tusk article is precisely that he doesn't understand that out means out. Otherwise, why would he think that there was even the remotest possibility that we might yet decide to remain in the EU? And wind in your neck with this "people like you" arrogance, because you are looking down your nose at over half of the electorate who voted to leave the EU.What happens to food prices remains to be seen and Mark Carney should get on with his job and deal with situations like inflation if and when they occur, rather than speculating on things that might not happen.

Come on then, Shorluck, me old mucker, answer my question and furnish me with the source of the figures. It was a simple request, so it shouldn't have been a problem for somebody of the intellect you assume yourself to have.

Typical of you Shorluck, to dismiss an opinion with a snide remark, rather than bothering to refute it with any sort of reasoned counter argument, or structured rebuttal. I expect that it's your strategy equivalent of this:-

If the mighty EU cannot push over the line a free trade deal with Canada in 7 years and counting, just think how long it would take little old us to achieve that. I reckon we'd achieve it in under two years. Unless one of our Counties votes it down, that is.

Ironic really that the two points you raised are new ones as far as I can see, especially this bizarre May conspiracy theory of yours. But otherwise the obvious response to your objection about repetitive replies, is to suggest that if you rake over the same old coals, you shouldn't be surprised to receive the same reactions.

If you researched it properly, you would find out that I was being generous to the EU position for a change. Of course the EU population of 500 million exactly is far too convenient, but is used as a sound-bite. It is actually 7 million or so more, hence 507 million less 65 million = the 442 million. No doubt had I used the 500 million, some smart Alec would have pulled me up on it.

You're talking gibberish. The biggest popular vote in history is all the mandate that the Government needs. The only way to determine whether there has been a sea change of opinion would be another referendum, which isn't going to happen. Live in hope with your peculiar conspiracy theory if it comforts you. I believe that May played a very astute game keeping her head down during the Referendum and now she is happy to ride the populist Brexit wave that will secure her place in British political history, just as Cameron and Osborne will be not be treated kindly for the part they played.

Will you please attempt to read and comprehend what is written before going off half-cock? I'll retaliate with a bugbear of my own from the Remainians. They ask why we would want to turn our backs on a market of just over 500 million people, when 65 million of those are us. We should not be included, but a round 500 million sounds a lot better than 442 million.

The Electorate have already been told what the implications of Brexit would be; it was labelled "Project Fear" and a majority who voted decided that they wanted to Leave regardless of all the forecasts of doom and gloom, Financial Armageddon, plague of locusts, etc.

Tusk needs to get real and accept that hell will freeze over before we decided that we would remain in the EU after all. He says that as no member state wished to see us leave, a decision to remain in would be welcomed by all of them. However, now that the majority of the electorate voting in the Referendum want to leave the EU, it is obvious that remaining in on the basis that there would be no concessions granted to us on immigration or on the supremacy of the European Courts is unacceptable. The EU had their chance to make concessions that would have swung the vote in favour of us remaining, but they blew it. That boat has now sailed and it is futile of the gauleiters like him and Juncker imagining for one second that it is even a remote possibility. As he says, our Brexit will be a loss for all of us, but we will replace the trade we lose with the EU with new free trade deals with the rest of the World if they decide to place tariffs on us. What will be their plan B if their intransigence means that their trade with us diminishes? At this early stage of the proceedings before we have even triggered Article 50, this is only bluster and posturing from both sides. The compromises will come later when the implications are examined in the cold light of day, when the most powerful business leaders have brought pressure to bear on the real decision makers in the EU.

HSBC closed their Hedge End Branch because of structural damage caused by an attempted robbery. They then decided not to reopen it, so in the rare occasions when my business invoices were settled by cheque, I went to the Bitterne branch as the next nearest. This month, that branch is also closing. What a damned nuisance Brexit is! Most of my banking is via the internet and I suspect yours is too, JB. How about you, Two Pints? Do you often find yourself visiting your local Bank in person, or do you bank online too?

Sometimes a simplistic response is all that is needed, especially when there is a situation like this that has not even developed yet to the stage whereby plans, intentions and strategies need to be made public. You Remoaners can huff and puff all you like about how just because you have not been given chapter and verse of the Government's intentions as to how they intend to proceed with Brexit, that they must therefore be incompetent, in disarray, lying, etc. Thank God that you lot aren't running the country, as you cannot see that in any negotiations, one doesn't lay out one's plans and intentions before one arrives at the table. You had better get used to it, as that will be how it is until March next year, as they assess the various options, take advice, employ trade negotiation experts and sound out potential future trade partners. I find it amusing that you attempt to place yourself in the shoes of a Brexiteer and to imagine the anger that you would feel at your imagined lack of transparency and democratic accountability. I'm afraid that your thought process doesn't translate very well into putting yourself in a Leave voter's shoes. There are several posters on here that supported us leaving the EU. Don't you think that if they felt as disgruntled as you think they should, that there would have been comments along those lines from them? As far as I can see, we Brexiteers seem remarkably calm about the whole thing. You can't really be taken seriously either by suggesting that if you had voted to leave, you would require a departure from the EU tailored to your own personal preferences. Do you think that the ballot paper should have had multiple choice questions? As you say, as a UK voter, you have every right to ask questions of the Government on their policy for exiting the EU. So go ahead and write to the PM, the Minister for Brexit or your MP. You won't get any answers on here. I assure you that our elected representatives will be attempting to ensure the best outcome for the country as a whole. Did you think that they would deliberately be pursuing the worst possible outcome?

Ah, the master of the crap analogy strikes again! Only you could come up with something as outlandish as that. Like LD, I'm content to wait and see what transpires, confident that in a decade, we will be in a far better position economically outside the EU than we would be if we remained inside it. The majority of the electorate who voted in the referendum believe that too. Now, I realise that you in your arrogance presume to have a clearer and more accurate crystal ball than those who voted to leave, but I assure you that you haven't. You're probably in a bit of a huff because I pointed out that your predictions about us having to go the Norway/Switzerland route will almost certainly be wrong.

Nobody has any concrete idea including you, and you cannot produce any evidence to refute that we will be fine once we have left the EU. So much for your clever-clogs, know it all demeanour, you don't have any more idea than me so by extension, you must be clueless too. You were the one that insisted that we would have to accept a Norway or Switzerland style solution to trade with the EU post Brexit; there would be no alternative, you said. How is that looking now? Highly improbable is how it's looking to me.

Why do you need us to be compared to anybody else? We are going to be like ourselves. Our situation is unique as the only member wishing to leave what has become the EU. Why should I predict what level of growth we might achieve? That would be as futile as the Treasury estimating that UK GDP would be between 5.4 per cent and 9.5 per cent of GDP lower with a central estimate of 7.5 per cent after 15 years if we left the EU with no successor arrangements with them, or no consideration of what bilateral trade agreements we will make with the rest of the World. Their figures were discredited already during Project Fear and yet apparently they are still regurgitating them. It is perfectly reasonable to hold the opinion that we will prosper post Brexit, and there really isn't any concrete evidence that can be produced to prove otherwise, is there?

Nick mentioned only petrol and prices. I have debunked the petrol side of his argument. As for prices in the shops, that is too complex an issue, full of variations, but there is some scope for people to buy home grown produce or to forego buying imported products which become less affordable. Some grocery prices will decrease because they are are forced up by the CAP, or because there are seasonal gluts. As for the rest of your argument, it is mostly pie in the sky, scatter-gun stuff. How have any of the advantages of Brexit been flushed away by the behaviour of the Government since the vote, when we haven't even triggered Article 50 yet, have not entered into any negotiations with the EU yet? When you talk about arrogance, you don't recognise the irony of the Remainians like you arrogantly not accepting the will of the electorate expressed in the referendum. You cannot apprehend that when you speak of democracy, that the referendum is itself a purely democratic device, which you choose to ignore. You don't accept that concern for UK citizens abroad can be matched by concerns for people in this country who can't get their children into their local schools, can't readily find accommodation to rent or buy, can't readily access the NHS, all because of the level of uncontrolled immigration from the EU?

Where did I say that we could expect the sort of growth rates that poorer countries like Vietnam or Bangladesh achieve? Where did I say that poorer countries don't grow faster than rich countries? That's right, I didn't. Wind in your neck. This is just typical of your straw man arguments. Typical in fact of the Remainian tactics too, whereby anybody's arguments that we might actually prosper trading with the rest of the World as an independent nation, that we ought to regain control of our borders, that we should take back control of our legal system, these are dismissed as being uninformed, ignorant, or xenophobic views. If you read properly the Full Fact article I linked, you would see that they stated "Europe's smaller share of world output is because of economic growth elsewhere." Perhaps you would care to debate the premise that it makes sense to grasp the opportunity that we now have to negotiate bilateral trade deals with the most progressive developing economies of the World as an independent nation, whilst accepting that although the EU is relatively stagnant, nevertheless we will continue most of our trade we already have with them, (although the terms under which we will trade with them in the future are the subject of negotiation).

Here is a helpful chart that shows you how the petrol prices fared during the past decade. During that time, the pound has also gone up and down in value, supply of petrol/diesel has also varied, as has the tax level depending on the Government of the time. But if you wish to make a connection to Brexit, these fluctuations occurred during our membership of the EU. http://www.racfoundation.org/data/uk-pump-prices-over-time The difference for an average household with a car doing 10,000 miles pa at an average 35 mpg, I estimate to have cost £1165 pa when petrol/diesel was at its cheapest in January 2009 and £1889 when it was at its dearest in April 2012. So taking the two extremes, a difference of around £700 pa. If the fall in the value of Stirling meant that prices rose to around £1.30 or so a litre, that would be what we paid from 2011 to 2014. Mine are fairly pessimistic figures, as many do fewer miles per annum and have cars doing more mpg, and indeed where I have averaged the cost for petrol and diesel, petrol prices have generally been lower than diesel. How on earth did families manage between 2011 to 2014?

You're like a stuck record, Shorluck. I don't judge satire according to its creator's origins, I rate it only by whether it is clever or amusing. I really have no idea of the background, religions or political allegiances of the people on that show, neither would it interest me anyway. Do you yourself think it important?