Wes Tender

http://www.lawyersforbritain.org/files/uk-right-to-negotiate-free-trade-agreements-before-leaving-eu.pdf It seems that there may be legal grounds allowing us to negotiate FTAs with the rest of the World before we trigger Article 50, provided that they do not come into effect until after we have finally left the EU.

I'm sure that ECUK will be grateful for your intervention on his behalf. As a Conservative Party member, policy briefings I receive at least give me the political edge over you when it comes to having a grasp of what their position will be regarding the path they take towards leaving the EU and deciding what is pot-stirring by the media, attempting to highlight divisions that don't exist within the Party and which are lapped up by the likes of you. It really is no earth-shattering surprise that over an issue such as leaving the EU which divided the nation during the referendum, that there should also be differences of opinion within the cabinet or the party on how we go about it and how different aspects of it are prioritised. Cabinets of all political persuasions contain Ministers with differences of opinion over certain policies, but they arrive at decisions based on consensus, as will this one. Any credibility that reflected your grasp of politics was severely damaged when you assured us that there was no way that Corbyn would be elected leader of the Labour Party. Oh, and Happy Hijri New Year!

No doubt you will be happy to provide links to the articles that led you to these conclusions; I couldn't find anything particularly that could lead me to them. So the Chancellor puts more emphasis on trade over immigration and the Secretary of State for International Trade and President of the Board of Trade prioritises immigration over trade. I'm inclined towards this being a difference of opinion over priorities rather than a split, although I can understand that you Remainians like to clutch at straws. It has already been stated many times that the Government is not going to lay out its proposals on how it will negotiate a trade deal with the EU before Article 50 is triggered, so any little snippets like these are just opinions, not policy. What has been made crystal clear by the PM, is that we will not accept the free movement of peoples as part of any trade deal.

MOTD 2 very complimentary about us again. Once more they asked the question about how many times we can keep on losing star players and then replace them and carry on as if nothing happened. Tonight it was Romeu singled out for praise. I can't wait for Boufal to start to impress as Mane's replacement.

We'll have to wait and see. Although she has a slender majority, many MPs who supported the Remain position now take the view that the people have spoken and that they have a moral obligation to accede to their wishes. Maybe the cunning plan is to call a General Election if the Great Repeal Act freeing us from the 1972 European Communities Act is not passed. Apart from Labour being in disarray, an election called on that basis would almost certainly see the Conservatives gaining a much bigger majority, especially if contrary to the fear campaign's pre-referendum predictions, the economy continued to show no signs of deterioration during the next few months.

Read this and bring yourself up to date. You're probably going to find yourself being wrong on all the points you raised apart from having no say on how the EU is run, but then we wouldn't care a toss once we're out of it. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/02/brexit-theresa-may-prioritises-immigration-curbs-over-free-movement

A very good point away at the PL Champions. We shaded the match and had the better chances to have won it. Unbeaten in six matches all with clean sheets. Once again, Puel was tactically astute. Mahrez and Vardy were both pretty inneffective. The only blemish on the performance was the slack back passing by both Virgil and Romeu, which could have both been punished but for good recoveries. Cedric had a good game until his injury and Martina was solid to replace him. Man of the match Romeu; very steady in front of the defence. Austin got good service to him on several occasions and came very close a couple of times. We finished strongly on the front foot, going for the three points right until the final whistle. A good entertaining match to watch, we are putting down a marker as a very difficult team to beat.

He's obviously not a shining example of somebody whose opinions carry any weight from experience of the cold hard World. He was born into an aristocratic family, educated at Eton and Cambridge, probably has never had any sort of job whereby he could identify with the hopes and aspirations of the man in the street. He sits in his ivory tower in the sheltered hallowed halls of academia and pontificates about how the educated and privileged like him will not be affected by the post-Brexit era. As you say, it doesn't take an Einstein to recognise that wealth, position and the best education will equip those who have them to thrive under almost any circumstances in a civilised Country like ours. It smacks of an "I'm alright, Jack, blow you" attitude guaranteed to get up the noses of those less well educated or privileged. I would go further and say that it was arrogant, detached individuals like him and the so-called other experts that peppered the Remain campaign with their superiority platitudes that probably gifted the Brexit the extra few percent that pushed them over the winning line.

You've neatly avoided debating the issues I raised by responding with platitudes and generalisations that nobody could reasonably disagree with. So to clarify your position, could you please answer my question as to whether our continued membership of the EU or departure from it should have been settled by a referendum, or would you have been happy under the circumstances I outlined in my middle paragraph to support a decision that was left solely for the government to decide, had they promised in their manifesto that we would leave if they won the election? The reality of what transpired is that had the Conservatives not offered a referendum (and assurances that the decision would be binding on them), the Euro-sceptic sector of the electorate would not have been placated into accepting those hollow platitudes and UKIP would have increased their vote substantially. The subtlety of British politics is demonstrated by gradual alterations to the political landscape over many years, whereby if the electorate's will is ignored, there will be the eventual formation and rise of political forces like UKIP that will bring about those changes, as has happened in this instance.

What I'm arguing is a very simple premise, that the issue of our membership of the EU is far too important to be lumped together with all of those other everyday policies and that it should subsequently be accepted that if elected a government had a mandate for that one issue. Of course, the difference between that single issue and all of the others, is that they are reversible in the next General Election, whereas leaving the EU is not. Just to see how deep your principles go with your stance that Parliament is sovereign and that decisions like this should be taken by them, I presume that logically you would be happy if the Conservative manifesto had had a commitment to leave the EU and then having won the election, proceeded to trigger article 50 immediately afterwards, claiming that they had a mandate for it. Regarding your claim that those who voted for the Conservatives are somehow let down because Cameron has resigned, they voted for the Party, not the leader. The leader is chosen by the Party, not the electorate. Who is to say that Theresa May is not seen by many voters as an improvement on Cameron, as many despised the Tory Toffs like him and Osborne. Anyway, the same applies to Labour when Blair resigned and also when Red Ed resigned after the last election, ditto the Lib Dems, all have changed their leaders following the General Election.

Get your facts straight. The actual General Election Conservative manifesto was not very detailed about that at all and there certainly wasn't any caveat that I recall about wanting to remain in the single market regardless of the referendum result. But their manifesto for the preceding European Elections the year before said this:- ● Free movement to take up work, not a freedom to move just for more generous benefits. ● Support for the continued enlargement of the EU to new members, but with new mechanisms in place to prevent vast migrations across the continent. As it is an EU prerequisite that membership of the single market was conditional on the free movement of peoples, then those manifesto conditions clearly challenged that policy and sought to bring about some reform of it.

Just for you. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHOKhyhBjnY I had to laugh at the crowds surging out of the Dell when they scored and then missing our three goals.

A referendum is far and away the more democratic device for a single policy issue rather than allowing MPs to decide such matters on the basis of their election on a manifesto covering dozens of policy issues. According to you, issues such as education/increasing the number of Grammar Schools, defence/renewing our nuclear deterrent, the National Health Service, housing, law and order, immigration, Europe etc, are all to be left to the government of whichever political persuasion on the basis that they have a mandate on each and every one of those issues. You bleat on about how it will change the futures of our children for generations to come and then don't see it as being important enough to be decided by a public plebiscite. The fact that a majority of the electorate flew in the face of the major traditional parties who all had manifestos wishing to remain in the EU speaks volumes about how out of touch the political establishment was with the electorate. Following your argument that policy over matters like Europe should be decided by elections rather than referenda, even that is untenable as during the European Elections, UKIP the dominant party attained the most seats by some distance on the pledge that they would seek our departure from the EU. Thankfully, the Conservative Party was forced by the rise in UKIP support to add a manifesto commitment to holding a referendum over our membership of the EU if they won the last election. What would you have their manifesto state in order that it would be an obligation that they would have to honour if elected? That they would remain in, or that they would leave? That they would stay or leave if certain reform conditions were or were not met? There has been a history of broken promises over Europe by governments both Labour and Conservative during the past couple of decades and the electorate had had enough of being lied to. The falling number of voters in recent elections was testament to this disillusionment with the electoral system and how stale it had become. This referendum has invigorated our democratic process, not lessened it.

Whilst we are discussing what is democratic and what isn't, according to your stance there should have been a referendum before we signed the Treaties of Maastricht, Amsterdam, Nice and Lisbon. The UK electorate certainly never voted for what those treaties imposed on us. I'm sure that you would have been happy to have referenda on them, wouldn't you?

0-0. I'll take that. Difficult away game on a hot evening. We looked much better in the second half. Good tactical changes by Puel. Long completely out of sorts, not much threat from Redmond either. But then again, there wasn't much from Be'er either.

We've been poor first half, better since Tadic came on. But it's all to play for and if we come out and show more endeavour, we can win this. Højbjerg for Clasie please. Presumably our slow play could have something to do with the temperature in the stadium?

Do you mean the comment he made that leaving the EU would after five years be as big a disaster as The Great British Bake Off going to Channel 4? Do you really put that much credence on the opinion of somebody who could trivialise our future in those terms, somebody who doesn't even know that the Arctic is not a natural habitat for penguins?

Understandable from the way that you phrased it. We had both responded to you and your bizarre response regarding parentage can be read as questioning both his and mine. And it was my link that elicited the response from you that Doepfner's opinion should be discarded because he gave it as an individual, so again it was reasonable to conclude that you were also responding to me too.

Your first line leads me to believe that you are losing your marbles. Show me where I mistook what you said with Verbal's comments. As for Doepfner's stance, I have already expressed an opinion about that; he was keen on us remaining in the EU as a stabilising influence and now expresses regret that we will not be able to fulfil that role. And I repeat, you were perfectly happy to quote the opinions of one person when they laid out the benefits of remaining in the EU, the so-called experts, and likewise many of them are now also changing their tune.

:lol: Look, Johnny, Timmy says that we must be desperate citing a lone individual, whereas the opinions of individuals on the Remain side are to be given serious attention. Timmy points out that Mathias Doepfner's publications expressed the view during the referendum campaign that the UK should remain in the EU. In light of what he says in that article, that position was hardly surprising. He wanted us to stay in as a stabilising influence. He recognises that it will be those very attributes that will hold us in good stead in the coming years when we are free from the EU.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/brexit-european-union-britain-eu-referendum-better-off-a7332036.html 'In three to five years from now, my bet would be that England will be better off than continental Europe' says a German Publisher

Reed claimed that Saints were thought to be the only club in the PL doing this.

........and we've still got Boufal to come It was a stroll in the park once we got off the mark with a trademark finish from Austin. It was amusing to hear Sky saying that Austin cut a frustrated figure up front because he wasn't getting the service and then wallop! West Ham had previously been very cagey up until then, lacking the confidence to threaten us properly on their own home turf, but having gone behind they had no choice. The gaps began to appear in their defence and we started to tear them apart. I understand that nine shots on target is the joint highest in the PL this season and a combination of great saves from Adrian and shots too close to him saved them from being hit for six or maybe even more. Four games won with clean sheets in all and we begin to look like a team capable once again of achieving a top six finish. I am delighted for Puel. His tactics both before and during a match seem to be pretty good. Nice to hear Henry complimenting him as a perfectionist, as had Wenger before him. Both know him well and respect his abilities. I am certain that we won't be hearing much from the usual bed-wetters who predicted an early sacking for him and a relegation fight on our hands. I won't be expecting any acknowledgement from them any time soon that they might have been a bit hasty.

This is one of the dumbest responses too, making the sort of arrogant assumptions that you did when predicting the result of the first Labour leadership contest and generally putting your own spin on what I said, so that it reads what you want to think I said. As somebody as mega-intelligent as you believe yourself to be ought to realise, the number of seats held by a party under the first past the post system, bears scant relationship to the percentage of the votes they receive. In a number of constituencies, it doesn't take much of a percentage swing for the seat to change hands. I have never said that the Conservatives will be defeated in the next election, but there is scope whilst Labour is totally unelectable under Corbyn for an alternative party like UKIP to increase their support and to make a breakthrough into having a significant number of MPs. Obviously not enough to win the election, but enough to pose a threat in the future unless action is taken to pander to their concerns and policies. Perhaps you ought to recognise that UKIP was capable of forcing the Conservatives into holding the referendum in the first place, regardless of having no presence in Parliament. I'm afraid though that in the same way that you made an arse of yourself with your predictions about Corbyn, you lack the insight or foresight to see the wider picture. You and other lefties crowed about how the economy would implode as a result of a Brexit vote, lapping up the predictions of the so-called experts who have now been proved wrong about their forecasts of the immediate effects and who are now backtracking. Therefore in the same way, it is ridiculous to talk in your usual superior arrogant way about realities. A reality can only be based on fact, something that does not apply to the outcome of talks between us and the EU in the future. You can make an educated guess, like you did in the Corbyn situation, but please accept that it will be only that, nothing more. And you ought to also accept that what would be considered punitive economically for us, would also be punitive economically for the EU too, would it not?

May won't go for a soft Brexit. She realises that acceptance of the free movement of peoples as a condition of access to the single market is totally unacceptable to the majority of those who voted for a Brexit and that if she holds firm on that, there is an opportunity to make UKIP an irrelevance. If not, then as you say, they will become a significant threat in the next GE, picking up a substantial number of disaffected Labour voters from their traditional industrial heartlands, as well as those from the Tory right.