Wes Tender

By some of the media, you probably mean the Guardian, the Not Independent or the Mirror? And you give me a real belly-laugh with your hopeless analogy painting us as the stroppy teenager still wishing to remain tied to mummy's apron strings. We are more akin to the strong-willed and independently minded teenager wishing to break free from the constraints of home life to go out into the big wide World to seek his fortune.

We can begin the process whenever we like within reason and it is annoying the hell out of the Eurocrats. Boris hasn't contradicted May as far as I can see and must be privy to the rough schedule that is anticipated. Of course May is playing her cards close to her chest and making the right preparations to put a good negotiating team in place, both for the EU negotiations and for the ensuing World trade agreements. I realise how that irks some on here, who prefer to surmise that she doesn't have a clue about how to go about it all, but I'm confident that as well as planning the most effective strategy, it also strengthens our hand to proceed slowly, as events unfolding in the EU such as elections, financial collapse in the Eurozone and immigration problems could strengthen our hand.

All of those chosen as negotiators on behalf of the EU for our Brexit are just front men, I'm well aware of that. But that hasn't stopped the Remoaners on here indulging in unbridled delight at the sort of people chosen to do that job and how hard it will be to squeeze an acceptable deal out of them. As you say, although the negotiations will be handled by these front men, it will be the leaders of the main member states who will exert the greatest pressure on the outcome, those from the original Treaty of Rome members having the most influence.

This is all very encouraging as we will shortly embark on our post-Brexit negotiations early next year. What we can bear in mind right from the outset, is that all this rhetoric from the likes of Juncker about how the EU needs to make an example of us, no access to the single market without free movement of peoples, these are just really hollow threats that are not really meant. It is all a facade, they talk tough, but will crumble when push comes to shove. Thanks for the thumbs-up, Whitey.

You're OK at your age. But all the kids who think that Brexit has ruined their future are the ones who need to consider the consequences of taking out EU dual citizenship, as they will be conscripted into the Euro-Army when they unsuspectingly take their first European holiday following their 17th birthday.

You delude yourself if you believe that a Remain vote was just one thing, the continuance of the status quo. It would be seen as a green light for further progress towards a United States of Europe for a start. Anybody who voted for the original Common Market and has witnessed what it has since become, can have no doubt of that. So some of the electorate might feel disenfranchised once the details of our future relationship with the EU is sorted out? So what? Don't you think that there was a substantial proportion of the electorate who felt disenfranchised by our membership of the EU project?

You missed out a little word, rather conveniently. I have inserted it for you and highlighted it for clarity. There were several reasons given during the Referendum campaign both for staying and leaving. As the freedom of movement of peoples was one of the major ones featured in the Leave campaign, it was plenty clear enough to those that voted to leave that it was a red line issue. Would you have preferred the ballot paper to have covered all of the issues over several pages, or for there to have been separate policy items that could be ticked according to the voters' preferences?

I can't be bothered with Tw*tter as a form of communication, so that is conclusive proof that I and many Brexiters don't like the modern World? I prefer to actually speak to somebody on the phone rather than sending a message by text or Tw*tter. You love the modern world because you have a Tw*tter account, but it is dormant. Saying that Tw*tter is vacuous is vacuous itself, you say? So saying that it is brilliant would be a brilliant remark? What's dormant is your thought process.

You were wittering on about tariffs on car imports of 10% which is something associated with the WTO, so a reasonable conclusion to reach. There is no way that we will go for a Norway or Switzerland deal. The freedom of movement of peoples will preclude that happening and neither will any fudge deal such as you have suggested be allowed. That sort of fig-leaf solution is what Cameron ought to have gone for before the Referendum and it might then have pushed the Remain vote over the line - just about. Now that we have voted to leave, it is not an option. There is already an impetus towards a cross party pressure group being formed to ensure that we will not accept the freedom of movement of peoples as part of any trade deal negotiated with the EU and if it is attempted in any form, they will stir up trouble for May from within her party and outside. The Brexit vote is an opportunity to make UKIP a political irrelevance if we go about it the right way, but a fudge like the one you are suggesting will have them back stronger than before. That is what is concentrating Theresa May's mind.

As you very well know, I'm a Conservative and I'm afraid that I don't have a Tw*tter account and can't even be bothered to find out how it works. It seems pretty vacuous to me. Why should Brexiteers worry about Switzerland's dealings with the EU? We aren't remotely like Switzerland. Even Timmy has finally recognised that we will almost certainly not be going down the Switzerland or Norway route in our future trading arrangements with the EU.

Who is this Duncan Carswell bloke? Never heard of him.

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-3791684/Built-Britain-car-conquer-America-Brexit-boost-Honda-makes-UK-global-hub.html Either Honda doesn't think that they will be paying the tariff, or they aren't that bothered by it.

I was quite well aware of the WTO tariff on cars, but you hadn't made it clear that you were talking about that being the way that you thought we would go. Up until now, your position has been unequivocally that we would be forced into some Norway or Switzerland type of arrangement. I'm pleased to see that you have opened your mind to there being other options. Whichever way we decide to go in the future, it is clearly the case that it is not in the EU's interests to have tariffs applied to their automotive industries and they will have two years to arrive at that conclusion once we trigger Article 50.

You're just so sure that there will be tariffs lumped onto the trade in cars between us and the EU, are you? On what evidence do you make that prediction. Economic literacy?

No doubt you'll highlight the part of my post where you think that I've misunderstood the basics of EU membership, won't you? And I have to laugh at you thinking that I'm attempting to lecture anybody, rather than just expressing an opinion. The merits/demerits of our trade with the EU were well documented by both sides during the referendum debate and it is typical of the sheer arrogance of the Remainians that that they refuse to accept that the majority who voted to leave could have arrived at their decision having weighed up the pros and cons or had as many good reasons for voting that way as the lot who voted to stay in did.

There is indeed. Any trade deals that we negotiate with the rest of the World, will be ones that we have arranged between us and our chosen trade partner, to our mutual benefit, on terms acceptable to both parties. The deal with the EU on the other hand, is a deal with 27 member states, encumbered with masses of red tape, precludes us arranging our own trade deals as a separate entity, has a high financial cost of membership and involves the necessity for us to accept unlimited and uncontrolled immigration from other EU member states. Regarding this poll, we all know how accurate these YouGov polls are, don't we? They begin by stating that a trade deal with the EU post-Brexit will be complicated and take a long time to arrange. And then some idiots wonder why the British public are attracted to do trade deals with countries with which we have such strong historic, cultural and language ties with, and which as a result will be easier to arrange. The argument about the percentages of trade we do currently with those countries compared to the volume with the EU is totally spurious. For all the time we have been members of the EU, we have been prohibited from arranging trade agreements with them, as only the EU could arrange that on behalf of the member states. So bearing in mind the inefficiency with which the EU go about these things, it is not surprising that our trade with those countries with strong historic ties to the UK is not high.

I understand that when Long was booked for simulation, it was in fact a decent penalty shout. I also heard that Austin's goal that was ruled offside, should not have been. The refereeing decisions have all gone against us, so we have to play really well to negate them, which we did today. The first half was fairly 50/50, but we certainly stepped it up in the second and Puel made some effective substitutions that swung the match firmly our way. But for some wayward shooting mainly from Redmond, we could have been out of sight and until Austin scored, it looked as if it was going to be one of those days when nothing went your way. During the second quarter of the match, we were pedestrian, when having won the ball in midfield, we needed to surge upfield in numbers. Instead four or five players strolled along as if they were out for a Sunday walk in the park. I sincerely hope that Puel read them the riot act at half time, as that was clearly unacceptable. We did come out in the second half on the front foot, closed Swansea down to win the ball and made some good movement and more incisive passing and with the pressure mounting, we created some much better chances. Højbjerg for Clasie was a good change which shored up the midfield and Martina added good protection for Cedric and helped neutralise Moreno, who had been a threat down our right against Tadic and Cedric. But the most effective substitution of all was of course Austin. It becomes clearer with each match that we need two strikers, Austin with either Long/Redmond/Rodriguez and probably Redmond playing out wide instead of up front. Early days in the season, but we have now started to put together some form and the arrival of Boufal can only be a massive boost if he can provide the additional sort of guile and trickery that we also have from Tadic, but also add some goals too. For all those who decried our inability to beat Watford at home, they obviously can't be as bad as some made out, having now thrashed West Ham and beaten Man Utd convincingly.

Accrington Stanley? Who are they?

I'm a centre right Conservative although I realise that I might appear to be further to the right from your position on the left of the political spectrum. For somebody as mega-intelligent as yourself, I'm pleased to see that despite making bad mistakes in your political judgements, such as Corbyn's chances of election to the leadership of the Labour Party in the original contest, I'm pleased to see that you have learned from it and now acknowledge that he will almost certainly triumph again. As you say, under those circumstances, there will arise an SDP Mk2 Party to fill the vacuum and to cater for the centre left Guardian readership, but it will take time to gain momentum and Corbyn's rump of lefties will split the Labour vote.

The crux of your post, is that the survey was a few years ago, so I presume it pre-dated the massive influx of immigration from Romania and Bulgaria, which together with the refugees fleeing the Middle East and the huge numbers of economic migrants from sub-Sahara Africa amongst other areas. People respond to polls like this based on how it affects them and if they find that their children's classrooms are too crowded, or that the NHS queues are considerably longer, that there is a housing shortage, all as a result of immigration, then that starts to go up in importance. If as a result of our Brexit the cost of accessing the single market is increased by tariffs, then the other side of the coin is that it will be set against the monies we will no longer have to pay into the EU coffers and the future boost to the economy which will ensue from broadening our trade horizons to the rest of the World. In your opinion you say that Theresa May will arrange a fudge to protect trade at the expense of allowing the free movement of people, but I say that is our red line and she realises that the political cost of doing that will be far worse than it would be if there was a hit to services and industry with some accompanying job losses. May has two reasons for comfort in the current situation. She can point to the fact ttat she had been a Remainer, albeit a low profile one and she can say that there were warnings of the potential consequences of our Brexit. She is also in the happy position that there is no realistic opposition that could mount a challenge to the Conservatives at the next election.

Once again, what a delight Question Time was last night. The main thrust of the debate was dominated by the petty squabbles which characterise the progress of the Labour Party towards a crash and burn political oblivion. On the one hand was arch spin-doctor Alistair Campbell, the architect of re-branding Labour into the washes whiter New Labour and on the other, Corbyn's main henchman representing Labour's leftwards lurch backwards the Foot era in the early eighties. But the programme burst into life when Anna Soubry branded Mc Donnell "a nasty piece of work" and there were subsequent angry exchanges between Campbell and McDonnell. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/bbc-question-time-descends-into-angry-row-as-anna-soubry-brands-john-mcdonnell-a-nasty-piece-of-work_uk_57db2292e4b028e52a100b91 Soubry was right when she said that the electorate had the right to expect that the democratic process was best served by having an effective opposition and that there wasn't one when Labour was concentrating all its efforts on internal squabbles. Campbell stated that Labour was headed towards potential oblivion. All in all, it made for very entertaining viewing.

It was a fairly comfortable win and we really didn't need to get out of second gear. From the outset it was clear that several players who would be considered second string were given the opportunity to state a case for first team selection and they acquitted themselves well. It demonstrates that we do have some good strength in depth, which will be needed this season with the extra fixtures. There were very good options from the bench in the event that we might have needed to chase the game, but the substitutions were made only to spare some players the additional effort and to give others a run-out when the match was well won. We pressured them from the start and perhaps a combination of European teams not being used to the fast pace of English football, and a nervous visiting team not responding quickly enough to the onslaught meant that they were on the back foot. That early pressure paid dividends very quickly, although we were fortunate for once to be the beneficiaries of a dubious penalty decision rather than the victims. Disappointing at first to see the squabble between Tadic and Austin as to who would take it, but V V-D stepped in as captain to allow Austin the honour. In retrospect, it was good to see the passion from both players and the good humoured response by Tadic when the penalty was dispatched. What was important, was that Austin had received a great confidence boost, as had the team, and it meant that Sparta would have to come at us if they wanted anything from the match. All the team played pretty well apart from a few niggles. Romeu was guilty of giving the ball away several times in the first half, but improved in the second. Yoshida had a single dodgy moment with a slightly under hit back pass to Forster, but Forster retrieved it well, otherwise Yoshida had a good game as did Targett. Fonte and Bertrand would be preferred, but but there is really not much reason for concern when these two deputise. Martina had an outstanding game and on the basis of his performance last night, one can see why Koeman would have been happy to have him at Everton. Van Dijk was a rock as usual and is surely as good as any CB in the PL. Højbjerg is another who is starting to attract the attention of many as an outstanding prospect, another great piece of business by Saints to replace those who leave for pastures supposedly greener. Puel got the tactics spot on last night and the formation was effective with Long and Austin up front. Long seems a bit off colour, but is invaluable for his pace, attitude and difficulty to defend against and players like Austin need somebody like him to feed off the chances they create. The match provided an opportunity for the likes of Austin and Rodriguez to bag the goals that would give them the momentum from the boost to their confidence and both seem to be showing signs that they could potentially go on to feature massively this season. On paper, they and Long could be a very potent force, with Redmond, Tadic and Boufal providing additional goals and assists themselves, we seem to have a very potent attack. It was good to watch the match highlights on the box last night, the commentators very complimentary towards us and indeed about Puel.

Typically of your usual MO. Your previous point is debunked, so you deflect away from that and concentrate on something else, the timing of Brexit which is an entirely separate issue. Of course, having commented on the article and how it contradicted your assertion that there would be no pragmatism from the EU's hatchet men chosen to negotiate on their behalf, or that the German pragmatists were nowhere to be seen, naturally I read the rest of the article. I am entirely content to await developments and then to comment, unlike most of the Remainians on here, who prefer to go off at half-cock based on assumptions, presumptions and pure guesswork

Since I had wanted the opportunity to vote out since Maastricht in 1992, I'm hardly likely to have forgotten that. It is as boring to me being asked to repeat what I have said several times, as it would be to others to have to hear it repeated constantly. I know pretty well what the stance is for most of the regular posters on this thread, so why haven't you recalled what mine was? Is your memory failing you?

I have expressed my reasons several times. I suggest that if you wish to know what they were, you read back through the thread, or rather the Referendum thread that proceeded it. You will also find that I had posted that I had campaigned on the doorstep as a young man to join the Common Market and also campaigned to remain in the Common Market during Wilson's referendum. But of course, what it became since bears very scant resemblance to what it was when we joined. Who cares what influence we have on the EU now? We are leaving it and our doing so will have far more effect on its future direction than if we had stayed, when we would have been seen to be acquiescent to further progress towards federalism. The best outcome would be a EU regressing towards solely the original Common Market concept, forced into that position by other member states voting to leave it, or a two tier Europe comprised of those who wished to have closer federal ties and those who didn't.