Wes Tender

I recommend that you find out this information yourself on Google. Type in something along the lines of "why the UK should leave the EU" or something along those lines. Of course, there will inevitably be an element of spin depending on the sources and therefore you can take some opinions with a pinch of salt, but that applies to both sides. Other than that, the future position depends on several factors to be determined by negotiations, but equally of course the future holds few certainties had we voted to remain in the EU

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37369917 This article rather flies in the face of Verbal's assertion that there are no pragmatic aspects to the EU's prospective negotiations with the UK once Article 50 is triggered. If the German pragmatists were nowhere, why would Van Rompuy express the opinion that nothing substantive in the negotiations would be decided before the new German Government was formed following the elections next September? And then of course, Van Rompuy insists that there is not an agenda to give the UK a good kicking. He actually states that Verhostadt and Barnier although being tough negotiators, were also pragmatists, recognising that there was a need to achieve a deal that was mutually beneficial. It is clear that the red line on both sides is the freedom of movement of peoples. We cannot accept it as a condition of continuing membership of the single market, but the pragmatic approach from both sides would be to allow the UK access to the single market from outside the EU, without imposing punitive tariffs which would affect both sides adversely. Verhostadt and Barnier can propose a tough negotiating stance on the conditions of our future trade with the EU, but ultimately surely that will have to be ratified presumably by the Council of Ministers or the MEPs. It is then that the more pragmatic solutions will be come into play when the individual member states assess the impact on their own industries and economies.

There were enough positives that a majority of those who voted in the referendum thought it worthwhile to vote to get out of the EU. I'm sorry if more of those positives didn't penetrate your psyche, but it isn't the Leave campaign's fault if some had their fingers in their ears during the Referendum debate.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/sep/14/german-trade-expert-appointed-to-eus-brexit-taskforce The German pragmatists are nowhere, because surely she couldn't possibly be one. She spent a year at Cambridge, so she probably hates the British establishment. She will have gone too far native to wish to protect the German trade interests of their major industries during the Brexit trade negotiations.

We'll just have to wait and see, won't we? But what is as ridiculous as writing off the manager and Saints' season after a few matches, is writing us off as a country a couple of months after we voted to leave the EU.

Again, I question the assertion that all British companies and assets are worth less than they were before. A company or an asset is only worth what somebody is prepared to pay for it. Our exporters are having a great time of it as is our tourist industry, because their products cost less with a weaker pound. You would no doubt have it that if we had a very strong currency, and as a result our exports or hotels cost substantially more, thus meaning that shop floors were idle, or that hotels were half empty, then they would be worth more. Fixing a trade deal is a bargaining process. Where it has been difficult to arrange trade deals between the EU and countries like China, the USA, Canada, etc., it has been because all member states of the EU have to ratify the deal, which as we know has taken ages because one member state or another tries to protect the self-interests of some major sector of their economy. A bilateral deal between just two countries would not suffer that problem, so could be concluded much more speedily. The contrary position to the one you take, is to acknowledge that nothing would incentivise the speedy conclusion to negotiations of a trade deal between the EU and another country than the prospect that the UK might beat them to it. Canada has taken years trying to fix a deal with the EU, so would they carry on waiting an indefinite time for a conclusion, or tie up a deal with us in the meantime on the basis that we were one of the main countries in the EU that they wanted to do business with in the first place? So, we have lost clout in the EU? So what? We didn't have much anyway as was proven when we tried to reform it. It is debatable whether our clout in the rest of the World is diminished. I very much doubt it. In many ways now that we have taken the steps to achieve more self determination, our stock might well have risen in many areas and will grow as we prove that we can actually prosper outside of the EU.

What a bizarre notion, that because the £ Stirling is devalued against some other currencies, that the whole country is now worth about 10% less than it was before. How much were we worth before? Put a figure on it. I'm afraid that you appear a little shrill in your language. We have not all of a sudden become pariahs in the World just because we chose to leave the EU. Many other countries have expressed a keen interest in arranging post-Brexit trade deals with us. It speaks volumes that the EU does not itself have trade deals with either the USA or China. Perhaps we will arrange one before the EU do. Regarding the limboland jibe, our trading relationship with the EU will contiue for two years after we trigger Article 50, so during that time at least, it is business much as usual.

You can understand why he is called "Tosh", as that is what he speaks.

What a totally clueless analogy. Greece maybe, if you had to choose any EU country.

Likewise Verbal's list of questions was just a cut and paste from loser Clegg and Peter Sutherland. How odd.

Lovren?? Get real, please. We could not keep those players, whether you like it or not.

Events, dear boy, events,

Mine too. By then, there will have been other exits following our lead and the collapse of the Eurozone.

Absolutely typical of you to be incapable of understanding a simple analogy. I think you probably confused yourself by twisting it into something different. But even then, you think that if there is snow and ice, it is improbable to have sunshine?

It seems that Giroud asked Fonte what the penalty was awarded for. That really does say it all.

No, let's have these contributions from the left-wing media adding to the debate. They provide some entertainment value with their shrill doom-laden scenarios, much as Campaign Fear did during the referendum debate. Many of their predictions of the immediate consequence of a Brexit vote have not come to pass, so let's not attach too much credence to what they predict for several months or years ahead. No doubt you hang on their every word and accept everything they say as the gospel truth, but in reality of course, saying that X or Y will happen as a result of various courses of action taken by the Government is pure conjecture, so shouldn't be gloated upon as some form of evidence that those who choose to dispel it or dare to criticise it must be a bit thick. Let's just take one little snippet, albeit an important one, to convey their thought processes and if it is accepted that their reasoning is flawed, then it should follow that there is a strong possibility that other conclusions they reach might also be flawed. No, it doesn't follow that those negative economic outcomes for the UK are all probable. It is a bit like saying that because the weather forecaster said it would be cloudy, then it follows that it will be cold, or wet, or that it will snow.

I didn't say that I was willing to sacrifice unfettered access to the single market just because of the perceived accession of the countries mentioned. If you read carefully, I said that we had no control at all over the numbers coming in from the EU, that the situation had worsened considerably with Romania and Bulgaria's accession and that no doubt it would be much worse again if the other states were allowed to join. But to answer the question about "unfettered" access, then of course it isn't unfettered at all, is it? You surely ought to realise that it comes at the price of uncontrolled movement of peoples, payment of a hefty membership fee, loss of sovereignty and subjugation of our legal system. Yes, I would certainly be willing to have access to the single market from outside of it, in return for the control over all of those other matters and I suspect that goes for most of those who voted to leave the EU too. Brexit was different things for different people, as you ought to realise. But immigration was probably the main issue. If you think back to the campaign, I'm pretty sure that when speakers for Brexit talked about taking back control, control of our borders was usually the first thing they listed among several.

I largely share your cynicism on most matters political, but the public didn't accept the moulding of lies or half truths or spin presented to them by the remain campaign during the referendum. Perhaps they are not as gullible as the London elite like to believe them to be.

What a ridiculous stance to take. Yes, we have some control over the half of our immigration that comes through the rest of the World, but almost no control whatsoever over the immigration from other member states of the EU. We are handicapped massively on any form of selective immigration, because we have no idea how many immigrants will come into the UK from the EU. I understand that immigration from Romania and Bulgaria topped 200,000 last year and had we voted to remain, even if Turkey is not allowed to join, then Albania, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia could mean substantial immigration increases from those countries too. Where there is high youth unemployment in a country and they could earn several times more per hour than in their own countries, even on our minimum wage and then often have it topped up with benefits, it's a bit of a no-brainer where they are going to go. How do you justify the rather weird position that having control over something does not in itself lead to a better outcome? I presume that logically in your mind, it would be better not to have any control? At least if we have Government control and things go awry, the electorate have powers to give them a good kicking at the ballot box, something that cannot be administered to the Eurocrat Bureaucrats.

I am not basing it on a hope; I am basing it on an expectation. I fully expect that we will likewise refuse to countenance free movement of peoples as a condition of membership of the single market. You have consistently parroted your mantra that we will opt for the Norway or Switzerland option, but I don't think we will. We'll just have to wait and see, but as I already indicated, if we accept some fudge that doesn't allow us to control our borders, there will be a very heavy price for the Government to pay politically.

Nothing is bleeding obvious. Most thought it bleeding obvious that Remain would win the referendum, that Corbyn would not win the Labour leadership contest, that Johnson would be the next PM, etc. What might happen is so bleeding obvious that in a later post, you express only an opinion of what you think might develop.

It really is so simple, that a person of your self-assumed intelligence really ought to have twigged it. Brexit will allow us to regain control of our immigration policies, instead of being forced to accept uncontrolled immigration from any other member state of the EU. The "take back control" slogan which was so effective in the campaign doesn't seem to have registered with you. How we go about it is now up to us, unless May backslides over the future trade arrangements with the EU and concedes the free movement of people as a condition of it, but that would be totally against the spirit of the support for Brexit and would cause continual division within the party and in the Country.

Perhaps you will oblige me and itemise all of the saves that Forster had to make from their shots on goal. And if you're going to bang on about the chances that they had but didn't take, then you'll be equally accepting of the chances we had but didn't take, won't you? In the interests of balance, you understand. On another day, we could have won by quite a margin. Could have, might have, would have, should have. Didn't and neither did they.

We deserved a point at least, but it's hard to get a result when you're playing against 12. MOTD will have a field day when they see Long being denied a blatant free kick for the foul on him, which was right in front of the linesman and that led to Arsenal getting up field and gaining a penalty when it was clear that both players were giving as good as they got. On that basis, we would have been as justified to have been given the free kick from the interference on Fonte. Despite the opinions flying about before the match that we would get smashed by Arsenal, we were the better team for most of the first half, they began to boss it in the third quarter of the match, but we equalled them when Højbjerg came on. We had chances even to have won it, but for better finishing. For all those who moaned that we hadn't managed to do better than a point against Watford, look at what they have just done to West Ham.

What an edifying spectacle it was, witnessing the so-called leadership debate of the Labour Party on Question Time. It really was hard to decide which of the two of them was the least electable. On balance, Corbyn came out on top in the debate, which speaks volumes about Smith's chances, as Corbyn has no chance at all. Apparently there was supposed to be a third of other party supporters in the audience, but that wasn't really obvious, apart from the ex-Labour voter who had switched to UKIP. Corbyn boasts that the Party had attracted thousands of new members, probably mostly constituting agitprop extreme lefties. Simultaneously, in all probability they have lost a similar number of supporters like that guy, their traditional blue collar workers from the northern industrial heartlands.