Wes Tender

Whilst we are on the subject of lies, let's debate the two main financial claims that featured in the campaigns, one from each side; the £350 million weekly cost of our EU membership, and the £4300 annual loss to each family's finances in the event that we left. The £350 million (or arguably even more) is the gross cost of our membership, excused as being similar to a person's gross pay before deductions. OK, a bit disingenuous to portray it in that way, but still justifiable as accurate. The £4300 figure though, and the basis of its calculation was all over the place. One part was based on GDP instead of average income, one part was based on current figures, whereas another was based on the position in 2030. It was worst case scenario. In short, it was a farcical figure dreamed up by Project Fear and having been shot down in flames by Andrew Neal and others, its credibility was dismissed. Why each was used is down to marketing expertise, whereby to get a message across, the most effective tactic is to bring home a financial advantage or disadvantage that Joe Public can relate to or empathise with. Enough analysis has gone into what the remain camp would regard as their post mortem investigation into the failure to convince the electorate that we would be better off staying in the EU, but the essence of their mistake was that instead of highlighting the benefits of staying in, through Project Fear they negatively highlighted the financial penalties of leaving.

Give yourself a pat on the back as a massage to your ego in believing that you have confirmed something in your own mind, that I have somehow clarified that there was no economic argument for leaving the EU, (apart from the £350 million gross weekly contribution.) Others think that there are additional financial benefits that could be gained:- http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/25/why-leaving-the-eu-could-actually-be-to-our-economic-advantage/ Whereas I accept that the article is based on a lot of supposition, that is also your forte as I note that you qualify each and every one of them as "likely final outcome". This is hardly anything akin to concrete evidence that your position is likely to occur, rather a whistle in the wind. My advice to you lot, is to wait and see what transpires instead of bleating on about things that might not happen. For the great majority of the British public, there has been no noticeable difference to their everyday lives in the past 6 weeks.

Big letters were required so that they could be read from a greater distance.

You don't absorb much from reading posts, do you, and you are wide of the mark when it comes to second guessing what I and other Brexiteers want, now that we have voted to leave the EU. Of course, it is debatable as to whether a renegotiated trade deal with the EU will be inferior to the current one. That deal ties us into totally uncontrolled free mass immigration from any other member state. The EU will attempt to insist that if we wish to remain inside the single market, free movement of peoples must continue. We will insist that it cannot. So the negotiations will centre on finding a solution whereby if we cannot remain inside the single market, we will still have access to the single market, as do many other Countries who trade with the EU. It is completely over the top hyperbole to conclude that fixing such a deal and at the same time negotiating several other bilateral deals with the fastest developing economies of the World constitutes economic lunacy, so I have to question your judgement for even thinking that. The benefits of leaving have been explained and debated ad nauseum, but if you are going to dismiss them as empty rhetoric, then I really can't be arsed to restate them. I have certainly given my reasons many times in the referendum debate, so why don't you read back a bit? Regarding your additional question on whether the Brexit campaign was all about money or not, that is not a conclusion that you can reach by just citing in isolation something written on the side of the campaign bus, whilst simultaneously ignoring the main thrust of the campaign which you glibly choose to dismiss without any concrete reasons for why they won't happen. Basing your arguments on this shaky premise seems a bit weak, so why don't you tell us why none of those things mentioned will not happen?

No it wasn't. The main arguments for Brexit were immigration and control of our borders, regaining lost sovereignty and restoring the supremacy of our legal system. It was mainly your lot rabbiting on about the financial aspects.

The usual arrogant twaddle from the Remainians on here: anybody who voted to leave must be too thick to understand that extricating us from 40 years of EU bureaucracy will be a complicated and lengthy process. Most Brexiteers understand this and are content to wait for the process to unfold, happy that the eventual benefits of our departure are well worth a bit of short term uncertainty in the business and financial spheres. Regarding your claim that Boris, Davis and Fox can't articulate what they actually want, had you actually bothered to listen to both sides of the Referendum debate, you would have heard them articulating their desires then. I'm sorry that they have not issued a daily bulletin to pacify the impatient resident Remainians on this football forum, but it still has not been long since the 23rd June and I suspect that they have been too busy buckling down to sounding out the potential trade deals that we can make around the World in order to strengthen our negotiating position with the EU. If you wish to consider your drip feed (i.e. news items from a drip) contributions as a public service, then I suggest that in order to qualify as such, it ought to be balanced. I realise how difficult it would be for you to accept any news that throws a positive slant on our decision to leave the EU, but until you do, you little rants will just be taken as the ramblings of a bad loser. Furthermore, most of us who voted to leave, are perfectly capable of picking up on these daily news stories and analysing them ourselves, without the likes of you telling us what we should think. Sometimes though, there is some amusement value attached to it, like your faux pas on the European Convention of Human Rights and the wriggling you did to try and get yourself off the hook.

How delicious, whatever the reasons for his wanting out. Whoever he joins next will have the benefit of all the knowledge of the players that Spurs were scouting, just as Spurs did when Mitchell left us. Sweet.

No, I was talking percentages. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11700443/The-EUs-dwindling-importance-to-UK-trade-in-three-charts.html Am I really to believe that during a campaign lasting many weeks, where the arguments for and against our membership of the EU were debated nightly, you appear not to have heard any of the arguments for leaving? Or did you just put your fingers in your ears or turn the volume down so as not to hear any criticism of your beloved EU?

Often the concluding line of an article speaks volumes. There are journos who write us off every year following the departures of managers and key players, but so far they have ended up with egg all over their faces. Here is one who has written a decent balanced article with a decent amount of knowledge and research, who is open to the possibility that the club do know what they are doing and could yet again prove the naysayers wrong.

And then despite the percentage of our trade with the EU having declined by more than 10% over the past fifteen or so years before the Referendum, you'll be able to turn round and blame our Brexit on the decline. It couldn't possibly be because the increasingly sclerotic and over-bureaucratic EU has made it easier to gain trading advantages with the faster developing countries of the World, could it? Has the situation of this recent pre-Brexit 10% decreased trade with the EU been classifiable as bad to very bad to disastrous? I don't recall hearing a peep from you about how disastrous it was that our trade with the EU had declined to this extent, but now you are worrying yourself to death because of the impending collapse (in your mind) of our trade position post Brexit. Of course, trade was only one aspect of the Brexit campaign and it is yet to be seen what transpires as a result. The time to fret is after negotiations with the EU during the two years post Article 50, when I'm confident that there will be upsides and positives and reasons to be optimistic of our future trade prospects, not only with the EU, but with the rest of the World. The trade aspects of Brexit are weighed up in the minds of most of the Brexiteers alongside the other benefits of our leaving, something that most Remainians seem incapable of understanding.

Lambert to Liverpool was slightly different. As far as I know, Fonte wasn't born in Liverpool, hadn't been a former youth player there, has not been a lifelong fan of Everton, doesn't have any connections whatsoever with the City or the Club, apart from a former manager. I agree with you though, that there is very little or no chance of him going to Everton.

We transformed from being the sick man of Europe into one of the strongest because Maggie Thatcher emasculated the Trade Unions who were the main cause of our industrial and financial decline. What do you mean "kick 40% of our business into touch?" Are we to cease all of that trade with the EU? No, of course we aren't. Naturally we will continue with most of that trade provided that the EU don't place tariffs on it that persuade us that we would do better sourcing some of it with the rest of the World. Trade with the EU was declining substantially before the Referendum, whilst increasing with the rest of the World and there is no reason why that trend would not have continued even had we remained in the EU. As we will be free to set up our own trade deals with other countries now, that trend will inevitably accelerate. The two years only commences when we trigger Article 50. It is to our advantage that we keep the EU hanging on until we have organised ourselves by putting out feelers towards other trade possibilities in the rest of the World, appointed a team of experienced negotiators and also to allow time for the political landscape to change following our Brexit, which could strengthen our negotiating position. These Europeans you speak of presumably include us. Or did you mean the EU? The two things are not the same. We are not leaving Europe, you know.

Oh, I don't know. We have some incisive passers like Tadic and now Hojbjerg, arguably J-WP too. Pacey movement? Long, Redmond especially, and Cedric and Bertrand are no slouches out wide. I agree though that we are perhaps one player short and for me that is a striker to replace Pelle, just in case Austin, Long and Rodriguez come up short or are injured. Puel seems to fancy having Redmond up front, but his effectiveness remains to be tested in the PL.

How have we lost control of our future? Stop being so melodramatic. History shows that we have always been dependent on the vagaries of other nations, as has Europe and everywhere else. I suppose that you are now going to deny that the Remainians Project Fear constituted emotive sound bites. I suggest that you wait a few months to observe developments before assuming that the Government are clueless about how to proceed.

Why would the ordinary voter feel conned? The question on the ballot paper was plain enough; do you wish to remain as part of the EU, or do you wish to leave the EU. Provided that we leave the EU, then those who voted for that will be content. Anything else that ensues will satisfy different people in different ways, depending on what their priorities were in the campaign. Of course, only the truly blinkered would argue that the remain camp had only one promise, as the ongoing progression from a majority vote to remain would ultimately lead to further integration into a United states of Europe with further loss off sovereignty, much increased expenditure towards propping up the failing Euro-zone, increasing problems with uncontrolled immigration, etc. Believing that voting to remain was a vote for the status quo was naive in the extreme. In the insult stakes though, you have pole position; calling somebody a plank is pretty mild stuff compared to calling somebody a swivel-eyed loony, I realise that you are still a bit sore about the result, but you really do need to calm yourself and accept that those who voted to leave the EU did so for their own reasons and that they are as entitled to their stand as much as you are. It does you no favours making out that they must be a bit thick, although I realise that it must make you feel so super intelligent and superior. Where the politicians f**ked it up, was in taking exactly that arrogant superior attitude, which probably antagonised a portion of the electorate to give them a good kicking.

You, the economists and the Treasury are assuming an awful lot about our future trade with the EU and also the rest of the World. I thought that it was concluded that wage levels would rise as a result of Brexit? You can continue to wallow in the doom and gloom scenario that the so-called experts predict, but please excuse me if I prefer to look at the future with a bit more optimism.

Things aren't so black and white in the current situation that they can be classified as good or bad. That depends on individuals and business circumstances. Exporters will view the weak pound as good, as will the UK tourist industry, which is anticipating record numbers of visitors. The cut in the base rate will mean that those with mortgages will benefit from lower repayments. And as I said, it is also very encouraging that there are a number of countries keen to do trade deals with us post Brexit. I've been around long enough to realise that changes to the political climate take rather more than a few weeks for their real impact to be felt. I suggest that you calm yourself and wait until we have properly exited the EU and by the end of the two years following our pressing of the article 50 button, that will be the time to make a more reasoned judgement of our future prospects.

As you say, the sun is shining, we do have more control, the interest rate cuts would indeed be a bonus for many, there are a lot of positive noises coming from many successful countries wanting to do mutually beneficial trade deals with us, there are many reasons for some positive optimism. Meanwhile if you choose to look at the negatives in remaining within the EU that are starting to surface, then it looks as if it will increasingly be the case that we have chosen to leave at just the right time,

It is you who is demonstrating such a poor grasp of the situation, which is surprising given how intelligent you like to consider yourself. It is laughable you comparing the reactions to the fall in the value of Stirling because of Brexit to the value of Turkey's Lira because of the coup there. I'm waiting for your next bombshell, comparing the state of the Pound against the Zimbabwean dollar what with the uncertainty over Mugabe. The fact is, that the Pound being one of the World's greatest currencies, it is bound to be more affected in times of uncertainty than minor currencies. I have already explained that what looked attractive to Ford, was low wage costs in Turkey and a very low interest loan from the European Investment Bank. Brexit is a handy excuse for them to dress up the relocation of their operations to cheap labour countries. From that perspective, Ford are less honest than your cat.

When was the last time that we suffered a military coup? Was it perhaps the English Civil War? The Turkish coup probably had the International Money markets thinking that it didn't make much difference whether it was Erdogan or some other bunch running the country for the five minutes or so when they had control. As an aside, I'm really impressed that you possess an honest cat. That is infinitely preferable to having a dishonest one, like a cat burglar, for example.

You seem to have overlooked the part of the article that suggested that Ford were mulling over the possibility of moving their engine making out of the UK.

They're just looking for an excuse to shut down their operations in the UK and relocate them to a lower labour cost area like they did with their Transit operation, financed by a very low interest loan from the European Investment Bank. The hypocrites had threatened to do that before the referendum, so nobody takes them seriously when they try to pretend that they will be taking this course of action because of Brexit. The British public ought to punish the bastards by boycotting their cars and vans.