Wes Tender

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/26/the-truth-about-britains-trade-outside-the-european-union/ Typical of your snide MO, Shylock. A simple one-liner disparaging the poster without resorting to any constructive debate of opinions when they run contrary to yours. It really is a quick fix, which inflates your idea of your own self-worth whilst superficially inferring that you know what you are talking about. Our trade with the rest of the World is hampered by our membership of the EU. Call me Dave yesterday cited the length of time that the EU had taken negotiating a trade deal with Canada and insinuated that little Olde England would therefore take even longer. The possibility that having to satisfy the selfish interests of another 27 countries might well have prolonged the process, or that our historic connections with Canada, the common language and our shared cultural backgrounds might be advantageous in reducing the negotiating timescale don't appear to have occurred to him.

Sorry, but I'm not backtracking at all. And once again, despite having it explained to you, you're really not very good at understanding plain English, are you? I have already said that it was not an analogy, that it was just two unconnected incidences, an individual's position on our membership of the EU (not ours) and a Country's position on their prospective membership position. Making myself clear, referred to correcting your poor grasp of the written word, rather than to opinions on the referendum. I accept that both sides have indulged in propaganda; do you? Of course my position in this debate has been transparent since this thread started, as is yours and Timmy's. Well done for reaching that conclusion. Regarding the spelling, I have now noted that you have managed to accumulate three separate spellings for Brexit. As Eric Morecambe quipped when challenged on his piano playing, they were all the right notes, but not necessarily in the correct order.

It will be up to the electorate to decide the significance of Switzerland deciding not to join the EU. I note that you don't think it very significant, but effectively the Swiss, as one of the richest and most successful economies in the World have decided that they can do far better outside the EU, as could we. As you rightly say we are a great seafaring nation, with a glorious history of global trade. I'm pleased to hear that you espouse our historic background that makes us much more disposed towards looking outwards to the opportunities of World trade rather than being happy to be just one small part of an organisation comprising 28 other Countries who can and do frequently outvote us. Having been an advocate for leaving the EU since Maastricht, I am perfectly well aware of how momentous this decision is for us as a nation. PS. The post you quoted was not meant to be an analogy.

Did I say that they were the same thing? No, I thought not. Frankly I'm surprised that at your age your understanding of the English language is so lacking. Just to clarify for your benefit, what I posted was merely a throwaway line; that one news event was an individual deciding to switch allegiances in the Referendum debate, whereas simultaneously here was another news item reporting that an important European Country had decided after deliberations over many years that they did not wish to join the sclerotic EU. Clear?

So Baroness Warsi who has been invisible during the campaign decided to swap sides. Meanwhile, Switzerland decides to withdraw its interest in joining the EU. They obviously don't realise the damage that this will do their economy, which will nosedive into decline right away.

LOL. I'm waiting for the next link to some obscure Oxbridge academics' studies and conclusions that large scale immigration can actually reduce the demand for housing and school places. Hurry up with it though, as there are only four days to go to get it out into the public domain.

Bluster as usual, as well as the arrogant superiority that you like to comfort yourself with. But I'm glad that you accept that the use of "may" undermines the basis of the article as fact or evidence, which of course is clearly defined as being black or white, not grey.

Only if it is hysteria and fear mixed with misinformation or didn't that part register? I accept that this is true of both campaigns. Do you?

Show me the mere evidence. The article states that Immigration MAY reduce the time you wait to see a doctor. So even they are not saying that it does. But the whole thrust of the argument is patently ludicrous, that if you have an indigenous population the waiting times will be a certain length and that if you add 300000 to the population the waiting times will reduce. I assume that a substantial percentage of these additional immigrants must be doctors and nurses for that to happen . It could be that using statistical sleight of hand, they massage their figures on the basis of a percentage of immigrants per 1000 of a local population, so that the healthier, younger immigrants water down the percentages requiring the health service in those localities where they settle. As usual, you read into these things what you want to see and ignore the parts that throw doubt upon them; like this bit:-

That is why the Remain Campaign of Fear should be totally ignored.

I'm greatly encouraged to read this, as usually after you repeat this mantra annually, we go on to have a cracking season.

It is amusing, isn't it? I can't ever recall any post from Tim where he was not wholly for remaining. Also, I was under the impression that he was employed as a director of some Charity organisation, but now it turns out that his job is involved with the Fisheries Industry in some way. Perhaps there is a Charitable Foundation he works for supporting Fishermen's families on the breadline because the EU has decimated their industry.

He's got a dose of Dodgy Daveitus. Dave was happy to contemplate campaigning to Leave the EU not long before he failed to get the concessions he demanded before he then called the Referendum, claiming that he had won those reforms.

I agree totally. The philosophy of allowing the academy players to develop their skills by close proximity to the first team sounds a good one to me and core to the way we operate. If Koeman wasn't happy with that, then I can see that this might be a reason why the club were not that unhappy to see him depart.

I agree with the last sentence. Democracy can indeed become dangerous when a few people have so much control over the means of information. I'm talking about economists here like this one, as well as the heads of government who can at taxpayers' expense put out propaganda to every voter advising a particular position, or use Treasury figures which they then distort to suit their agendas for example.The essence of the democratic system though, is allowing the electorate to decide issues of National importance by way of a referendum. It isn't helpful then for people like this economist to label the electorate as being insufficiently educated to arrive at the conclusion that would be espoused by the likes of him, somebody who is ironically a part of the few people having control over the means of information via the media, in this case the Financial Times.

If you don't realise the difference between the two situations, then I feel pity for you. Have I ever suggested that anything the Star has printed should be taken seriously? Doesn't it occur to you that if their position prior to this shocking incident was to demonise immigrants and the EU, that leaving aside the total lack of sensitivity by attempting to make political capital over it, the headline attempts to demonise Brexit supporters?

I didn't think that even a worthless rag like the Star could go quite so deeply into the sewers.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/680327/Economist-once-advised-European-Commission-switches-allegiance-Remain-Leave It seems that the number of economists predicting doom and gloom if we left the EU is falling. Now I realise that this is The Express, so it must be a load of rubbish and squalid lies, but Brian Sturgess does say some interesting things if it has been reported accurately, which it probably hasn't been, as it is the Express. The Eurozone is on the point of collapse he reckons and we would end up having to pay to support other member states when that happened. Surely not; Call me Dave assured us that we would not be liable to pay because we are outside of the Eurozone. It just goes to show, you can't trust these economists. He is also scathing about the way that our Prime Minister and our Chancellor of the Exchequer talked down our country and that had affected the economy. But his criticism of these other economic prophesies that have been made by Project Fear must also be wrong, as we are assured by other far more eminent economists than him that the Brexit economic consequences would be much more dire than he is predicting. He was only a senior advisor to the European Commission, so what does he know, eh? Bloody squalid propaganda!

But Deusche Bank tell that post-Brexit our stocks will be fine:- http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/06/15/germans-largest-bank-says-massive-uk-grown-brexit-bbc-remainers-silent/ And a German Commissioner tells us that the EU would be revitalised by our departure:- http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/680006/Gunther-Oettinger-EU-commissioner-Brexit-revitalise-Europe But apart from that, how very dare you post this squalid anti-EU propaganda!

One week to Independence Day. Perhaps they'll make it an annual National holiday.

*YAWN*

Thanks for the history lesson, but I don't need it, as I remember it quite well thank you. I recall the industrial strife, the Winter of Discontent, Labour having to go cap in hand to the IMF, Red Robbo, and Scargill, the Trade Unions trying to bring down the elected Government until Maggie broke them. It really is idiotic of you to conclude that I wish the UK to return to such times, but your usual arrogance comes shining through when you think that you can possibly know what I want and my motivations for it. Show me where I have said that our nation was currently failing? I haven't. We are doing reasonably well, but could and will do better. You obviously didn't see that I have always maintained that it is the EU that is failing and we risk being brought down with it unless we leave. You really are like a stuck record again, but I note that as well as being blinkered, I don't care for my children's future, I am a racist xenophobic little Englander and now according to you also I hate this country. You just cannot accept the possibility at all that somebody could possibly care more for our future prosperity by exploring the opportunities available to us outside of the EU, and you have the temerity to call me blinkered. You're not David Cameron, by any chance? You sound so much like him, and like him you just don't recognise that you become more shrill by the day about the doom and gloom that will befall us if we dare to cast off the EU straitjacket and Leave. Most people therefore conclude that he is losing the argument and the more bluster he puts out, the more he is damaging his case. Just like you.

The coherent case for Leave is based on several facets, although immigration is the biggest single issue uppermost in most Brexiteers' minds because of the implication of its effects on the NHS, housing and education. This is more correctly summarised by the statement that we should have control over our own borders and be permitted to decide ourselves who we allow to enter the country. It is a falsehood to accuse Brexiters as not acknowledging any benefits of EU membership as most accept that there are economic advantages of trade, as that is what we originally joined, the Common Market (and I campaigned to join it at the time). The additional issues influencing the Brexit camp are National Sovereignty of our Parliament and the supremacy of our own legal system over Europe's. Now, if you believe that we should not have control over our own borders, should be hampered by our EU membership in our trade agreements with the rest of the World, have our sovereignty diminished and allow the supremacy of the European Court over ours, then that is your decision. I find your claim incredible that during the several weeks of the debate, nobody has put forward a coherent argument covering those issues. I have followed politics for at least a decade longer than you and my opinion that we will do quite nicely outside of the EU is based on the evidence that there are plenty of other countries whose economies are smaller than ours who are doing really very well through trading with the EU, but also negotiating their own deals with the industrial growth nations of the World. The EU has stagnated whereas much of the rest of the World is thriving. If you do not accept that we are big enough, powerful enough as the 5th largest economy, or savvy enough to grasp these opportunities by ourselves, then you shouldn't disparage those for being a bit more optimistic about our future than you are. The reason that the Leave campaign have set out their manifesto is precisely to address the question of a mandate.

10 points to debate and you dismiss it as lacking substance. We'll just have to leave it up to electorate to decide whether they are concerned by anything there, but I'll take it that you are happy with it all. I think that you'll find that I have quoted sources in the Guardian, The Telegraph, Huffington, all sorts in the past. But as you likewise do not wish to hear arguments against remaining in the bloated EU, then I expect you just ignored the sources because you did not like the argument. Of course, rather hypocritically you only quote the sources that support your position, so I won't be brooking any criticism from you along those lines. And congratulations for the arrogant superiority that you assume to those who support the Remain camp and the disparaging way that you dismiss any of the opponents to your side. It must make you really smug to kid yourselves that anybody who wishes to leave the EU must be ignorant and bigoted little Englanders. We've heard it all before and what you should realise is that it is this arrogance and trying to take the electorate for idiots by the ever more ludicrous scare stories put out by your leaders that is turning the tide of support towards leaving. And just to correct an assertion you made; I am looking forwards towards a brighter future. It is your lot who are looking backwards, afraid to believe that we could possibly survive and prosper freed from the constraints of Nanny EU's apron strings.

What was bizarre, was you concluding that Hutch was prepared to vote to leave the EU based on this single incident, when the debate was about EU bureaucracy in general and this was just an illustration of it.