Wes Tender

http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/cameron_called_for_honesty_then_told_five_outright_lies_in_30_minutes?utm_content=buffer510f8&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer One area where Dave did win in the debate; the telling of porkies.

All "Call me Dave" did was waffle in order to avoid answering the questions. A better presenter would have pulled him up on it and told him to stick to the point and answer the question.

I do not use tw*tter, Timmy. As I said, I couldn't be arsed to dig too deep, but have read it through now and his arguments and conclusions seem quite sound. I admire the smugness that dismisses any opinion that doesn't correlate to your own position. Disregarding the author's age and job experience, let's see where you take issue on his conclusions, shall we? If he is nevertheless as intelligent as you, then he ought to be able to research his subject, draw reasonable conclusions about different scenarios and argue a position, just as you do. So give us your critique of where his reasoning and conclusions are erroneous.

Suit yourself. You continue to live in england and be an englander. It doesn't upset me, as I take solace that those who indulge in puerile insults have lost the argument, just as Cameron did last night.

http://www.brugesgroup.com/component/content/article/8-papers/1175-brexit-and?Itemid=101 I really can't be arsed to dig much deeper, but there have been numerous articles stating the case that we would be better off negotiating our own trade deals than having to do so as part of the EU.

Look, if you're going to continue throwing about that puerile insult, at least have the decency, the respect or the grammatical accuracy to put a capital E in front of England. I know that you lot don't think that we're big enough or important enough to be called Great Britain any more, but most of us Brexiters want to leave the sclerotic EU to make our country greater and better than it is, because we care for the future of our children and grandchildren more than those who wish to tie us to this over-bloated, over bureacratic, under-democratised and failed project.

Read the article I posted up a few weeks ago about the trade options that we have available to us post-Brexit. It surely makes sense to trade more with the other continents that are experiencing growth rather than the only one apart from Antarctica that is experiencing none, doesn't it?

Where did that quote you highlighted suggest that we would end up with a situation far less beneficial than what we have now? He says that a mutually advantageous agreement would take place. Read the bit below, highlighting the positive aspects of a Brexit:-

http://www.bryangould.com/what-will-happen-after-brexit/ A reasonable article by a former Southampton Test MP

Yes, I accept your point that the bosses and staff of those 6% of businesses that trade with the EU also help the British economy by getting their hair cut here whilst being sold coffee at the Barbers.

A very good and well reasoned post.

http://www.itv.com/news/update/2016-06-07/fact-check-only-12-of-british-economy-made-up-of-eu-exports/ Perhaps you would like to dispute the figures with the Fact Check people. I think that you need to realise that the entire British economy and our trade with the EU are not the same thing. Somebody else previously stumbled over the statistics that revealed that only 6% of British businesses traded with the EU. That can't be right, they harrumphed, 45% of our exports are to the EU. And I see that once again you can't brook any criticism of the EU without labelling the poster a little Englander. Cameron used it twice during the debate last night, which goes to show that even our PM resorts to petty name-calling when he is losing the argument. It is quite ironic as an insult when the Brexit camp would prefer to increase our trade with the rest of the World and are prepared to accept controlled immigration from outside the EU that they are called something that infers insularity.

You reply is all over the place. The Brexit camp have examined all of the potential trade options and I have posted a link to them some time ago, but I can understand that you probably couldn't be bothered to read it. I have explained the background which could cause severe repercussions a couple of times in plain enough English and I'm sorry for you that you seem unable to comprehend it. I fully expected that you would dislike immigration and sovereignty being the main causes that concern the Brexit camp, but please do try to be a bit more original than attempting to label everybody who dares to raise the subject as being xenophobic. It really is becoming a bore. I'm probably more Johnny Foreigner than you.

MY argument does not assume that at all. It assumes that there would be severe repercussions if we voted for a Brexit and then remained in the Single Market accepting the payment of a membership fee and the free movement of peoples. Of course we are not voting on the Single Market. We are voting to release ourselves from all obligations of trade, sovereignty and immigration, which would have to be renegotiated. Other nations have trading access to the Single Market without paying for the privilege or having the free movement of peoples imposed as conditions, so that is what I would expect for us. I don't have much faith in Dave being a capable negotiator on our behalf, based on the evidence of his failure to obtain reforms to our position recently, but if he cannot gain decent terms for the fifth largest economy in the World with the Single Market, then there are other avenues open to us. It is only if he is churlish enough to ignore the strongest bone of contention of the Brexit campaign, the immigration issue, that trouble will arise. I see that you comfort yourself by believing that the lefty Poll Tax rioters are now mostly pensioners and that UKIP are as right wing as they need to be as an effective protest vote. But the Remainians love to portray the Brexit camp as older and typically blue collar workers. These are surely the Labour Party's electorate and if their most left-wing leader since Michael Foot is incapable of raising his dissent to a referendum campaign led by Tory toffs beyond a wimper, then I have to laugh at your self-assurance that the potential rebellion isn't going to happen because it isn't British. The crux of the matter is that there has been no historical precedent for this, so it is arrogant to dismiss any conjecture of what might occur as ill-informed.

The Conservatives aren't the only Party, are they? Many Labour seats will be vulnerable in the Midlands and the North where the Conservative vote will switch to UKIP in order to unseat the Labour MP, unless they are pro-Brexit. But regarding the Conservatives, the local Party will still have the right to vet their MP and lay down what they expect of them in terms of their position on certain policy issues. I don't think that you fully understand the procedures. Regarding the implications of a Government not accepting the result of a referendum, there is sufficient evidence of what the citizens of a country might do if they feel ignored or abused by their political classes even without that coming about via a referendum. You don't have to look far in Europe to witness the rise of the more extremist parties because of the immigration issue and the example of civil disobedience of the Poll Tax riots in England. But you go on believing that it couldn't happen here if you wish.

We'll just have to wait and see, won't we? As I pointed out, the other option is deselection. The local parties could seek assurances that their MPs would not support an agreement with the EU that did not remove the uncontrolled free movement of peoples as part of our continued trade with them. Most of the local Conservative MPs here in the south are for Brexit, so I'm fairly certain that they would not vote to allow uncontrolled immigration to continue and many MPs from other parties would have to look over their shoulders at UKIP. You might dismiss them, but they are the reason that we are having this referendum. All of the parties you list might be pro-Europe, but you seem to believe that they could ignore a referendum of the electorate which rejected our membership of the EU and continue as if nothing had happened. That would be counter to democracy and the alternative would be anarchy, revolution. Nobody is suggesting that we cease trading with them, or that friendly cooperation would cease, but as immigration is the prime issue for Brexit, that could not be ignored without severe repercussions.

Here is the latest bit of bias towards the Remain campaign:- http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/polling-card-Bristol-City-Council-EU-referendum/story-29337284-detail/story.html It seems that the people of Bristol are deemed not to be clever enough to follow simple written instructions on how to fill in a voting slip, but it does not follow that they should be shown which box to complete with their cross. At the very least, there is an argument that there is an element of subliminal suggestion attached to it.

If the Brexit vote wins and then subsequently the Government reneges on the democratic decision by weaselling a way to still be members of the EU in all but name, then they will face the consequences at the next election. It is naive to believe that that will not happen. I agree that it is unlikely that Farage will ever be PM, but it is not an impossibility that he could hold the balance of power. Even with the first past the post system, UKIP could command sufficient number of seats to replace the Lib Dems' result when they formed part of the coalition. It comes as no surprise to me at all that you would be content to have Tusk govern us rather than a Government elected by us, but as half of the electorate at the moment want us to leave the EU, it isn't fanciful to suspect that a far bigger percentage would not be content with being governed by some unelected non-entity.

The benefit of a Brexit, is that if MPs do not accede to the wishes of the people, then they can be voted out at the next General Election. Another weapon is deselection of any errant MP by the local party. As you say, as immigration has become the main issue concerning those who wish to leave the EU, they would be stupid not to attempt to negotiate a trade deal post-Brexit that did not address that problem. The gun against their heads would be the potential further rise of UKIP. With the time still left until the next General Election, there is plenty of scope for the collapse of the EU as other member states are pressured by their increasingly Euro-sceptic electorates into holding their own referenda. Nothing would concentrate the minds of the unelected bureaucracy of the EU towards serious reform of their immigration policy like the potential total collapse of their headlong rush towards their federal United States of Europe.

I like Sammy Lee a lot, because he comes across as the sort of individual who lifts the spirits of those around him. He always seems passionate about the team and wears his heart on his sleeve. I would imagine that his presence is good for team spirit and his absence would take something positive away from us.

And I also recall QPR Flyer, I think it was. He was full of analysis about how each player in their team was superior to our equivalent. Whatever happened to him following their decline?

Of course there's a sea of blue around Portsmouth; it's a bloody island!

I think that you'll find that the vast majority of our fans are perfectly happy with our owner, our board and our ambition. Our club has enjoyed a meteoric rise from the third division up to 6th in the PL, improving our position year upon year. The way that we have gone about achieving this progression has been the subject of admiring articles in the more sensible media, suggesting that our model of sustainable growth is the way that a football club should be run. We are praised for our academy and the investment we have sunk into it and the players which it has produced are a testament to the efficacy of that policy. Instead of throwing silly money at players who are established stars, we rely on intensive research to identify players who have gone under the radar of the scouting system of the big clubs and when they prove to be really good players, if we have to sell them, it will only be for a stupidly huge profit and we then progress to repeat the operation. We have already proven that this policy and the steady way that the board operates have made us more successful than Everton in the past couple of years and yet you are confident that you will break your glass ceiling by emulating the spend, spend, spend policy of your City neighbours, without being as big a draw as them for the best players. It seems to have escaped your notice that Leicester broke through their glass ceiling without spending a shed full of money, but because they had a squad of players who gelled together into a potent unit, inspired by a canny manager capable of getting them to believe in themselves and what they could achieve with some self-belief. I am confident enough on the basis of our past prowess despite adversity to predict that we will finish above you at the end of this coming season. In the same way that we wondered how we would progress without Adkins and then without Pochettino, we will soon be wondering what the fuss was all about when it came to losing Koeman. And when we inevitably lose a couple of players for obscene transfer fees to bigger clubs than yours, we will soon be debating whether their replacements aren't indeed an improvement and that the squad is actually stronger than it was this past season. But go ahead if you wish and believe that Koeman chooses to leave because of our lack of ambition rather than for the vastly inflated pay packet. It isn't a given that the more you pay a football manager the better the results he will achieve, so good luck with that assumption when it is put into practice.

Is it? We've sold some of our best players and lost what were considered very good managers these past few years and despite the predictions of dire consequences from the media and even our own fans, we have proved them wrong by replacing them with players and managers who have raised us yet higher. These precedents ought to have instilled some belief in our own fans at least that plans will already have been laid down some time ago to anticipate the departure or serious injury of any player and to have their replacements lined up. Despite Koeman's assurances that seemed to indicate that he would see out his contract, I have absolutely no doubt at all in my mind that his potential successor had also been considered before the season ended. Our progression of successful improvement in our league possession despite these hindrances, has put us in a far better position to attract a higher calibre of both manager and player. Players can see how they can attract the attention of the top teams if they excel here and that is regardless of whether they are from our academy or signed as previously relatively unknown players like Mane and Wanyama, or those whose careers had seemingly stalled elsewhere, like Long and Bertram. Managerially, the board have developed a knack of appointing the type of manager who likes their team to play the style of football that they wish to give to the fans and that has been effective in the results achieved. Some of the media will continue to insist that the changes to the team and management each year cannot sustain our position in the league and they have so far been proved wrong. You might take the position that it cannot indeed continue in this manner year after year without us at some stage coming unstuck, but it is arguable that we are better equipped to pull it off this time than we were previously, because we are in a much better position for the reasons I gave above.

Me too. Is is just a coincidence that he and Koeman shared the same agent until very recently and that FdB has only just become available from Ajax? Perhaps he could bring his brother here too, like Koeman did.