Wes Tender

I would be sad if Koeman left, but mainly for the reason that he seemed to be a man of his word, a person of integrity. If he did leave for a club like Everton who are below us, then it could only be that he has ditched any principles he seemed to have had for naked personal greed. I would have thought that his personal ambitions would have been served better with us in Europe, after which he could go to one of the top European clubs. If he is using the Everton job as leverage to get a higher wages deal with us, then fair enough, up to a point. I'm not that concerned about us being unable to find a replacement who is as good or better than Koeman. I have the utmost confidence in Reed and the board and their ability to choose the right candidate. I am grateful that Koeman has brought us success these past two seasons and I think that he could raise us still higher next season, but equally the calibre of manager we could now attract should be capable of that too. We are a very good proposition for an incoming ambitious manager and have furthered the careers of Koeman's predecessors. If his successor wishes to use us as a stepping stone to greater things, that can only happen if they raise the bar above what he achieved.

Indeed. There have been no significant reforms of the EU since it became that after being the EEC and the Common Market before and I see no reason why there would be any reforms if we stayed in, as our decision to remain in would be seen as an endorsement of the EU in its current form. They are hardly likely to take much notice of Dave's opinion when he has been so gushing about what a marvellous entity it is. Reforms would almost certainly be forced on the EU if we left and particularly if others followed suit. Of course, that would not matter to us if we were outside this sclerotic organisation and the question of our having any input into potential reforms would be spurious, unless we were consulted as part of a process of re-joining a reformed EU at a later stage. Despite all the blather from the EU about how this is not an option, history shows that the EU has form in allowing other Countries to continue their membership following a referendum vote to leave. Ultimately, a Brexit would do much more harm to the EU than it would to us.

I agree, anybody who believes that we could actually reform the EU is a bit naive. For a start, it takes the political willpower to want to do it in the first place and Call me Dave has demonstrated amply his inability to get even the minor concessions towards reform that he sought. Post referendum, if we vote to remain in, he's hardly the one to bargain for reform following his daily fawning over how marvellous the organisation is.

*Yawn*

Well, human nature dictates that a yes vote will be taken by them as a green light to not only continue as they are currently, but to march forward relentlessly towards their goal of a totally federal United States of Europe. If we voted to leave and several other member states then offered referenda to their electorates, that would soon bring the EU hierarchy quickly to heel over serious reforms on the issues causing the dissent.

It is an opinion based on articles I read that suggest that other member states would follow our lead and put their own EU membership to referenda. I believe that there is certainly a groundswell of opinion building that more and more citizens of other member states are increasingly aware that the EU needs radical reform. They might be happy with the European market's internal trade, but are concerned about their loss of national identity and sovereignty and the loss of control over their own borders. I agree with you that the labelling of those in the Leave campaign as xenophobic, little Englanders, racists, uncaring for their children's futures, is a puerile tactic in many cases, when it is should be clear that the Leave supporters are just as likely to be motivated towards a position of what they see as the best interests of the UK as the Remainians are. It is far easier to dismiss those opposed to mass uncontrolled immigration as xenophobic little Englanders than it is to accept the basis of their genuine concerns, that our infrastructure could not handle it, that our NHS, schools and housing market cannot cope.

Does it? The thrust of the article is that we should have more control over our trade deals, without them having to be agreed by 28 states each with their own vested interests with which to disrupt them.

https://thescepticisle.com/2016/05/25/france-other-eu-states-are-hampering-new-trade-deals-we-need-control-of-our-trade-policy/

Look, I really can't be arsed to read your little diatribe about trade. It is becoming really boring and repetitive, like a stuck record. I get the message that you are in the camp that believes that we will virtually cease our trade with Europe post Brexit and that the UK will cease to be the 5th biggest economy in the World, WW3 will break out, there will be biblical retribution, a plague of locusts, etc. What would happen if we left the EU, is that the EU in its present Federalist form would be finished, as other member states also insist on referenda and leave. What I answered and you chose to gloss over, was the accusation from you that I was xenophobic. Typically, you confuse my claim to be more European than you based on parental ancestry, with the UK's geographical position. With an Austro-Italian mother and having travelled to the vast majority of European countries, I'm hardly going to be xenophobic. Your comprehension of the English Language is either really poor, or else you are just trolling.

I'll help you understand it a little bit better. The Liebherr family are minding their business and I'm very grateful to them for taking us on in our hour of need. As far as I'm aware, foreign ownership of British businesses will continue regardless of whether we stay or leave the EU, so we can be Swiss owned, Chelsea Russian owned, City Arab owned, Liverpool and United American owned and Leicester owned by Thais. None of those Countries are EU members. I and numerous others were critical of Obama's interference in our internal politics (and he would have been very annoyed if our PM had recommended that the Yanks should vote for a Republican in their elections by way of a comparison that you might understand). If you wish to conclude that somehow I have some rampant xenophobia, then you are as usual very wide of the mark. I suspect that my family background and ancestry makes me a lot more European and International than you.

Yes, and one not even from an EU state. But then many British football clubs are owned by foreigners from Countries not in the EU, like Russia, Thailand, America for example. What point are you trying to make?

All very well to copy and paste this stuff from the CBI, but where does it say that we would wish to cease dealing with the single market? We wouldn't, would we? And where does it debate the benefits of trading with the rest of the World unencumbered by the bureaucracy entailed with trading with it at present as a member state of the EU, the sort of thing I highlighted in your post? As for the percentages quoted, many are around the 50% mark give or take a few points, so although the percentages quoted as negatives are lower, it still infers that there is quite a degree of scepticism. It has been estimated that the trade deals with some countries in Europe have increased for the simple reason that most of those countries that we did little trade with before were formerly part of the USSR. Ultimately though, the more important fact is that only 6% of businesses actually trade with the EU, yet 100% of them have to abide with the regulations imposed on businesses by the EU.

New keyboard. But he is the same person as the one I mentioned three other times in the post. In view of Osborne's reliance on Treasury propaganda, one is amazed at the sheer hypocrisy of the man when he deliberately set up the Office for Budget Responsibility for precisely the reason that Treasury figures were unreliable and could be manipulated by Chancellors to suit their own agenda. Here is what he said about the reliability of Treasury forecasting at the time he set up the OBR:- But he was at least accurate in one thing; he has indeed made a rod for his own back by relying on these inaccurate forecasts from the Treasury, whilst ignoring the data from the very body he himself set up to provide some more impartial input. What with the ridiculous Treasury predictions of the £4300 drop in family income post a Brexit and now this, he is seen to be increasingly desperate to frighten the electorate with propaganda.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/may/23/post-brexit-economy-george-osborne-eu-referendum Here is an article rubbishing Osborne's propaganda of what will happen to the British economy post Brexit. As it is in the Guardian, the usual suspects won't be able to dismiss it as being irrelevant because of its source. Of particular note is the statement that these predictions made by Oborne based on Treasury forecasts are not evidence, nor are they a credible, as they are a worst case scenario based on a situation that assumes that the Government or the Bank of England sit back and do nothing to stabilise the situation and it also takes no account of the outcome of negotiations on trade deals. This is just exacerbating the credibility of the Treasury and also severely damaging the reputation of Osborne. Whatever happens in the referendum, the careers of Cameron and Osborne are headed to the knackers yard.

I ask again. Show me where I defended it and then try and defend the equally ridiculous propaganda figure of the £4300

Show me where I have ever defended the £350 million figure. £350 million is the gross figure before they hand us some of our own taxpayers money back to spend on projects of their choosing. Naturally as a Conservative, I know that the blessed Maggie handbagged us a rebate too. Now let us see you defend the equally preposterous £4300 pa cost per family of a Brexit.

Quel Surprise! The Bruges group is the Euro-sceptic wing of the Conservative Party and is therefore the obvious place to look for details of research and articles critical of the EU. Much as the BBC, the Guardian, big business, large accountancy groups, recipients of financial benevolence from the EU and others with a vested interest are cheerleaders for the Remain campaign. along with their own share of MPs. I realise that if the source of the arguments does not suit the Remain agenda, it will be dismissed, much as we Brexiteers will naturally be cynical of the propaganda put out by the Remain camp. So what's new in politics? Feel free to challenge any of the historical references with your own version of them and explain why the article being critical of the lack of democracy in the EU would choose to do down our own system. Your figures regarding the voting powers of the MEPs are wrong. As far as I can see, Germany has 96 MEPs, France 74, we and Italy have 73 and Spain has only 54. But if I understand it correctly, if Turkey joins, they will have more MEPs than us, so could outvote us by themselves. Perhaps the number of MEPs should be allocated on the basis of contribution to funding the enterprise. Regarding the European elections, then UKIP would have been the biggest party regardless of whether the system was first past the post or proportional representation, so disillusioned were the electorate with the EU. If they had not won such a victory, then I very much doubt that Dave would have been forced to offer a referendum in the last election I think that you are wearing your blinkers if you believe that the Brexit campaign are more guilty of telling porkies than the Remainians. Dave and George are particularly economical with the truth and as a result, Dave is less trusted than anybody in the Brexit camp. If you're going to quote Norman Tebbit, then please do try and get some sort of accurate context to it. What he said was I don't blame the impulses of human nature that entice economic migrants to try and come here, but if they come in totally unrestricted numbers, it will be we indigenous Brits who will be on our bikes looking for work, whilst also finding that we face an accute housing shortage, overcrowded school classes and an NHS overburdened with patients.

You miss the point by citing first past the post as being your counter-argument to the EU's undemocratic system of voting. The European Elections for our MEPs is by proportional representation and of course we elected a majority of Euro-sceptic MEPs to represent us. But having them represented in the EU is a comparison between the voice of an MP speaking on behalf of their constituents and the British MEPs being just 8% of the whole EU entity. Regarding the democratic (or lack of) aspects, then it's a shame that you must have missed the Paxman documentary and I urge you to view it on I-Player. Otherwise, here is some reading matter debating it. I realise that some on your side are dismissive of articles from sources you deem not to be in line with your own political leanings, but then again, the leaders of the debate on both sides are Conservative, so that cannot be very palatable to you. http://www.brugesgroup.com/images/pdfs/theeuthreattodemocracyandliberty.pdf Regarding whether a politician has lied or not, then a simple question to you; which is more serious, allegations of lies from a junior minister, or lies from a Prime Minister and a Chancellor of the Exchequer?

Who is this Michael Grove bloke? I agree that there is no guarantee as to which form of trade deal we may reach with the EU post Brexit. Therefore any forecasts from the Treasury are based on pure guesswork. Feel free to discuss which parts of that article you disagree with and why. Is Dr, Ruth Lea of the hard right? She used to work for the Treasury, don't you know? And several other well-respected organisations. Or is it that you judge the opinion based on where it is published, rather than who voices it?

http://www.brugesgroup.com/component/content/article/91-training/1165-the-british-option?Itemid=101 Norway, Switzerland and everything else that might arise post a Brexit, covered in a short precis.

Completely agree. The value or price of anything is governed by simple laws of supply and demand. This is evident to 4th form students of economics, so it won't take much brainpower for the average voter to see right through it. As you say, if immigration is slowed down because of a Brexit, then demand for housing will slacken, reducing house prices to make them more affordable. If anybody bemoans the loss of that profit on the value of their house, which will only anyway be realised when they sell, then they can console themselves that it will be counter-balanced by less pressure on pay, our schools and the NHS. If the immigration situation does not decrease, then the cost of housing will remain strong, so as George would say, it is win/win.

I agree that our own elected politicians ought to be the ones who make decisions on our behalf, not the unelected bureaucrats of the EU. However referenda have to be put to the electorate when Treaties affect the basis of our sovereignty and own legal and democratic processes. Maastricht was that time, also Nice, Amsterdam and Lisbon. On another matter, the Beeb must be delighted to trumpet the Remainians position with yet another forecast of the dire consequences of a Brexit, figures provided by the Department of Guesswork that is the Treasury. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36344425 But examining the argument from a logical perspective, what they are also saying is that the fall in house prices will actually benefit the lower income buyers, because house price rises have put buying property beyond most of them, so Osborne's fear tactics could well backfire. In any event, the table of projected prices still show a rise in house values of 8.4% over the two calendar years or the three inclusive years for average prices and nearly 10% for London. The vast majority of the population only realise a profit or loss on property transactions when they buy or sell, so this is just a paper loss of a projected sum that has been guessed at. The majority of the population will move house over a longer period of time and I suppose that we are lucky that the Treasury hasn't seen fit to project what the average house value will be in 2030 compared to what it would be if we remained in the EU. I think that the electorate will be running out of salt soon, the number of pinches that are needed if Osborne carries on guessing what the future economic effects of a Brexit will be on their wages and property values. What he should realise, is that he and Cameron are increasingly eroding any trust that they might have had from the electorate.

Add me to the list of those agreeing with your opinion.

It is indeed a bit of a grey area until clarified further with additional detail. My understanding was that in Dave's negotiations, some of the concessions he claimed to have obtained for us had to be ratified by Treaty revisions. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jun/25/david-cameron-set-to-go-to-referendum-without-eu-ratifying-treaty-changes Also, if our exclusion from membership of the Eurozone had meant that we were absolved from the implications of a collapse of the Euro by Treaty, then presumably that might change with a Treaty revision we did not have a veto on. No doubt it will all become clearer soon.

It isn't yet clear what is involved, but presumably it is something significant for it to be highlighted by Liam Fox. This seems to be the key passage. Presumably, we have given up the right to veto any EU treaty revision, which sounds pretty important to me. No doubt it will become clearer precisely what the real implications are when it is debated further with input from the other Brexit commentators and the Remainians, especially Cameron.