Wes Tender

I would expect that he was describing the geographical area rather than the political one, otherwise he would have had to list the countries separately. A bit like the remain lot saying that a Brexit would mean that we were leaving Europe, the geographical entity, when many European countries are not even members of the EU. Boris is an historian, so I don't think that he was ignorant of the date of the Union.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36330025 The strange case of the missing Veto.

I grow weary of the arrogant bone-headiness of those who claim to be democrats and yet are prepared to allow our democracy to be watered down by unelected bureaucrats from other countries. I am tired of claims that there are only dire consequences if we left the EU and no risks whatsoever in our remaining in. In short, there is no point in debating anything with those who make accusations of their opponents that they do not care for their children's futures, or for the future of our country. When they claim to be a democrat that infers that they ought to accept the right of somebody to hold a counter viewpoint on what is best for their children and for their country without denigrating it because they do not agree with it. So I will be ignoring the posts of Charles from now on, because he cannot debate anything sensibly without becoming personal in his attacks. I also worry for his blood-pressure and think that Michael Winner's advice would be efficacious. "Calm down, dear"

I have already pointed out to Charles that evidence is accepted in legal circles as being based on the professional opinion of experts in the field of criminal prosecutions, whereas here we are talking of opinions some of which might be dismissed as being biased towards personal gain or vested interests, thus rendering them flawed. Like Charles, you also fail to recognise that a consensus of opinion indicates that there must also be a body of expert opinion that opposes a certain position and that all opinions are based largely on suppositions and forecasts and that nobody at all has any clearly defined evidence as to what may occur, there having been no precedent on which to base their conclusions. As you rightly say, it is up to the electorate as to how they view those opinions and no doubt they will take into account that it is in big businesses' interests to remain in and in the interests of small businesses to leave. Despite the inclination of the Remainians to concentrate on trade, people will have their own strong reasons for voting over a wide range of issues they consider important to them, much as they do in a General Election. They will also base their decision on which information they trust, based on who is giving it and whether they trust that person or organisation. I'm afraid that Cameron and Osborne don't rate very highly in the trust stakes. I have made these points many times before. I observe that you also join the ranks of the arrogant who assert that the Brexit camp do not consider the importance of their children's or grandchildren's future, but that you ignore the strong possibility that many of the older voters have actually experienced the European project and are therefore better qualified to make a judgement on whether it was what they voted for originally and whether they like what it has become since. I am happy to report that my son and daughter are both campaigning for leave despite both having good educations. There are very few people still alive who remember the Empire, unless it was a cinema that is now a Bingo Hall.

Quite. A great business opportunity arises for somebody else if Fujitsu don't want it. Although the Remainians will of course infer that there will be the loss of all of those 14,000 jobs and investment, the financial economy will come crashing down because nobody will be able to buy things with plastic, people will not be able to travel because they can't get a passport or renew one, everybody will go into debt because they can't operate their on-line banking, road deaths will increase because no new drivers will be incentivised to improve their skills in order to get a full licence and the defence communications implications must be what Dave had in mind when he predicted the potential for WW3 if we left.

Is it advice or is it evidence? You seem strangely oblivious to the difference. If it was evidence, then there would not need to be a consensus on it, would there? But I accept your position is that anybody who votes Brexit doesn't care for their children and that half the electorate must be mad or dimwitted. I also accept that whereas you consider that there is this overwhelming body of "evidence" supporting our remaining in the EU which you do not feel the need to question in any objective way, there is not one single shred of evidence supporting a Brexit that you consider to be worth listening to. So fundamentally, your arrogance continues unabated; you know best and pity the poor fools who dare to hold a different position from you, because you are right and they are wrong. How outraged must you be that the very future prosperity of the Nation is in the hands of half the population who are uneducated morons or a bit mental, eh?

Exactly how I feel about him, with the additional flack for taking Alderweireld and Mitchell too. Lambert was given a hero's welcome on his return at the testimonial because of the dignified way that he conducted himself when he left, whereas Lallana and Lovren have been rightly booed for the way that they left when they have subsequently played here. I suspect that although acknowledging that Poch did a good job here, most fans will nevertheless take a great deal of satisfaction whenever Spurs or Liverpool suffer any reverses in their fortunes in the near future. This attitude is tempered to a certain extent by the realisation that despite the changes of management and players, we have actually managed to raise our position in the PL once again. It is therefore arguable that this has been as a result of us recruiting better replacements both at managerial and player level.

I expect the employees of those companies will bear in mind their management's advice when they weigh up the pros and cons of the referendum, in much the same way that they will if they are employees of small businesses where their bosses would tell them that their companies would be much better off if we left. The employees of the sort of organisations you mention, might well reason that they have skills that will see them able to obtain work elsewhere with the opportunities that would result from the increased prosperity of the UK post-Brexit. if you're going to bore everybody again about how the Brexiteers couldn't give a toss about their children's futures, then you're not really going to achieve that by highlighting the higher cost of food by being in the EU, or the lack of availability and cost of housing or rented accommodation due to mass immigration caused by the EU.

*Yawn* Precisly? Is this another of Dave's big businesses who have been co-opted to save his bacon by threatening dire consequences if we left the EU? I'm sure that the Beeb also loves putting out these stories on a daily basis in the run-up to the referendum. Pardon my scepticism and cynicism, but are we really to believe that Fujitsu will wish to jeopardise this business they do with the UK? It seems to me that they are here because we have a workforce competent in IT on the one hand and that on the other hand they are therefore able to apply their technological expertise to offer a service to a largely British business customer base. But no doubt if this was not the case, and it was a questions of wage costs, they could always do a Ford and re-locate to Turkey. As the largest Japanese employer in the region, we employ 14,000 people who work with us every day to keep the UK and Ireland running smoothly, with our products and services touching 99% of the UK population every day. From high street shopping and online banking through to transport bookings and driving licences, in the UK and Ireland, we are: Enabling the processing of 2.8 million passports every year Managing more than 20,000 retail outlets and over 85,000 point of sale devices Processing over 10 million driving licence updates and almost a million new licences every year Enabling Ireland’s Road Safety Authority to process hundreds of driving test applications every day Supporting 1,000 staff, including 150 judiciary members in 70 locations for the Irish Courts Service Helping financial services providers to serve over 40 million customers and operate over 20,000 local branches Connecting 300,000 defence users in over 2,000 locations worldwide. When it comes to the implications of trade post-Brexit, then the consequences are explained quite clearly in the articles I linked too above. They give me optimism that large companies like Fujitsu are here for a good reason which won't go away if we left the EU, and there will also be benefits for companies like them in trading with us freed from the bureaucratic restraints that are imposed currently by Brussels. Whilst we are discussing the impact on business, then once again it is pertinent to point out that the EU regulations that are imposed on the 6% of businesses that export to the EU, are applied to the 94% of businesses that do not.

Why our trade position would be better outside the EU

I have just been listening to this from Boris. Very invigorating and well argued.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/7157359/David-Cameron-ditches-law-to-enshrine-UK-parliaments-sovereignty-over-Brussels-from-Queens-Speech.html Is our Dave trying to win the prize for Most duplicitous politician of the Year? He is a serious liability to the Remain camp as its leader.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/671075/EU-referendum-David-Cameron-resignation-Jacob-Rees-Mogg-Serco-letter-renegotiation Talking about lies, this is a pretty serious allegation if true.

One pot is a Guaranteed Minimum Pension and the other is a Guaranteed Annuity Rate. The GMP is a return equivalent of around 11% and has a 50% monthly sum paid to my wife if I die first. I've taken that as if I live for 8 and a half years, I'll get the pot back as income. As it is pre-1988, it is inflation proofed too. The GAR is around double current annuity rates and I can take 25% tax free (£13738 ) and then get £4695 PA, but it is paid annually in arrears and doesn't appear to have inflation proofing. I might take financial advice on that one, but it seems that the £55,000 pot would cost me £1500 or so for the advice, which apparently I have to take if I want to go forward with that pot. I resent being forced to pay for advice.

I was querying the source of your figures for the number of immigrants from the EU, but thanks for all the additional info about how I am probably getting a "free ride" off the government. I would think that is highly unlikely, as I have been paying taxes since I was 16, not just on my earnings of course, as there are taxes on my spending too and on other things. And my state pension counts as taxable income too, as will my pension pots which I am in the process of turning into annuities at the moment, whilst continuing to run my business and pay taxes on that income too. Of course the level at which I paid taxes into the system was lower when I started paying in, mainly due to inflation, but equally the governments of that day were spending proportionally less than they are now on running the country. But inflation is the thief of the money that pensioners rely on for a comfortable retirement. Under successive governments, mainly Labour ones, the level of taxation rose, so I paid proportionately more of my income as tax. Over the years, the number of days that one works for the government before one begins earning money for oneself has increased quite a bit during my lifetime. But excuse me if I remain sceptical that the taxation paid by the low income immigrants covers the cost of their housing, children's education and health care. I don't consider that these things constitute sponging or a free ride by the way, merely that the cost of them is unlikely to be recouped by taxes raised on their income. Perhaps you have reliable figures available to prove that point.

So you're saying that as we can discount the one third of ex-pats returning home, the remaining two thirds are one third students or mainly from outside the EU, principally China and India, is that correct? So what proportion of that remaining third constitutes the vast influx of people migrating here under EU legislation allowing freedom of movement of peoples from Poland, Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania and other former states of the USSR, or the poorer areas of Southern Europe who come here because of the higher wage levels in the UK? You say that they pay more in taxes than they get in services, but how can that be true? Does the tax on their low pay really cover the cost of the housing, schooling of their children, use of the NHS etc, that will be needed to accommodate such an increase in population ? As you rightly say, the debate should be based on facts, inferring that the media doesn't have any facts at their fingertips, but where are the facts that you are using from?

Are you still suffering some slight inebriation residue from last night's celebrations? I didn't highlight the negative aspects of human population growth, I expressed the opinion that is widely accepted that mass uncontrolled immigration into our county put a strain on housing, schools, the NHS and the benefit system. If you wish to equate this comment to a broad sweeping generalisation encompassing humanity as a whole, then go ahead and ignore the specifics of the situation that affects our country and the other EU states, which is what we are discussing. I didn't vehemently object, I ridiculed your comments by laughing at them. Regarding the little mini-debate between the recent comments of Boris and Dave, it is helpful to see them both as being in context, rather than taken as snippets in isolation. Both argued the points as being an historical perspective to highlight their arguments for the future. I take this view from the BBC's Political correspondent as being a sensible analysis:- http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36243296 In the same way that you ignored the wider historical context of Boris' comments, you chose to pick on just the mention of Hitler. Equally, several media commentators chose to interpret Dave's selection of several historical conflicts in Europe including the two World Wars to infer that our Brexit could precipitate WW3. Several of the Red Tops which the electorate read interpreted it thus, including the Mirror and The Sun. Neither side come across as lily-white when it comes to propaganda. It is helpful though when it comes to Cameron's credibility, that he presumably recognised the instability that our Brexit might cause to our nation's security and yet just three months ago, he was threatening to campaign to leave the EU if those reforms he demanded were not met.

Have you been on the whacky baccy, or did you drink too much celebrating our wonderful victory and highest ever PL finishing position? Your mind must have been really febrile last night to have concluded that anybody expressing an opinion that uncontrolled immigration placing an immense burden on housing, education, the NHS and benefits must mean that they believe that Human Beings are a bad thing.:lol: And then you go and misunderstand the thrust of Boris' comments, which seeking to create a parallel to the EU's headlong rush towards a federal United States of Europe mentioned, Hitler and Napoleon (the well known fascist ) in the context of an historical perspective that when they had sought to control the whole of Europe, it had ended in failure. Personally, I don't think that is helpful bringing up analogies like these, or the one that some espouse that German domination of Europe was Hitler's plan B for the long term. However, it is debateable was to whether this was as bad as Dave's assertion that a Brexit could cause WW3. Perhaps you will return the favour and let me have your thoughts on that. And whilst you are about it, you haven't answered those questions I put to you several posts ago on those other issues paramount to the referendum.

It was just one of those truly magical days that will live long in the memory because incredibly several half-chances to improve our league position all came to pass. It was a shame that we couldn't cement 5th place on the day because Bournemouth still have to beat Man U, but if anything their chances of doing so are increased by the postponement of the match, because United will have less time to prepare for the Cup Final, so might be less inclined to risk strong tackles in case of injuries to key players. And then when it seemed as if the day couldn't get any better, the Skates were consigned to one more season in the fourth division basement of league football, beaten by their rival Naval city Plymouth in the last minute of play. The schadenfreude was really running strong yesterday, because apart from the disaster befalling the Skates, the North London yobbos were thrashed by a relegated team and having had the chance to even win the season a few weeks back, were overtaken on the last day by their deadly rivals Arsenal. Robbie Savage twisted the knife by stating that they had come third in a two-horse race. In addition, we finished comfortably above Liverpool as it turned out and there is still the possibility that by a long shot, Man U could finish up with nothing if they lose in the FA Cup and having lost the chance of CL football by finishing behind their City rivals. Whilst overjoyed with the finishing position which carries on our rise through the division once again, the thought of what might have been achieved without the hiccups along the way when our form dipped is a cause for quiet reflection, but it doesn't dampen my euphoria. The way that the match developed could not have been better had it been scripted. Far better that it started nervously with some pretty boring football because both sides pretty well cancelled each other out, but our goal came at the best possible time just before half time, allowing Koeman to motivate the players and urge some additional commitment from them. When he substituted Romeo off for Pelle, it appeared to be a mistake, as we lost that extra bite in midfield and there was a nervous passage of play where they began to dominate and threaten our defence. However, as has happened a few times this season, Koeman's substitute then scored. We were far more settled when Koeman brought on J W-P to tighten up the midfield and we pressed on from then putting Palace once more onto the back foot. It was almost inevitable due to Sod's Law that their consolation goal came from Puncheon, who since he joined them has shown some real ability and it was a wonderful strike. Having scored three goals, our confidence was sky high and with the lift from the crowd, we played some exciting football to end the match on a crescendo with Davis' goal. Looking at the poll votes, it is very close between several players, demonstrating that it was a real team effort and when we play as a unit like that, there are few teams who can beat us. There were a few nail-biting minutes at the end because Stoke were beating West Ham and the match had already gone 7 minutes into extra time. Once the final whistle had been blown there, it was time for us to party and show our appreciation for the Manager and players for giving us such a wonderfully entertaining season. If we could keep Koeman, Wanyama and Mane on board, we have an opportunity to break into the CL next season. Even if Wanyama and Mane do leave, I have every confidence in the Board unearthing a diamond or two that have not been on the radar of our rivals and that they will prove to be effective replacements, defying the opinions of the pundits who say that we cannot keep on doing this year after year.

I refer you to the answer you gave earlier, which shows that you have answered your own question. We all know how fond you are of discussing evidence. FYI, this is categorised as "self-evident". It is obvious that a significantly increasing population will require additional resources to be spent on housing them, and educating their children and that they will also need health care and jobs, or benefits.

I'm perfectly calm thank you. How did you enjoy Brexit the Movie? Good, wasn't it? When is your lot's movie coming out?

Do you see this, fellow Saintswebians? Once again, Chapel End Charlie either does not have the brainpower or the comprehension abilities to make the distinction between evidence (as in expert testimony in the legal field) and evidence in any other spheres, (such as economics) despite me pointing out in my first sentence that it is not the same thing. I've attempted to assist him by pointing out that predictions or forecasts by economists of what might come to pass in the future following a certain course of action cannot possibly be made with absolute certainty. I may have imagined it, but I think he might even have admitted somewhere that Economics isn't an exact science. There are even economists who take the view that Brexit will be beneficial to us, although he dismisses their opinions as irrelevant, much in the same way that he does those from ex-Governors of the Bank of England, ex-chancellors, etc. These economists have no basis of precedent on which to base their forecasts, something that I pointed out to Charles, but he has sought to ignore arguments that hole his ones under the waterline. But if he feels that through his misunderstanding he has achieved some sort of victory, then let's humour him - or pity him.

Expert opinion might be deemed as evidence in the legal sense. But you don't seem to notice the difference as we are not talking legal situations here, are we? Of course, if you are able to point me in the direction of their forecasts being based on historical precedent of the consequences of another member state leaving the EU, then it would carry some more weight. But I reiterate, economists cannot arrive at any concrete conclusions on how a Brexit might develop, as they cannot know what trade deals we would subsequently make with the EU, or the rest of the World. Making economic projections 14 years into the future like Osborne did, is absolutely absurd, but no doubt you will have hung on his every word, accepting it as the Gospel truth. You can huff and puff all you like about how you dismiss the fact that most of the same economists got it wrong when we didn't go ahead with joining the Eurozone, but although the argument doesn't register with you, happily such things will be picked up by the electorate as evidential (based on past factual occurrences, rather than future predictions) that the economists who predicted those dire consequences then, might conceivably just be wrong once again. Most just accept that the economists are wheeled out by Dave & Co to try and scare the electorate anyway. They don't trust Dave or Osborne, because they remember how gushing he was about how we could survive quite well enough outside of the EU and he said that he would have led the Leave campaign if he didn't get the reforms he demanded. Regarding your totally groundless and arrogant assertions that anybody who votes for Brexit does not care for the future of their children and grandchildren, I'll counter and assert that I care more for their future than you obviously do, wanting our country to remain in this sclerotic, overly bureaucratic and undemocratic organisation. I want their future to prosper by leaving the EU behind to continue its trajectory towards its inevitable collapse and for the UK to take up the challenge of restoring our once proud trading prowess with the rest of the World. I realise that your position is so entrenched that anything anybody says on the Brexit side washes right over you. Kindly accept that it is therefore permissible to have entrenched views the other way without being ridiculed just because I don't share your opinions. I also ignore all your insults, calling me a piece of work, claiming I don't care for the future of my children, etc. If you really want to froth at the mouth with righteous indignation, I can recommend that you spend an hour watching this:-

Your sheer blatant arrogance is breathtaking once again, it really is becoming insufferable. Will you please stop this assertion of yours that it is only the Remainians who will be voting on behalf of their children's future. Will you also have a look at the other arrogant assertion you make that if they don't follow the advice of the so-called economic experts who advise us to remain in the EU, the Leave voters will be swayed by "pride or prejudice" from arriving at what you consider to be the right decision. It couldn't possibly be that they will remember that these self same "experts" were completely and utterly wrong about whether we should join the Eurozone, could it? And once again, I have to point out that the opinions of your so-called economic experts are not evidence. You really do have a mental block on this to the point of bone-headiness, don't you? Once again, the king of the crap analogy comes up trumps. Everybody knows that smoking is bad for you; there are warnings that it could kill you on every packet. Will you be proposing that there be a warning on every voting slip that leaving the EU could seriously damage our economy? Contrary to the analogy that heavy smokers are extremely likely to kill themselves through smoking, there is no evidence to show that counties leaving the EU or not being in it in the first place, are likely to suffer any adverse effects economically or otherwise. Indeed, Switzerland is out of the EU and is the wealthiest country in the World. However, there are several Countries who are not doing so well economically who are members of the EU. Regarding the economic argument, you are right. It is already over. Dave and Osborne have switched their scaremongering away from the economic argument and towards the likelihood of WW3, and the electorate eagerly await the next apocalypse scenario that will unfold as a result of their crass stupidity should they dare to defy them. They are doing a great job of helping the Leave campaign with these absurd utterances.

You already know my stance on the opinion of the Governor of the Bank of England, and also the opinions of Cameron and Osborne on their doom and gloom prophecies. If you listened to the conclusion I reached right from the outset, I am content to balance the risks of our leaving the EU against the benefits that I perceive we will gain from trading with the rest of the World unhampered by the restraints of our EU membership. I know that your mind is made up, so please accept my position that although there are risks to the economy either way, it is the several other factors involved in our decision which I consider to weigh more heavily in favour of us leaving. I note that I still have not received an answer to these questions I asked of you:- Should we have total control of our own borders and who we allow to enter our country? Should our elected Parliament have supremacy over the unelected EU Commission? Should our Law Courts have supremacy over the European Justice system? Is the EU becoming too big and unwieldy? Or should it be expanded still further? Do you approve of our further integration into a Federal United States of Europe? Does the massive EU bureaucracy imposed on small businesses hamper them? Would we benefit from the freedom to negotiate our own trade deals with those nations around the World whose economies are developing the fastest? Should we reclaim our own territorial waters to revitalise our fishing industry? Is it preferable that the British Government decides how British taxpayers' monies given to the EU is spent, rather than have them decide how our money is distributed back to us? Does the unlimited free movement of peoples impose massive pressures on our NHS, housing infrastructure and employment sectors? I accept that your position appears to based solely on the economic repercussions which are largely a matter of conjecture anyway, but you don't seem very keen at all to debate these other considerations.