Wes Tender

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/05/12/eu-migration-twice-high-previously-thought-ons-admits/ Staggering underestimate of the actual immigration numbers. All we need now is for some prominent figure in the Remain camp to dismiss them as a drop in the ocean.

For those blinkered Remainians who trumpet the risks that they associate with us leaving but refuse to acknowledge that there are also risks in staying in, here is an interesting article pointing out the significant risk implications to our economy if we stay in and certain likely circumstances come to pass. http://masterinvestor.co.uk/brexit/britain-sucked-eu-bailout-vortex/ Even though we are not in the Euro-zone, we could still end up paying billions into the EU budget to bail out the deficits caused by the collapse of those member states with basket case economies in the Euro-zone.

I agree. Who knew that there were so many?

When the Treasury constructs its argument against leaving the EU on a mix of figures which confuse GDP with household income and then make forecasts based on our economic position 14 years hence without taking into account either the projected population in 2030 or the potential new trade we manage to generate with the rest of the World together with the continued trade we would reasonably expect to continue with the EU, then it is indeed very sensible to wonder whether one can have confidence in the Treasury. They are often adrift with forecasting a couple of years down the road. Everything was a lot simpler in the Harold Wilson referendum in 1975 and the old Common Market of generally prosperous northern European countries that were members bears then very little resemblance to the mix of 28 member states now. The succession of Treaties that have been signed by us since has changed the political landscape of Europe significantly and there ought to have been a referendum on each Treaty that lost us sovereignty or the right of veto. The dilemma you face between the implications of our leaving and the possibility of the EU leopard changing its spots is one that could be answered by applying one's experience of the logic of human nature. There was a debate earlier in the thread about what the best outcome of the referendum might be in terms of the percentage advantage of one side or the other. The majority opinion was very sensible and it was that a narrow majority either way would not be a bad thing, as it was the most likely to produce the reforms to the EU that might allow a further referendum once those reforms had been made. Personally, the evidence of how little the EU was prepared to offer Cameron is indicative of the intransigence of Brussels and if we voted to remain, I don't believe they will reform anything and press on towards their goal of a Federal United States of Europe. A majority Brexit vote could trigger a domino effect of other member states holding referenda and faced with the potential collapse of the whole project, the EU would have to take significant steps to amending those policies that were increasingly antagonising the electorates of their members.

It seems to qualify for more than one of these types of fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

What is wrong with that? I understand it to be a logical fallacy, in that the basis of the structure of the argument was flawed, as explained here:- http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36073201

Please refer to my post 2101 where I say just that.

And today from the Remain Battle Bus there is the fallacy from the Remainians that the cost of leaving the EU would be £4300 per family

I don't know the figures, but the first thing that occurs to me, is that the figures of what the EU exports to China or the USA include those exports from us, don't they?.

Yes, both sides are capable of being economical with the truth, but the remain side are the ones more likely to tell the biggest porkies or to make up scare stories. They are also the ones spreading propaganda using tax-payers money. Andrew Neil also comprehensively tore apart Osborne's numbers regarding the cost to each family if we left the EU.

Always entertaining to throw in a bit of satire to lighten the mood, although of course there is always an element of truth it it. I hadn't recalled this updated version of the series, but good to be reminded. Both very relevant to the current debate on the shortcomings of our EU lords and masters.

Of course, throwing in spurious claims is not the exclusive tactic of the Brexit camp. Why, only today, we had Labour's Corbyn and Johnson claiming that the EU immigration policy of freedom of movement of peoples did not have any adverse affect on wages, the NHS and schools. They missed out housing for some reason, as they obviously all come here with caravans. Did you ever think that you would see the day when a leading Labour politician would claim that £350 million per week that could go towards financing the NHS "was a drop in the Ocean"? But I applaud your vigilance when it comes down to the spurious claim about the EU being responsible for the sign posts, whilst simultaneously saying nothing to condemn the claims that every household would be worse off by £4300 if we left, that our Brexit could trigger WW3, or that it would take years to negotiate trade deals with the EU, etc, etc. But as has already been stated many times, the battles that will win the campaign for Brexit, are those involving immigration, sovereignty and the supremacy of British laws over the European Court, and many of the fears over a decline in our economy due to falling trade are mitigated by the cynicism that has grown around the scaremongering put out by the Remainians, much of which has been largely discredited or debunked.

Because of the distinction between a single market and the Single Market. That really was the whole point in Hannan's article. The 6% comes from his article too. Surely the 45% is the amount of trade that those 6% of UK businesses do with the EU. It doesn't seem an unreasonable figure to me when there are around 5.4 million SME businesses in the UK. I make that 324,000 businesses trading with the EU.

You overlook the clear distinction. If our politicians cannot be trusted to run the country, we can throw them out at a General Election. If the failed politicians of the EU member states who are lucky enough to find themselves appointed as Commissioners on the EU gravy train don't please us, there is not a damned thing we can do about it. Europe might be the wealthiest continent on Earth, including as it does two of the World's wealthiest countries, Norway and Switzerland who are not EU members, but as you say, in terms of its economies the EU has not grown for the past decade, whereas trade in all of the other continents apart from Antarctica have all grown faster. When it comes down to the wealth of Europe, that is concentrated in the North of Europe and Southern Europe and the ex-Iron Curtain countries are also comparatively poor.

There are a number of salient points that are influencing a large proportion of the electorate; immigration, loss of Sovereignty, the undemocratic way that the EU is run, our national security, TTIP are some of the main ones. If you wish to concentrate on debating who is responsible for our road signs and to wilfully ignore debating those other issues that most deem to be important, then go ahead. When it comes down to scaremongering, the Prime Minister, Chancellor, and the soon to be ex-President of the USA are in a league of their own.

I know what the concept of a "single market" is and well remember what it was like trading with other nations before the Single Market and indeed the Common Market. The main point that Hannan raises, is this one:_ Reading the first of those links you provided and I take issue in even the first paragraph setting out the essence of the benefits of the European Single Market. The EU model must be malfunctioning, as it is very debatable as to whether it improves efficiency or cuts prices, or whether to a lesser degree it can be argued that it stimulates competition or raises quality. No doubt if there were significant reforms, these objectives could be achieved more readily. But the obvious examples of the wastages caused by the CAP, the throwing of dead fish into the sea because quotas had been exceeded, the extra costs and production burdens placed on businesses by the excessive bureaucracy imposed on them, are all examples of how the Single Market does not function to those ideals as it should. This for me was the other telling point in the Hannan article:- Now, call me a cynic, but I suspect strongly that it is these mainly major multinational companies that comprise the six percent of our businesses that export to the EU markets and that by some strange coincidence, they might well be the business leaders who are against us leaving the EU. I would suggest that if we left the EU, the smaller businesses who are the backbone of the Nation, and those who do not trade with the EU, would then find that by freeing themselves from the EU regulations, that would stimulate competition and trade, improve efficiency, raise quality and help cut prices.

I'm sure that you will be telling us where he has misunderstood what the single market actually is. But be careful that when you talk of the single market that you understand what the actual definition of it is, as he claims that it is a misnomer and that the name has been deliberately misrepresented by the likes of Cameron and Osborne in order to discredit the Brexit campaign.

Another fine article from Daniel Hannan exploding the myths about the Single Market and how the Remainians have distorted the electorate's perception of what it is, to suit their campaign of fear. http://capx.co/remain-campaign-is-misleading-voters-on-the-single-market/ Also a notable distortion of the facts from George Osborne to equal his other blatant propaganda, the distorted figures of the cost to each family of a Brexit. Now he claims that the Leave Campaign would be prepared to abandon the Single Market. He really is a piece of work, but telling such porkies is going to do some considerable harm to his future ambitions because his credibility, honesty and integrity will have taken a big knock when his duplicity is exposed, as it has been here. As Hannan says, the sheer shrillness of the dire consequences of a Brexit predicted by Cameron and Osborne, show how desperate they are becoming. It is quite reminiscent of how they reacted to the closeness of the polls at the time of the Scottish Independence referendum. They are like a wounded beast in a corner, lashing out in all directions.

This has all changed since Dave went cap in hand to Brussels asking them for significant reforms to the EU and renegotiation of certain membership conditions that we demanded were changed. Metaphorically having received a bag of crisps, he thought that he could hoodwink the electorate by insisting that it was a fine dining experience we had gained.

It's all beginning to unravel nicely, as even the Brussels top hierarchy are beginning to realise the implications of a possible Brexit, which could be followed by clamours for stay/leave referenda in several other member states. http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/660240/EU-referendum-Brexit-European-Parliament-president-Martin-Schulz-implosion-of-EU http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/05/10/devastating-mori-poll-shows-europes-peoples-share-british-rage-o/ As with us here, many of the electorates of other member states might accept that there are economic benefits of the single market, but have become antagonised by the EU policies on the freedom of movement of peoples, the loss of their own Parliaments' sovereignty and the supremacy of European Law over their own legal system. Many express genuine concerns that the headlong rush towards a United States of Europe will water down their proud national identities. I realise that they ought to see sense and listen to what Obama or former American politicians tell them is good for them, but there is a fast growing clamour for their voices to be heard in Brussels, and if they are ignored the result will be the rise of more extremist political parties. In my opinion, the best outcome of a Brexit would be that there was indeed a domino effect of other states voting to leave, so that there could then be initiatives to revisit the original aims of the Treaty of Rome which planned a Europe wide trading block without the ensuing Federal State ambitions. It is plainly obvious that there would be no impetus towards serious reforms of the EU unless there are real fears in Brussels that the whole enterprise could collapse in its present form.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/7138226/Germany-sabotaged-David-Camerons-EU-renegotiation-and-he-let-them-explosive-claims-from-IDS.html A pretty damning indictment of Cameron's lack of negotiating skills and an excellent strapline for an advertising hoarding campaign:-

A tactical analysis from a Spurs blog confirms that they also believe Pochettino has no Plan B. http://www.spursfanatic.com/spurs-result/spurs-1-2-southampton-failure-push-home-wide-area-advantage/ The article seems fair comment, flavoured with the natural bias one would expect, but tellingly it does credit Koeman tactically for taking account of the heat of the day and planning accordingly.

I agree totally. Cameron doesn't come out of this well at all and his standing amongst the British public has been undermined.

Presumably this risk of war and genocide in Europe if we voted to leave the EU, did not exist in the few months before Cameron attempted unsuccessfully to negotiate the reforms that he said were required as a condition of our continued membership. Had it existed, then surely our Prime Minister would not have threatened to campaign to leave the EU if those reforms were not forthcoming, when the very security of Europe was in danger if we left. It is all a questions of perspective. The influx of terrorists coming into the EU posing as refugees has to be weighed up against the possibility of World War 3 if we left. It's a shame that NATO will be powerless to prevent it.

This was the most satisfying win of the season because of the past form that has been between the two clubs, dating back for me since the North London Yob days when they took Hoddle and Richards (RIP). Having done exactly the same thing with Pochettino and Alderweireld, and in the light of our poor record of wins at WHL, there was a score to settle. Unlike the circumstances of the first situation of losing manager and CB to them, this time we had both a very good replacement manager in Koeman and also a very good replacement CB in Virgil Van Dijk. There was often the criticism of Pochettino when he was here that his teams' style of play with the high press was too one dimensional and when other teams recognised that, the best managers found ways to counter it. It was also thought that his tough training regime meant that his teams tired before the end of a long season. It seemed to me there were elements of both today and although Pochettino tried to put a brave face on it and claimed that they were the better team on the day, I think that tactically he was outmanoeuvred by Koeman. I also got the impression that Spurs were off the pace towards the end of the match, either through tiredness or because their heads dropped following the Chelsea draw when their chance of a title tilt had disappeared. MOTD 2 was good to watch today because the pundits discussed how we deserved plaudits for what we had achieved this season, especially when once more we had lost key players in the Summer. It was also lovely to hear them praising Davies for what he brings to the team. We had experienced a couple of dips during the season and some losses to lower down the table clubs, but like last season, just when some were writing off our chances of a top half finish, we have come roaring back. This season is special because of the top teams that we have beaten and it is a measure of how far we have come since we regained our place in the PL, that the team go into a match fearing nobody and capable of beating anybody on the day. We fans who have over the years experienced far more downs than ups, still have the occasional low expectations of a win against the top teams, but we have beaten almost all of them this year. For me, I think that this has been my favourite season and my favourite team and manager. The few lows have been forgotten because of the pure joy of the several special matches where we beat the glory teams in real style. It has been a tremendous boost having Leicester win the League this season, because we have improved so much towards the tail end of the season, that we can dream during the summer of raising ourselves up still higher provided that we can keep Koeman and one or two key players with us. I expect that Mane, Wanyama and Pelle will be off, but our prowess in replacing players in the past few seasons has given me the faith in the club to expect that we can do it again.