Wes Tender

And equally, I await your reply to the simple questions I asked you which would take us away from the economic debate that you constantly rabbit on about, and towards the other issues that exercise the minds of a substantial proportion of the electorate. Would you like me to post them again, or will you just scroll up a few posts and kindly provide some answers? I have kept it simple for you, as most people could respond with a yes or no. I have highlighted some of your atrocious spelling mistakes in red. Must do better.

Likewise, I had watched that recently and thought it superb. But of course, who is he? He's only a journalist and MEP. His opinions don't carry the weight of somebody from the OECD, or from some accountancy firm, Business organisation, the Governor of the Bank of England, the Chancellor or the Treasury. He's only a little Englander, a swivel-eyed loon.

It may be exactly the same as what you want out of yours. Who knows? Does your question have any bearing on the referendum debate?

The stuck record that is Chapel End Charlie, once again shows himself up as somebody who refuses to accept that anybody else can express their own opinion on the EU without having their motives questioned, distorted or misinterpreted, in order to suit his own blinkered position. He doesn't know the difference between opinion and evidence, confused by the concept that just because the person or body which espouses an opinion is well qualified in their field, that doesn't mean that their opinions are fact or evidence. Here he is once again peppering his little diatribe with the word, in the vane hope that if he repeats it enough times, it might somehow become true. Many of the same so-called experts predicted the dire consequences of our not joining the Euro, but a healthy scepticism of their opinions cannot be entertained by those who are incapable of learning anything from history that doesn't suit their own agenda. He is incapable of accepting that anybody who wishes to leave the EU has considered the whole picture, not just the economic position and arrived at their own conclusions based on their assessment of the potential risks and benefits that could accrue. Whilst highlighting the risk to our economy in the event of a Brexit, his bone-headed and obstinate stance has never once accepted that there are also risks to the UK in remaining a member of the EU. There are numerous other economists, business leaders, a former Bank of England Governor a former Chancellor of the Exchequer and other influential and qualified opponents of the EU, but their opinions are dismissed or belittled by those like him who don't realise that there are two sides to a coin. Whenever he provides his so-called evidence, that is based on the opinions or projections of some influential body. Whenever I source a quote or argument, that is deemed to be my own personal opinion. Take this little side show issue of the Nuclear submarines for example; the opinion that the base could be moved within a year came from the Scottish Nationalists, so perhaps he ought to have a go at them. http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/Scottish-independence-mean-closure-Faslane/story-21078690-detail/story.html The article highlights the jobs boost for Plymouth, (which infers of course job losses in Scotland), mentions that there are already nuclear submarines in Plymouth suggesting that expansion of the existing facilities is required, not development of new facilities. Obviously there are those NIMBYs who do not wish to have nuclear facilities near their city, but this has to be seen within the context of the wider debate which also assesses the benefits to the area of the strong Services connection that the Royal Navy brings. Here in that article, is also the opinion expressed by the Scottish Nationalists that the base could be moved within a year. I accept of course, that you are an expert in Naval matters, especially those concerning our Nuclear armaments, so I presume that you had contacted Nicola Sturgeon to point out how her party was talking rubbish. The time scale and cost of that operation by a Government Minister with an agenda to discourage Scottish Independence in their referendum, is very reminiscent of the propaganda put out by some ministers in the remain camp when they wish to discourage voters in this EU referendum. I accept though that your lack of objectivity doesn't allow you any element of scepticism. In order to widen the scope of the debate and knock this boring repetition from you on the head, I have indicated many times that I base my decisions on the much wider picture, whereas all you can do is parrot the same old economic arguments ad nauseam. Let's hear about your position on the other main issues. A simple yes or no will be a quick indication of your stance. 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 base much of my stance on these issues. Let us hear how much consideration you give to them. I realise that by expressing an opinion on these things gets one labelled a little Englander, so I appreciate your reticence in commenting on these issues, but if you wish to be perceived as less blinkered on the issues surrounding this debate, you should demonstrate that you have given some appraisal of the wider picture.

Please read that link I provided to the Scotland issue and accept that the views it expresses are substantially also mine, and a good case is made as to why Scotland will be very unlikely to call another referendum. It will save both of us a lot of time. By all means argue against those views if you feel the desperate need to show a few people on a football forum what a super intelligent bloke you are. If Scottish Independence did come to pass, there is some disagreement about the possible closure of Faslane and the time scale. You state it could be up to 10 years, according to the Government whereas the Scottish Parliament says 1 year. Plymouth would be cock-a-hoop at the prosperity it would bring them and the allaying of their fears that the UK could not justify sustaining three Naval Bases with the decline of the Navy. Equally of course, there would be the counter argument that the local economy in Scotland would suffer a substantial decline in jobs if Faslane were to be closed. Whatever the cost would be of the removal of the base to England, that would be mitigated by the increase in jobs to England and the savings that would be made from the Barnett Formula, where for every £1 of Government spending per capita on England, an additional 15% is spent in Scotland. Regarding your claim once again, like a stuck record or a parrot with a command of only a few phrases, you continue to assert that the opinions of some organisations or individuals regarding the possible financial repercussions of a Brexit are evidential. They are not. Having made this point so many times, and you having failed to acknowledge that you are wrong, I must conclude that it is really quite pointless arguing with you any further on that. It is getting boring and I am losing the will to live. I have never claimed that there is any evidence either way to support either position, so it would be nonsensical of me to provide you with this evidence of what our position might be when it does not exist. It is you alone who insists in making the unsupportable claims that there is evidence to support your position. The record is also stuck on the matter of the risks involved and whether you care more about the future of future generations than I do. I will respond in similar vein in an attempt to at least get you to understand how arrogant your assertions appear:- It is evident that because you are prepared to take the risks that are attendant upon our continued membership of the sclerotic, overly bureaucratic and undemocratic EU, that as a little European, you care very little for the prospects of our future generations. You are not prepared to grasp the once in a lifetime opportunity on their behalf to free our country from the straight-jacket that our EU membership imposes on us. You really must hate our country for wanting our once proud nation to be subjugated into being one state amongst 28, our once powerful voice in World affairs increasingly less influential. You are content to ignore the potential of increased prosperity that would be gained from making our own trading arrangements with the rest of the World once freed from the bureaucratic restraints imposed on us by Brussels, especially when EU trade is stagnant and many other areas of the World are experiencing substantial growth and it would benefit us greatly to exploit the opportunities offered. See? How does it feel? Does it penetrate?

For all those who say that we would have to abide by EU rules in order to trade with it, but would have no influence on those rules, here is an illuminating article which blows that argument right out of the water. I particularly loved this bit which accuses the Remain lobby as "little Europeans" https://thescepticisle.com/2016/05/04/britain-needs-to-leave-the-eu-and-embrace-the-modern-era-of-globalisation/ Now, I realise that this is just a blog, but it would make a change if the Remain lobby were to counter the points raised in it - if they are able to. Oh look; there is even an opinion on the possibility that if we left the EU, the Scottish would want another referendum to leave the Union. https://thescepticisle.com/2015/05/03/an-independent-scotland-will-be-a-minor-province-of-the-european-union/#comments

As usual, your post is full of assumptions and easily dismantled arguments. It seems to have passed you by that the break-up of the United Kingdom has been instigated by the Scots (the little Scotlanders) and the Welsh. You question my motives as a Conservative for not being particularly concerned by the very remote possibility that the Scots might leave the Union, when there are significant other factors to consider. The West Lothian question would finally be settled, meaning that without the Scottish MPs' votes in English matters, England would be run by the Conservative Party for the foreseeable future. I can imagine how you would loathe that. And like our situation with the EU, we pay a substantial sum by way of grants towards helping the Scots run their own affairs. The price we would pay? Laughably ironic really that the first thing you mention is our nuclear base there, when it is the Scottish Nationalists that wanted it removed if they left the Union. Regarding the economic arguments, they are much the same as they are in the event of us leaving the EU. Trade of course would continue much as it is now. But the biggest irony of all, is that you glorify our history of World domination of our Empire, our starting of the Industrial Revolution which made us the World's dominant manufacturer. In short, you use the little Englander stance when it comes to defending one Union, whilst simultaneously using it as an insult when it comes to wishing to leave another union. And as you are so fond of hurling the Little Englander abuse, you fail to recognise the irony that as a member state of this massive sclerotic organisation, we are the equivalent of an English County compared to the governance of the entire Country, one state amongst 28, soon to be increased still further. One is called a little Englander for wanting to expand our trade to the rest of World, to regain some of that reputation as a great trading nation. It is you who are the little Englander, happy to be a small cog in this over regulated bureaucratic organisation, our democracy and legal system subjugated to theirs. Aren't you going to point out how our democratic and legal system used to be the envy of the World before those two pillars of our historical prowess were eroded gradually by our membership of the EU project? Once again, I have to point out that where you accuse me of ignoring evidence, you refuse to recognise that there is no evidence to ignore, there is just speculation and conjecture. I have repeated this so many times, that it must be that there are things that either don't register with you, or that you wilfully choose to ignore them. As usual, you imply arrogantly that everything that you say is right and that anybody who arrives at a different conclusion is an idiot and you repeat ad nauseam this mantra that anybody who supports Brexit does not care for the future of of our children and grandchildren. It really is totally unacceptable and I ask you stop it please. Once again, you're also like a stuck record over this question of risk and rather than accepting with good grace that there is also risk to our future prosperity within the EU, you make assertions that somehow I don't understand the meaning of the word when associated with finance. The meaning of the word does not alter depending on whether it is associated with the economy, climbing a mountain, or crossing the road. If you're going to quote Shakespeare, please do try and spell his name correctly. It looks a bit feeble attempting to portray yourself as a cultured man of letters when you make such fundamental errors, but I note the insult and reiterate that the more that your points are shown up, the more insults you are inclined to hurl at me.

The long reply was needed to counter the long-winded and easily countered assertions that you made. If you wish to avoid the tiresome repetition, stop repeating tirelessly the same arrogant and puerile insults. Also stop drawing the wrong conclusions from what I say, or claiming that things are evidential, when clearly they are not, or as the Bard wrote, it just sounds like a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Earlier this afternoon, I read a very good article laying out the reasons why Scotland was very unlikely to leave the Union, no doubt you can find it with a little Googling. My reasons for wanting to leave the EU have been made very plain several times, so if you do not know what they are, then I suggest that you read back through the thread, so that everybody else is not bored rigid by the unnecessary repetition. However, if Scotland somehow still wished to leave the Union as a result of us leaving the EU, then that would be a price worth paying in my opinion.

What evidence do you have of what I read, view or listen to? Absolutely none. I will repeat for your benefit, because it still does not penetrate your cranium despite repeating the point several times, there is risk in both leaving or staying in. It is a matter for individuals to assess whether the risks are acceptable to them You don't know precisely what is at stake any more than the so-called experts, who make "forecasts", or "predictions" based on spurious information. There are no facts, or evidence for what might ensue. You delight in criticising members of the Leave campaign, but when it is pointed out that the leader of the Remain campaign, Call me Dave, is an unprincipled charlatan, you ignore it. Where have I have made the claim that there is some sinister conspiracy at work attempting to put down the "leave" side of the argument? The forum, if they're even remotely interested, will conclude that you're making things up. There is a fear campaign in operation largely from the remain side. Is that what you are rabbiting on about? Evidential basis? I have to repeat myself once again for your benefit. There is no evidence that our trade would either increase or decrease post a Brexit. Any suggestion to each position is only an opinion based on speculation or supposition. Is that now clear? Regarding the amount of trade we have with the EU single Market, I have to repeat once again, that the situation will be that it is unlikely that we will cease trading with the EU single market regardless of whether we leave. There are factors both for and against our national interests. These are pretty well understood by most people and have been debated to death. Whether Scotland in particular subsequently wished to leave the UK in the event of Brexit, I don't think they would. But also, I'm not that bothered if they did. How about you address the implications of us leaving on the EU, which also might be in danger of disintegration if we left. Did I say that the objectivity was mine? No, I didn't. As usual, your comprehension of the English language leaves you struggling. Talking of going around the houses again, I must really admonish you once more for your staggering arrogance in (1) claiming that the debate is already won by the Remain lobby and (2) suggesting that the Leave campaign don't really care about the future prosperity of this Nation. For your repeated juvenile labelling of the Leave supporters as little Englanders, I'll also remind you that when the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. As for your assertion that I added nothing new to the debate, then perhaps you will kindly point out all of the new content in your post. No, there isn't any.

The simple formula that they espouse, of being able to unearth future England players from the lower divisions (another Ricky Lambert, anyone?) and to get their team to meld together into a hard-working and disciplined unit in order to replicate Leicester's success, is only missing a couple of other key ingredients. Leicester have a very wealthy owner and a decent stadium and infrastructure facilities like ours in order to attract the calibre of manager like Claudio Ranieri and some decent players. They have conveniently overlooked the grade two listed, century before last stadium, the so-called high net worth individuals whose collective wealth still makes them "cheap-skates" and the fact that no manager of any real potential is going to take up the challenge of attempting to revive the rotting corpse that they believe is the sleeping giant of English football.

The trouble with you, is that it appears that you have either a memory like a sieve, or that you're quite happy to respond to posts from those critical of remaining in the EU, without listening to what the poster has said previously. Yes, it is a statement of the blindingly obvious to say that it is the electorate who will decide the result of the referendum; as blindingly obvious as your statement that there is some risk attached to leaving the EU, nearly all of it connected to future trading agreements. I have accepted that point a couple of times before, and responded that there is also risk in our staying in, yet you go rabbiting on about it. Ultimately you might comprehend that most people will take account of both positions and decide whether the risk is worth taking in light of the potential for increased trade with the rest of the World, especially those countries whose economies are not stagnating like the EU's. Furthermore, their assessment of any risk to our trading position, will be tempered by their consideration of many other things that they believe to be advantageous to us, things like sovereignty, control over our borders, the supremacy of our own legal system, etc. You argue usually only about the economy based on unsubstantiated guesses of what situation might transpire economically, without acknowledging that others might base their decisions on other factors which they consider to be more important to them personally. Another statement of the bleeding obvious is that the general public do not possess the expertise in economics, constitutional or legal matters to make an informed decision of their own, but most reasonable voters have been able to discern when they are being fed propaganda, especially when it is proven to be so, like the easily dismantled forecasts of the Chancellor and Call me Dave. Some might be persuaded by such fear tactics, some will reach a decision from listening to both sides and others will have more entrenched views based on party allegiances, experience, or their own instincts. Whichever position they hold, that is their prerogative which should not be impugned because you disapprove of the way that people arrive at that decisions. Again, you arrive at a decision on me claiming to be based on an impression given to you from my posts, whilst disregarding the posts made by me several times which clarify what my position is and why. I have already stated that I have wished to leave the EU since Maastricht, because of the changes that Treaty wrought on what we originally joined, the Common Market. I have also said more than once, that I would be happy to remain in , provided that substantial and significant reforms were made to the EU which took us back towards that original organisation, but Dave couldn't manage to negotiate that. I am not unprepared to listen to opinions from those who espouse our remaining in the EU, but whereas you give the appearance of blindly accepting everything you read as God's Gospel truth, I possess a more cynical and apathetic attitude towards everything I read and tend to be dismissive of anything where there might be an agenda involved, or where the forecasts can be dismissed as based on false premises, like the Osborne scare tactic. So whilst we are using horse analogies, I would say that you are blinkered to a lot of what you accept as guidance, much of which falls at the first hurdle when analysed with any objectivity.

Kyle Walker should never be anywhere an England shirt. The bloke is a thug, with few redeeming features even in his talent. I hope that after the match is reviewed, that there will be some lengthy retrospective suspensions.

I feel the same, but have the consolation of remembering these two matches:- I'm trying to remember whether it wasn't even sweeter because we caused Hoddle to be sacked by the N. London yobbos? Some very good reminiscences also to see once more the two Svenssons and Niemi, arguably the best goalkeeper we ever had, together with Beattie in his pomp.

The arrogance of your last paragraph is once again breathtaking and hypocritical to boot. You dismiss or belittle any opinions against remaining in the EU as being from people who are somehow not quite as important, influential or as intelligent as those who propose we remain in, whether they be economists, politicians or business leaders. You then have the gall to accuse me of being selective in what I read in order to arrive at my position, despite the fact that I am perfectly capable of forming my opinion based on my experience of the European project since its very inception. If you were honest about it, you would accept that human nature determines that in order to be well informed on current affairs, one reads the opinions of those who propound the other side of the debate, but then go with what one believes to be the right decision based on one's own personal beliefs. I pointed out that the decision is with the electorate, not the political classes and by all means try to belittle me if it makes you feel a bigger cock, but have the decency to accept that despite you believing them to be misguided imbeciles, the electorate will vote for what they believe or want based on their own opinions, beliefs and self-interest.

Chapel End Charlie: Thanks for the patronising lecture. Did I mention the President of the US in my post? Since you brought it up, my position on his intervention into our affairs is to say that is none on his damned business and to repeat that he would no doubt take a very dim view if Cameron were to interfere in their affairs, to comment on who the American electorate ought to vote for, for instance. Anyway, Obama's statement that we would find ourselves at the back of the queue to reach new trade deals with the USA has been countered by Cruz, who said that we would be first in line. When one of the Presidential candidates is prepared to respond with a policy declaration that is the polar opposite, then there is room for speculation that Obama's statement is purely his own position which he cannot enforce anyway and which was in any event just a sop to do a favour to Call me Dave. You seem to confuse being unpopular with being distrusted and then you go on to contradict your position on the Referendum and your reasoning is all over the place. Good work. Ignoring the difference between being unpopular and distrusted for the moment, you say that sooner or later every Prime Minister becomes unpopular with the British electorate. So far so good. Then you go on to explain that the reason for this situation is that they have to make the most difficult decisions which will invariably upset those who become disadvantaged by that decision making process. In case it escapes you, that is where you shot yourself in the foot, as you therefore logically infer that Call me Dave in leading the remain campaign, is upsetting the electorate who will be disadvantaged by us remaining in the EU. :lol: The small percentage who trust him, gives some indication of how many find him unsuitable to lead the remain campaign. As for him feeling that his position in campaigning to remain in the EU is right for the nation, that is the main reason for the electorates' distrust of him. He had reneged on manifesto promises to hold the referendum before and then when the Conservatives won the election and he was forced to call one, his initial position was that if he didn't gain the reforms that he required, then he would campaign to leave the EU. Of course, he has since done a complete about face, which is seen by everybody to mean that he lacks a backbone and is shallow and unprincipled. The reason that some politicians become unpopular with the electorate, is that many like Dave eventually come to be seen as unprincipled, self-interested and economical with the truth. Regarding your parting shot, that is again wide of the mark and you do not appear to realise that the result of the referendum does not rely on whether the leaders of the various political parties or whether the government ministers support remaining in the EU. It does not rely on the veiled threats from the soon to be ex-President of the US, or the predictions of doom and gloom from various economists' bodies. It relies on the votes of the electorate, much as you would no doubt pour scorn on their intelligence for not listening to the spin from the fear brigade.

Cameron achieves a lower trust rating among voters than Farage, according to a recent poll. Boris' trust rating is quite a bit higher than both of them. It has already been established that the utterances of Osborne are completely untrustworthy. Methinks that a case can be made out that the higher the position of responsibility of the apologists who lead the remain lobby, the less trustworthy they are. One might also conclude that the higher the level of responsibility, the less in touch they are with the electorate.

Ah yes, but the remain camp are able to do that based on our membership of the EU over the past 43 years and so there is no uncertainty about our future for them. They can simply measure how we have benefited during that period and project it forward.

Did I say there wasn't? Since you raise the point, of course we are hampered on the VAT rates we charge by our membership of the EU

Again, this blatant arrogance from you that insists that the remain lobby are right and that anybody who wishes to leave is irresponsible and a bit thick. But thanks at last for acknowledging, even if inadvertently, that the situation the would follow our departure cannot be accurately understood or calculated at this time. Logically it follows that you have now recognised and agree with my argument that all of those economic bodies and indeed the treasury, have based their forecasts largely on guesswork. Once again, it doesn't appear that you are capable or digesting what you read, as you continue to bracket me as a UKIP member, despite numerous denials from me. I belong to the same party as our Prime Minister and Chancellor, but that doesn't mean to say that I have to tow their party line on this and that you can therefore bracket anybody who takes a line closer to another party as being a supporter of that party. This issue transcends party boundaries, you know.

Of course there is risk in us leaving. As I said above, this is a statement of the bleeding obvious and does not require any great intelligence to predict that. But what your blinkered viewpoint fails to acknowledge is that there are also risks in our remaining too. These economic forecasts from these bodies revered by you either don't consider the other side of that coin, or it doesn't suit the remain lobby to have those forecasts published. As an illustration of how you fail to read things and comprehend them, I have stated categorically that I am a Conservative voter, always have been apart from on one occasion, the last European Parliamentary elections. And what arrogance you demonstrate by accusing those who wish to leave the bloated and undemocratic EU of not caring for future generations. This is virtually half of the electorate. If you weren't so hypocritically glib yourself, you would recognise that the younger generation are entitled to vote themselves from age 18. Anybody much younger than that, might equally face a situation whereby our leaving has resulted in a longer term prosperity that might not have been achieved from our continuing membership. As for your further unfounded allegations, it is unlikely that we will cease trading with the single market, at least in the shorter term. You obviously haven't read previous debating points about how other countries outside the EU managed to trade with the single market, or maybe those arguments failed to penetrate your brain.

For all those remainers who constantly bleat on about how there is not one single respected economist able to state the financial consequences of a Brexit, that will now be changing. https://www.facebook.com/Economists-for-Brexit-540769736095092/ I have continuously taken the stance that it will be difficult to predict the consequences either way, but when the remain brigade are happy to accept the dire forecasts of the likes of Osborne as being the gospel truth, it will be interesting to listen to their reactions to forecasts that we might well be better off out of this corrupt organisation which is long past its sell-by date.

Just because the Spectator blog featured the video clip of the Andrew Neil interview clinically dissecting the unsubstantiated propaganda claptrap put out by Osborne, does not make the actual interview itself biased, does it? Had the Osborne propaganda appeared in the Beano, would you say that it was childish and infantile? The core message has not had any favours done for it by the sort of massaged statistics dressed up as fact that have been produced by the likes of Osborne in order to frighten the more gullible voters who put store in them just because he is the Chancellor.

What are you going on about? The grilling of Osborne's spin, was conducted by Andrew Neil as a BBC journalist. Next you'll be telling us the BBC is biased too.

Whereas of course, Osborne is a paragon of veracity when it comes to putting out figures for the remain camp, isn't he? No way that his spin on the cost to every family could be torn apart by a media presenter, is there? http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/04/watch-ed-vaizey-grilled-by-andrew-neil-over-george-osbornes-dodgy-eu-dossier/

Further to this assertion of yours:- http://www.cityam.com/239663/brexit-myths-debunked-the-leave-campaign-shouldnt-fear-arguing-that-leaving-the-eu-would-be-good-for-the-economy