Wes Tender

Why wouldn't we? http://www.canadainternational.gc.ca/united_kingdom-royaume_uni/bilateral_relations_bilaterales/commercial-commerciales.aspx?lang=eng

I reiterate; there is little in the way of facts coming from the stay campaign. It is mostly fear, conjecture, opinion. They have no more firm evidence of what our position in the World would be than we have of what the EU would look like in five years time if we stayed, especially if the likes of Turkey were allowed to join. Additionally a stay vote would be seen as a mandate to the EU to continue its relentless march towards a federal Europe. There is no independent research that can accurately forecast the outcome of our leaving, as it is an unprecedented situation, and you are naive to think that there could be. I would like to see you post some links to "independent" well-evidenced arguments that support our staying in the EU I don't accept for one second that you are open to persuasion to leave the EU, evidenced by your preponderance to calling anybody who advocates leaving a "swivel-eyed buffoon. But I find it encouraging that at least you are not rubbishing the leave position in terms of such absolute certainty as you did when you assured me that there no way that the swivel-eyed buffoon Corbyn would be elected leader of the Labour Party.

Yes, we can. It will probably only take 24 years to arrange, just as it did after we moved towards unacceptable political union the last time.

Here is an interesting article which covers facets of both WG's question of what happens to Nigel Farage if we voted for Brexit, but also covers a lot of arguments that run counter to the doom and gloom fear scenario that Moonraker attempts to disguise as facts or likely outcome. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/david-bannerman-mep/eu-referendum-brexit_b_9346348.html

I just watched that. Superb satire.

I'm pretty sure if you were to ask him whether losing his job on the European gravy train was a price worth paying for us leaving the EU, that he would say yes, a hundred times yes.

Go on, brighten the mood with one of your analogies

A typical conclusion from you, following your formulaic position; stay = sharp, leave = dullard. Most sensible people would conclude the possibility that those on the payroll have a vested interest for voting stay, because they are yes men, part of the Establishment gravy train. But no doubt it will be useful reminding you in the future when you are critical of a government minister over policy in some other area that their position holds sway over the opinions of any non-shadow minister, who must by definition be a resentful dullard. And what of Corbyn? For years the resentful backbench dullard, but now all of a sudden he must be a really sharp cookie to be leader of Her Majesty's Opposition.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/map-eu-europe-tory-party-conservatives-split-divided-two-a6892611.html Nice to see that a large majority of our local MPs are for Brexit.

Bournemouth if they stay up would be convenient for family and friends.

Very fond of an analogy is our Timmy. Here is an earlier one featuring that well known Human Resources Manager/Estate Agent/Online Dating site owner Michael Gove. No, I haven't got the hang of his analogies either.

I thought that unsporting behaviour was a yellow card offence. When the etiquette of the game is understood to be that if the ball is kicked out of play for attention to be given to an injured player and that the ball should be returned to the team who has forfeited possession, how was the c*nt Costa not yellow carded for his actions? He subsequently received a yellow for foul play, so he would have been off.

I'm looking forward to your castigation of the posters who call the "leave" brigade swivel-eyed loons or similar. As you say, it is a bit playground and detracts from their arguments, doesn't it? You didn't haul them up over it at the time, but a retrospective rebuke will be fine.

You don't seem to be able to recognise the difference between the reporting of a news item (the G20 warning) and an opinion item which will have editorial approval because it reflects the paper's position. As has been said by Farage, this is the old boys network doing a bit of mutual back-scratching. Nigel Lawson also disputed the allegations that our Brexit would endanger International stability. And then you're wrong about my natural habitat too. I voted to remain in the Common Market at the time of the Harold Wilson referendum, even campaigned for it. My disillusionment with it started at the time of the Maastricht Treaty when it morphed towards a Federal Europe becoming the EU. My position now is that I would happily stay if the reforms we obtained were control over our borders, regaining our lost sovereignty and the restoration of the supremacy of our own judicial system. I believe that there would be a clear majority of the electorate who also support that stance. But as Cameron only managed a fudge in his negotiations on reform, and we are told that leaving cannot be the prelude to renegotiating a return to the fold with improved reforms, then the EU leave us no choice but to take the nuclear option if the electorate voted to leave. I don't agree with your conclusion that it is the Tory Party tearing itself apart again. They are holding to an election pledge by Cameron which was forced on them by UKIP's rise as a political force. You don't seem to see that there are also Labour MPs in the Brexit camp, but for some reason you don't see them as tearing the party apart. The British electorate are not being used to sort out anything apart from their democratic rights to have a say on the successive Treaty changes brought about by successive governments who have signed away our sovereignty, border controls and the supremacy of our judicial system Do you not believe that they have a demographic right to decide on these things?

So you provide your article from the pro-remain Guardian and here is one from the pro-leave Telegraph. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12148307/Britain-can-enjoy-the-good-life-after-Brexit.html That points out that Britain would also be able to continue its trade with the EU members under the WTO rules, but believes that we can do better than that. The fear campaign continues to make comparisons between our position in the EU regarding trade and that of the much smaller Norway and Switzerland. It really is becoming boring.

Don't be simple. Of course £0 is a statistic. How many goals did Forster concede in 6 matches. None. That is a statistic

We were the better side in the first half and deserved our lead. The defence looked solid and Chelsea were closed down effectively and forced to shoot from distance, more often than not finding row Q in the process. We held on until the 75th minute and the change came about because Chelsea indulged in cheating tactics to disrupt our flow and therefore our concentration. The main cheating c*nt was Dago Costa, who showed really bad gamesmanship chasing down the ball kicked back to Forster when we kicked it out to gain attention to our injured player. That riled V.V-D and the temperature of the game rose significantly, favouring the Chelsea players who dived all over the pitch to try and gain possession and impetus.Sometimes it is a shame that our players are often too honest, as a bit of gamesmanship in return by way of diving and rolling in fake agony after being brushed by Dago Costa might have ended in him getting the red card that he deserved. The match turned also when Long came limping off and I think Koeman arrived at the wrong decision putting on Pelle instead of Mane. Pelle really was very poor and I wish that he would just cut out the poncey flicks, which gave away possession twice in quick succession. Mane was lively when he came on, but he was hampered partnering Pelle instead of Austin when he was substituted. I had thought that Atkinson had previously been a decent referee, but his performance today was very poor and a couple of decisions he took upon himself against the lino and vice-versa. The first yellow card he gave against us was for an innocuous foul, whereas there followed a very similar one from Chelsea very soon after which didn't even warrant a free kick. Essentially, we had commanded the midfield the first half and closed down their players, whereas in the second half, probably missing Long's energy, we seemed to sit off them, allowing them more freedom to come ever closer to our box and it became almost inevitable that players of the quality of theirs would be able to produce a goal. Why is that we always lose momentum after a two week break? Thank God we have two other matches within a week and if we can get wins from Bournemouth and Sunderland, we can be back in the groove once more.

It seems that your comprehension of the English language is lacking, but your ability to twist things is in fine fettle.

I'll also assume you know the difference between estimates and facts, although your quoting of the CBI figures as reliable suggests not. Regarding the potential value of increased trade with the rest of the World, I have already said earlier that nobody knows any more what that would amount to than they know factually what the loss of trade resulting from the EU if we left would be.

What you must bear in mind, is that when we are talking about our net contribution, any monies returned to us in the form of regional grants, subsidies, and research funds, is actually our taxpayers' money that we have paid into the kitty. But I'm sure that you believe that the EU bureaucrats are far better equipped to judge on where that money is to go, rather than it being the choice of our democratically elected Government.

It's a bloody good thing that those figures from the CBI haven't been quoted after having been published in any newspapers, otherwise they would be suspect, eh? And read what you have said and select some words that mean that those figures are not factual, but only a guess. The words "suggests" and "could be". In other words, you are essentially using made up figures yourself. Naturally, there are two sides of a coin, the CBI suggested net benefit being one side. The other side of the coin which they have not had a stab at, is the increased trade that we will then do subsequently with the rest of the World.

Yes, all of those countries who vote for each other in the Eurovision Song contest. Another European institution badly in need of reform

It is simplistic to say that because we import more from them that they hold all the cards. You haven't been listening to the counter arguments that if they export more to us then they have more to lose by imposing tariffs, because when we reciprocate, their products will be more expensive to buy here. The EU will lose lots of trade with one of their most important markets and we will gain the opportunity to trade with a hugely larger market, the rest of the World. But go on believing that the EU holds all the cards if it comforts you. And the other point that needs to be made again against your position, is that many of the biggest and therefore most influential corporations in Europe, are in the most powerful and influential Countries of the EU. So if you think that VW, Daimler, BMW, Siemens, Bosch, Phillips, Renault, Peugeot, Citroen, Exor, BASF, Saint-Gobain, Bayer, Anheuser-Busch etc won't be applying pressure on the Governments of Germany, France, Italy and the Netherlands not to impose tariffs on their products, then you are being a bit naive.

And naturally we would counter by imposing tariffs on them. Who do you think that would benefit?

You ought to have realised when you exclude Corbyn as not being an asset to the remain camp, that there were sufficient numbers of Labour supporters willing to vote for him to be the leader of the Labour Party, regardless of how impossible you thought that would be at the time and how wrong you turned out to be. Do you therefore preclude the possibility that Farage, IDS and Galloway don't themselves have a similar appeal to a constituency of support within the parameters of their own political compasses? You have only named one example of somebody you consider to be an intelligent and articulate advocate for the remain case, against two that you think ought to be hidden from public view. And he is one who has hardly dominated the campaign to remain. As I already observed, Labour don't wish to upset the peace of Church mice and he is supposed to be leading their campaign. I don't believe that you could be persuaded to vote to leave anyway, because there is no more concrete evidence that leaving the EU would be workable than there is evidence to suggest that the EU can be cured of all of its inherent problems that need reform. It ought to be obvious to most sensible people that the only evidence of our leaving being workable can only come about through us actually leaving. Quite a few people like me (judging by the polls) seem ready to take the chance and make the break.