Wes Tender

If you read the article a bit more carefully, you would see that the vast majority of the information and quotes were actually post referendum. Feel free to disparage anything in the article that you know to be incorrect with examples and your corrections. It has only been a bit over four years since the referendum, but plans to formulate a policy like an EU Army require long term planning. After all, this is the EU we are talking about here, the organisation that takes years and years to negotiate a simple free trade deal with other countries, so references to planning for it from some time ago are perfectly valid in support of an argument that an EU Army is planned. Have Merkel and Macron changed their minds? Have Verhofstadt's plans for a European Empire with its own army been ditched because we have left? Who knows what is going on in his head?

https://briefingsforbritain.co.uk/will-the-eu-form-its-own-army/ It seems that the major players in the EU hierarchy believe that an EU Army would be a desirable thing. Our leaving the EU has queered the pitch somewhat, when along with France we were the two top military powers. Another one in the eye for the EU is the likely change of policy over Government procurement, when we had to put out to tender the purchase of all military hardware to all member states of the EU. Hopefully the policy will now be that we manufacture that in the UK, creating new jobs along the way. We have already seen the reopening of Appledore Shipyard and plans to build a couple of RN Ships that Spain and Malta were hoping to procure contracts to build, I believe.

Improbably

Who cares? It's all conjecture anyway. You don't think that those conditions will be applied to a supplicant UK begging to rejoin the EU gravy train, but I do. Until the situation arises, there will be no evidence either way. I'm entirely content that the situation will probably not arise in my lifetime, which could be several years yet, provided I don't fall victim to the Chinese virus.

I refer you both to consider LD's last post and also my points that any future referendum on rejoining would have to include the EU insisting that we join the Euro, go back to the CAP, CFP, join the EU Army, cough up considerably more into the EU budget to pay for the Chinese virus and baling out the failing banks, plus accepting the next tidal wave of migrants from the free movement of citizens when the next 10 impoverished countries have joined. Good luck with getting the electorate to agree with all that. But we aren't going to have a shit-show. After a while, we will wonder why we didn't do it years ago. Well, we were promised a referendum years ago, but successive governments reneged on their promises.

OK, a plebiscite then. I trust that covers elections and referenda to your satisfaction.

So by the same measure, you would agree that the minute that the EEC/Common Market morphed into the EU by virtue of the Maastricht Treaty, we should have had a referendum to allow the electorate to rubber stamp it, yes? Otherwise, it is not unreasonable to ask that the similar length of time be allowed to pass between the referendum to join and the referendum to leave, before deciding to rejoin again.

That is our Parliamentary first past the post system for you. But we were discussing opinions on Brexit, Badger, where the vote was binary, decided by a simple majority vote. No doubt we can run it all again after a suitable passage of time, at least ten years, perhaps. If the EU stills exists in its current form.

That isn't how polling works, Badger. There are invited databases of respondents, so often the same people. The pollsters would love to have people believe that it is a representative sample, but it is just the views of typically under 2000 people who ideally would cover the demographic of the nation, but probably don't. A more representative result comes from a poll of polls, which at least will cover a larger sample, although many of them will have their own agendas.

You really must be incredibly naive if you place so much credence in opinion polls, Timmy. I could post a link to that clip from Yes Minister to demonstrate how they can be manipulated, but I'm sure that you will either recall its contents, or be capable of finding it yourself. I'll have to repeat the assertion, that the response to polling questions is dependent on the demographics of the sample, the geography, sex, age, education, political and religious background of the contributor, so there is plenty of scope for variation in the results simply by concentrating on a demographic that supports the view you seek to promote. You claim that we don't understand statistics and how they can or can't be skewed, but patently we are well aware of how they can be manipulated to give the result sought by those who fund them. It might interest you to know that 87.5% of people employ statistics in an argument in an attempt to give the impression that they are smart My views on polling are clear and consistent that the only poll that counts is an election. This piffling little poll sample of yours is irrelevant and doesn't change anything at all. Move on.

I'm amazed that Timmy seems to put much store on this piffling poll sample size and is then prepared to state that "since August 2017 there has been a consistent majority of people who think that leaving the EU was a mistake" as if to infer that the country does as a whole. Yes a consistent majority of a tiny selected sample whose demographic is unknown believe it was the wrong decision. And an average of at least 10% consistently don't know. As this time span mostly covers a period when we hadn't left, and since the end of January when we had left but are still tied to the CU and SM while we negotiate a trading relationship with the EU, it is not at all surprising that recent polls indicate negativity towards us leaving when the remoaner media are full steam ahead on project fear Mk 2 the closer we get to the end of the WA. Although remoaners like Timmy will gain some comfort from it, this polling exercise is completely pointless, as we aren't going to suddenly ask to rejoin the EU. It would be interesting to speculate what the poll results would be on rejoining under a scenario that the price to be paid would be joining the Euro, having to pay substantially more towards the running costs of the gravy train, accepting more pro-federal legislation, tying ourselves to the EU Army, and having to accept the next wave of economic migrants into the country from these ten new member states that Timmy says are hoping to join.

What, the sort of tragi-comedic stuff like the Noway option that only exists in your head? 😄 Thanks for your comments, which ironically provide the basis for the arguments in support of my case. As I advised, it is a bit premature at this stage to crow that the EU hasn't collapsed because we have left, when we aren't quite yet fully out of the door. Have a bit of patience as I counseled and wait to see what sort of arrangement with the EU we end up with and what the implications from that will be, before making any assessments of the potential consequences for us or the EU. Like a house of cards, the possibility of the collapse of the EU has grown the more members it gains, especially when the newer members are former states of the Soviet Union. The EEC/Common Market was certainly a lot more stable and a common currency much more viable when it was a conglomerate of economically and politically stable nations like the original members. Not only are the economies and political systems in those new member states very much weaker and less stable, requiring them to be net beneficiaries of the largesse of the wealthier states, but it naturally brought about the huge migrations under the freedom of movement policy that caused unrest and resentment among those countries that were swamped by it, and a big factor of course in our decision to leave the EU. If you think that the addition of those poverty ridden Eastern European states and the further addition of even more of them will not increase tensions substantially with the wealthier member states who will have to finance their development and accommodate their economic migrant citizens, then more fool you. The evidence of unrest in the EU is plain to see, earlier on from referenda that voted against the EEC becoming a federal United States of Europe, causing resentment when they were thwarted, to governments like Hungary rebelling against the influx of economic migrants entering their borders, to the rise of political parties whose intent is the leaving of their country from the EU. But none of this is our problem any longer, thankfully. We can happily watch from the sidelines as the EU tears itself apart.

I thought that both of you would have known that Switzerland was not a member state of the EU, so it would be pretty difficult to get out of something you are not a part of, wouldn't it?🙄 Also Hockey, it is a bit premature to postulate on whether our leaving of the EU will trigger others following us out, as although we have left technically, we are still tied to the SM and CU until the end of the year under the WA. The pot is boiling nicely with several other factors that will influence the break up of the EU apart from freedom of movement. I suggest that you wait patiently for the passage of events that will bring about that decline in the fortunes of the EU. Regarding our own exit, the EU is between a rock and a hard place over it. Their desire to attempt to punish us for leaving, or making us a vassal colony of the EU, has backfired and they are now faced with either arranging a FTA deal with us commensurate with those they have arranged with Canada/S.Korea/Japan, or harming their massive trade surplus with us by having us leave without a FTA deal on WTO terms. Either way, when we make a success of it, others will be encouraged to follow. Apart from that, pressures on the Euro caused by the failure of Italian banks, the Greek economy, massive youth unemployment in Southern Europe, the dissent over the hugely increased contributions needed to keep the EU gravy train on its tracks because of the Chinese virus, and several other factors will increasingly combine to destabilise the whole shebang.

As we can't watch the match live in the stadium, there really is no point in playing attractive to watch, gung-ho attacking football. What is needed is boring, reliable solid defence, hard to beat, win by a single goal football. We have an attack that looks effective, but a defence that is easy to beat, who don't play well together, don't have an understanding of each other, backed by a keeper who doesn't inspire confidence. If Salisu is any good when he is ready, who would he replace? Stephens and Bednarek look equally incompetent. Vestergaard is no better. When Son proved himself to be the main outlet for Spurs, why on earth didn't we put somebody to mark him out of gaining possession? Until we get the defence drilled to be more leak resistant, why not revert to a back three? Somebody in between Stephens and Bednarek, where Son had acres of space, might have actually dispossessed him once or twice. With three in the middle, we can push up the full backs when in possession to give a five man midfield, and withdraw them to block the flanks when we are under attack. If we play a high line, that is all well and good if you can win the ball high up the pitch and then make good use of it. If you lack the players with pace in the midfield to get back into good defensive positions if you are hit on the break, then you are going to get punished. When we had our run of great results at the tail end of last season, we achieved it by winning the balls in midfield and high up the pitch, and then closing down the passes out of defence. We have stopped doing it. Armstrong made a good contribution with Djenepo giving service to Ings and Adams, who also did well. I don't think that Redmond was particularly missed and that he would have changed much had he played. We lost some bite when we took off Romeu, and Smallbone isn't a suitable replacement IMO. Nor does Tella add anything significant. Long would have added the midfield bite for Romeu, and also the pace that might have helped the defence too, but it seems that Hasenhuttl wants to give the youngsters a run out in preference to shoring up the scoreline.

You're such a drama queen, we aren't screwed at all. It will soon become apparent to them that the measures taken in the Internal Market Bill are designed to protect the Good Friday Agreement and then they can stop their posturing, attempting to gain the Irish vote in their forthcoming elections.

A great summary.

What a humiliation to be totally outclassed by a lower division team and to be told by our local commentators that we were outplayed, outfought, out thought and knocked out by the better team, the team that put in greater effort and desire all over the pitch. Our performance tonight was totally unacceptable and the team needs to hang their heads in shame. And as the manager, Ralph needs to take his share of the blame. He picked the team, he devised the tactics, he failed to improve their performance after a dire first half, and he also failed to make the substitutions that might have changed things until it was way too late. Spurs didn't get off to a great start in their first match, but if we play and defend like we did against Crystal Palace and Brentford, they have enough to give us a good spanking.

Sums it all up perfectly for me.

Despite having been universally derided for their policy on the Chinese virus, the Swedes appear to be having the last laugh. While the rest of Europe is suffering rising numbers of those infected, Sweden's are falling to their lowest levels. Death rates are only a tenth of the level predicted by so-called Science virology experts. They kept all of their schools, shops and restaurants opened, their pupils sat their exams on time and their economy carried on without too much of a hit. They relied on their people to take sensible measures to protect themselves as best they could. We, like most of the rest of Europe, went the opposite way, introduced a severe lockdown, closed schools, shops, restaurants, hotels, travel etc, and have completely screwed our economy. When the Chinese introduce their next virus attack, we will have to thank the Swedes for showing us the way to overcome it. 😉

OK, your main points on the timing of the huge presenters' salary increases, the £100 million payment towards diversity programming (when the BBC are already more diverse than the diversity profile for the country) having been dismissed, you are not prepared to further argue your corner because you claim I have an agenda on the BBC. Regarding the funding of the license fees for the over 75's, your wording of it was so vague that you could have been referring to any number of other things. Thanks for clarifying it. I expect that the government policy of placing the onus onto the BBC to allow the 75s to be able to watch the BBC for free, was in order to encourage them to introduce savings in areas where there was massive over expenditure or inefficiencies to pay for it. The salary increases and expenditure on "diversity programming" clearly illustrate why they are institutionally incapable of such changes, and why they need to be defunded and non-payment of the license fee decriminalised.

What are you going on about? The Chinese virus became widespread knowledge in this country since February. It's been the subject of nearly every minute of the BBC news every day since. Wasn't that enough time for it to register with them before making these pay increase awards currently? Was Chris Evans job terminated by the BBC, or did he leave of his own volition to make even more money with Virgin? When he worked as a presenter on Top Gear, the viewing ratings nose-dived. Some of these overpaid presenters add insult to injury by taking additional jobs on the strength of their public exposure with the BBC, notably the potato crisp salesman Lineker (the highest paid presenter at the BBC) and Naga Munchetty. Both feel perfectly at liberty to express political opinions against the ethos of the Corporation's obligation to be impartial. As for your argument for the £100 million funding of diversity programming, a little research by you would reveal that the BBC already has a greater diversity employment record and diversity in its programme personnel and subject matter than the national statistics for racial, religious and sexual orientation diversity in the country. So why waste £100 of our (license payers) money? As for the second to last sentence, I have no idea what you are talking about.

When hundreds of thousands are losing their jobs because of the Chinese virus, the BBC are doing their impression of fiddling while Rome burns, awarding massive pay increases to mediocre presenters despite their viewer ratings going down in many cases. This is on top of taking away free licenses from pensioners over 75 and spending £100 million of license fee payers' money on "diversity" programming. Their current actions are really taking the piss. Come on Gavyn, you used to be in charge of the BBC; what are your thoughts on these excesses?

Despite Brexit, English is set to become the EU official language... The European Commission has just announced an agreement whereby English will be the official language of the European Union, given its majority status in the EU, despite the UK leaving. As part of the final Brexit negotiations, Germany proposed a 5- year phase-in plan that would become known as "Euro-English". Germany argued that this may make the EU more inviting to the UK in the future. In the first year, "s" will replace the soft "c". Sertainly, this will make the sivil servants jump with joy. The hard "c" will be dropped in favour of "k". This should klear up konfusion, and keyboards kan have one less letter. There will be growing publik enthusiasm in the sekond year when the troublesome "ph" will be replaced with "f". This will make words like fotograf 20% shorter. In the 3rd year, publik akseptanse of the new spelling kan be expekted to reach the stage where more komplikated changes are possible. Governments will enkourage the removal of double letters which have always ben a deterent to akurate speling. Also, al wil agre that the horibl mes of the silent "e" in the languag is disgrasful and it should go away. By the 4th yer peopl wil be reseptiv to steps such as replasing "th" with "z" and "w" with "v". During ze fifz yer, ze unesesary "o" kan be dropd from vords kontaining "ou" and after ziz fifz yer, ve vil hav a reil sensi bl riten styl. Zer vil be no mor trubl or difikultis and evrivun vil find it ezi TU understand ech oza. Ze drem of a united urop vil finali kum tru. Und efter ze fifz yer, ve vil al be speking German like zey vunted in ze forst plas.

Frost is doing a great job of countering Barnier at every step. What a pity that we didn't appoint him at the very beginning instead of the useless Robbins, but that would never have happened, because the Vicar's daughter was a remoaner and was perfectly happy to have the EU walk all over us in the negotiations. It's a sad state of affairs that our position on the negotiations has to be put across on twatter, but the mainstream media and our national broadcaster are mainly remoaners and happy to put across the EU's point of view, but not ours. Great news last night though with the Internal Market Bill passing its first hurdle with such a substantial majority.

You really are a bit short on comprehension and long on the acceptance of bogus rantings of those who you believe to be credible sources of information provided it suits your warped agenda, aren't you? Firstly, no treaty law has been broken yet. If a FTA is agreed with the EU, then the current proposed legislation will be rendered unnecessary. Essentially it is an insurance policy against no deal. In any event, the law has not even been passed yet. The EU are past masters at it. The USA has not said sod your deal with us.The Speaker, Mad Nancy has shot from the lip that no trade deal will be done with us if the Good Friday Agreement is broken. Like you, she knows nothing and understands less, as the legislation proposed by the Government is designed to protect the Good Friday Agreement. As the Speaker of Congress, she has no more right to spout forth on what the USA trade policy will be than our former rogue Speaker, Bercow. It doesn't appear to have affected the Japan deal and I don't see the Australians, Canadians and New Zealanders being bothered by us besting the EU either. Oh, and looking back a few posts, I see that you are ageist and racist too. What a hypocrite you are.