Wes Tender

You sad, sad man

You're a fine one to talk, what with all the childish insults that you throw at anybody who disagrees with you. As they say, let he who is without sin, cast the first stone.

Frankly, I think that you have much more to worry about psychologically than me, what with the way that just because you disagree with somebody's opinions, you are prepared to make the most basely crude and groundless insults against their wife and children. That really is plumbing the depths of what is acceptable and civilised behaviour. Would you be happy for your Rotary chums to know that you were capable of such behaviour?

I think that you've been reading "Psychology for Dummies" and not being able to comprehend it very well.

Another one who doesn't read what I wrote properly. If you and the other EU luvvies on here think that we should pay the EU whatever they ask for, you must be disappointed that we aren't agreeing to the original £100 billion that they fantasised about demanding. If you all believe that we should pay the same £39 billion regardless of whether we get a deal, no deal, or a bad deal, then you are all bonkers. Of course the £39 billion is a political payment rather than one due by international law, but much of it is a goodwill gesture to smooth the way for a decent FTA. If Selmayr wishes to insult us by demanding that we pay it regardless of whether we get a FTA or not, then he will have to face the consequences of us playing hardball with it, and recognising that they are desperate for it, using it as a bargaining chip, (which we should have done in the first place).

Many of our companies already trade around the World on WTO terms and do so very successfully without any undue worries or concerns. It isn't the calamity that project fear likes to project, especially if we chose to drop tariffs on pretty well everything. And of course many countries also trade only on WTO terms quite happily. Regarding the rest of your whataboutery, it is all irrelevant to what I said. Do yourself a favour and read it again, so you don't make yourself look a fool. A mutually beneficial trade deal with the EU is the optimal option, but if that deal is not available, the negotiating wisdom is that no deal is better than a bad deal, which our current negotiation most certainly is. No deal = WTO, until the EU comes to their senses. Had we been an independent third country currently seeking to join the EU as the 5th biggest economy right on their doorstep, they would be falling over themselves to offer us a good deal. So why shouldn't that deal be good enough for them to offer us now? Whilst singing the praises of this most respected trade bloc in the World, you fail to recognise why we chose to leave it. Fine for Canada, South Korea, now Japan and the like to have FTA with the EU, but then they don't have to accept the four freedoms, the primacy of the ECJ, the inability to trade with other countries and the large payments into the EU slush fund for the privilege. I'd be perfectly happy with a Canada +++ deal. Did I say anywhere that other groups of countries weren't forming their own trading blocs? Once free of the Customs Union, we will be free to join, or indeed to form, our own Trading blocs. These largest trading nations on the planet; presumably you are talking of the likes of USA, China, India? I'm sure that they are all reaping the benefits of their FTAs with the EU.

Our integrity will be enhanced, as we will be seen to have done everything to get a mutually beneficial deal with the EU, but ultimately the EU's intransigence meant that with regret we could not come to a mutually beneficial agreement with them. It is the EU's integrity that will be undermined, as they will be seen to have acted in a vindictive manner in order to punish us for daring to leave their protectionist racket. Most of the Anglosphere countries will not be in the least bit bothered, as most of them feel that we have let the EU trample all over us in these negotiations and will be sympathetic to the patience and calmness we showed throughout. Ultimately though, we will be perfectly happy trading on WTO terms, and any trade agreements with other countries will be based on the mutual benefits that will accrue to both parties, rather than on whether we allowed ourselves to be humiliated by the EU over financial reparations which were of dubious legality at the very least.

https://brexitcentral.com/deal-no-deal-martin-selmayr-told-brexit-select-committee-divorce-bill-39-billion/ Selmayr insists that whether we leave with a Withdrawal Agreement or on WTO terms with no deal, we will still have to pay the EU the £39 billion. I think that he needs to be told in no uncertain terms, that if we leave on WTO terms, technically we do not have to pay them a penny legally, but that we will pay only what we consider to be our reasonable debt for such things as pensions for our people working in the EU and ongoing cooperation in joint projects. If they aren't happy with what we decide to pay, then they can take the matter through the International courts, which will probably take a very considerable time to adjudicate. Regarding the position if we agree a Withdrawal Agreement, we then have to negotiate a FTA with the EU, which could drag on for ages with the current backstop arrangements. In order that the EU has some incentive to progress that deal quickly, half of the £39 billion should be paid on the signing of the Withdrawal Agreement, the other half only when the FTA has been signed. It is a shame that May and her negotiators have been so incompetent as to offer the £39 billion up front without the strings attached that would make it clear to the likes of Selmayr that we won't be pushed around and are serious about leaving with no deal as a last resort. The implied threat from Selmayr, is that unless we pay their Danegeld, our relationship with the EU will be forever soured. If that is what they want, then let the jumped up little upstart explain that to those EU exporters, especially in Germany and France, for whom we are their major customers.

I'm well up to date thanks, Timmy. I think that what you should do, is to read back to the link I posted discussing Nissan deciding to cease production of the X Trail in Sunderland. It was Plastic who went off on a tangent about whether the X Trail was an SUV diesel or not and the graph and sales figures that he linked to which sought to mislead on the sales, as they were incomplete and didn't show the full 2018 decline. It was only on his last link that he finally posted a link to a site showing the true picture on European for Nissan and all other makes of car sales.

The link shows Nissan sales dropped 28%, which I had already worked out.

Thanks for those links. As far as I can see, the first one shows that three out of the four models are diesels, so I don't think that quite warrants the Perhaps you will kindly furnish the split between the number of sales of the petrol and diesel models. I would expect that most sales are for diesels and it is them that have experienced the recent fall in sales. As for the second link, it appears that it is a good thing that your graph didn't show the European sales for 2018, as they fell fairly substantially for 9 of the 11 months shown. Up to November 2018, the sales were 23542 down compared to the year before, so even if this last December matched the sales for December 2017, which is extremely unlikely given that most other months sales were down in 2018, there would still be a drop in sales of around 28%. If the sales for December dropped in line with some other months, the end result could be a drop by a third. Indeed, sales for September, October and November 2018, were lower than in the equivalent months in 2015. Presumably the decision on the X Trail will be influenced quite strongly by the most recent figures, the rising sales trend up to 2017 having come to an abrupt halt last year.

No, I didn't

The alternative view for the reasons why Nissan is moving X Trail production from Sunderland

Tabloid fantasies? The article was taken from The Times. But a nice bit of whataboutery from you deflecting from the story and not feeling inclined to comment on that. I say that there won't be any rioting if we leave without a FTA with the EU and that there is no way that the Royal Family would be threatened. The only civil disorder will be if Brexit isn't delivered. Is the story rubbish, or not? I have it down as yet another little fantasy from project fear. But since you ask about my opinion on the actual economic consequences of Brexit, I have already said on more than one occasion that I believe that if we leave on WTO terms, which is now the best option when compared with the awful May deal (with or without the backstop) after a short term blip, we will begin to pull ahead strongly. Substantial job losses, a recession, an emergency budget, falling house prices etc, were all forecast as a direct result of us even voting to leave the EU and none of those happened, so excuse me if I take these Mk11 project fear prophecies with a shovel of salt.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-02-02/queen-to-be-evacuated-in-case-of-no-deal-brexit-riots-times Now I've heard everything. The Queen and Royal family to be evacuated to a secret location in the eventuality of a no deal Brexit to protect them from the possibility of riots. Let's hope that Philip isn't the designated driver. According to the leading remoaners on here, forecasting violence is tantamount to advocating it, so let's hear their condemnation of those who are reporting this ludicrous story. And who is going to be rioting here? A combination of the yoof and the metropolitan champagne socialists and the academics should make for an interesting spectacle.

A decent point gained in an away match against a team who have turned their season around after a poor start, and were showing the sort of form in the past several matches that had them playing in Europe after last season's league position. They suffered the same sort of reversal in the PL that we and other teams do that have the extra matches without the squad size and quality in depth that is required to play in both. Having therefore been poor both in Europe and the league and exiting early from Europe, they had got back to the sort of form that made them hard to beat last season. They aren't a team of stars imported from around the World, they are a team of battlers, capably managed and very spirited and dogged. In their current form, it was never going to easy to beat them, but we came very close. They are a totally different proposition to Palace who have more flair players and carried far more of a threat from speedy players and a more capable and deadly striker in Zaha, compared to the more blunt instrument threat that Wood and Barnes carried. Crouch was an entirely different proposition and made a big difference late on. Burnley as opposition suited us much more than Palace, as without the threat of being hit fast on the break and the lack of being closed down quickly, we could get forward in greater numbers and pass the ball around better. Hasenhuttl had chosen to continue with J Ward-Prowse as right wing back instead of Valery and with Slattery and Armstrong. No Hojbjerg or Lemina, so options restricted. We started quite well and were the better team early on. Ings was one on one with the excellent Heaton, but couldn't get the ball past him. The ball rebounded towards Slattery, who was late on a tackle in the box and very lucky to get away without a card. The Burnley fans were incensed. Ings limped off injured on 25 minutes and Long came on. The best chance for Burnley came when Armstrong misplaced a pass and Woods strode forward and shot high, when he should have done better. Their next chance came when Barnes was denied a penalty when running into the box, he collided with McCarthy, who had dived towards the ball and failed to make contact on it. Barnes could well have jumped over the prostrate McCarthy, but made the contact that tripped him, but the referee Taylor denied the penalty and yellow carded Barnes for simulation. Barnes and the Burnley fans were incandescent with anger. A couple of minutes into the second half, we had our first corner and a goalwards shot was cleared off the line by Bardsley. On 52 minutes, a fine header from J W-P needed a good save from Heaton. Our good period of play produced its reward on 55 minutes, when Redmond created the space to fire a good low strike to Heaton's right which he couldn't get a hand to. Burnley had to pile on the pressure to get back into the game and pressed forward. On the hour, a Burnley header produced a good McCarthy save, but it ought to have been given offside, but the flag had stayed down. Dyche made his move tactically to turn the screw by introducing Crouch for Wood, so the threat would then be from aerial balls into the box. Hasenhuttl retaliated shortly afterwards bringing off Armstrong for Valery to strengthen the defence. With Crouch on the pitch, taking off Vestergaard certainly wasn't the option it was against Palace. Shortly afterwards under increased Burnley pressure, on 77 minutes Barnes should have equalised from close in, but shot straight at McCarthy. Again, lady luck was on our side when a fierce shot from Barnes hit the crossbar. With Burnley pushing up, there was always the chance we could hit them on the break and on the 83rd minute Redmond skinned Mee and would have been through on goal from the left flank had not Mee pulled him back, earning a yellow card. On 86 minutes, Austin came on for Redmond, whether for fresh legs, more bulk, or tactically, but the match was virtually over. We only needed to keep calm and keep possession for a few more minutes There was one last piece of drama though, when Burnley's desperate efforts to gain the equaliser paid off with a penalty. We had the chances to have run the clock down, especially through Long, who should have taken the ball to the corner, or kept possession, but he lost the ball more than once and Burnley kicked it into the box towards Crouch. He impeded Stephens, who had the ball rebound off his head onto his arm. Sometimes the referee might have decided that Crouch had fouled Stephens and that if he had not called the foul, it was ball to hand. Stephens might even have argued that he had raised his arm to claim the foul, but had that been the case, then he has learned that it was not a good idea. But I suspect that at half time Taylor had looked at Barnes' penalty claim and realised that Burnley deserved to have it evened up. Added to the fact that Burnley hadn't been awarded a penalty for ages, he pointed to the spot and Barnes scored to rob us of two points right at the death. To summarise, it was a good point in retrospect and Burnley had as much reason to have won it as we did. Anthony Taylor really annoyed the Burnley fans and manager with his poor performance and it makes a real change for it not being us being on the end of his incompetence. Taylor has over the last few years made "The referee's a w*nker" chant his very own.

There has never been a prospective situation like this one though, has there, pal? There is potential for the mistrust in the two main parties to be at such a level if they renege on their promise to deliver Brexit, that both parties will split and that factions of both end up either as separate parties, or join together. Alternatively one of the existing fringe parties, or a new party could well make ground even under FPTP if their main party rival's vote plummeted.

I helped create the miserable deal? I'm afraid that I wasn't part of the negotiations, that was May and her Remainer advisors and Cabinet. I can't blame May for her total incompetence in the way that she (mis)handled the negotiations? Why can't I? And what a shame it is that a majority of the electorate who voted to leave the EU can't be as worldly, well-informed and intelligent as you claim to be.

So we are stuck with the two party system for ever more, are we? Currently there is also the Lib Dems and UKIP. And as there had also been the Liberals, the SDP and the Referendum Party historically, the impetus for one or more alternative groupings consisting of splinter groups breaking away from the Conservative and Labour Party's will be ripe following the betrayal that a large part of the electorate will feel if Brexit is not delivered properly. This has already happened in several EU countries, so no reason why it shouldn't happen here.

You appear to be confusing access to the single market with membership of it. Anybody can have access to it via WTO terms, but without having to endure the so-called four freedoms which constituted some of the main reasons for leaving the EU. Ditto the distinction between a Customs Union and the Customs Union. We will not join any Customs Union arrangement that prevents us having the freedom to arrange our own trade deals with the faster developing areas of the World outside of the EU. I note that your response didn't mention your beloved Norway option, which seems to have hit the buffers. But then again, that option is only what you you wanted to see, the sad sap option rather than the most realistic one. Regarding the immigration issue in the Conservative manifesto, I agree that it has been a fiasco since May was Home Secretary. My views have been clear on it in connection with the Brexit issue and with more recent party policy, that there should be no preference shown to immigrants from the EU above that from the rest of the World and that there should be strict controls on who comes in on the basis of our need for their skills and qualifications.

It is not going to be a customs union and single market, as both would go against the Conservative election manifesto and the single market was ruled out by Labour's and would mean that both parties will totally have lost the trust of the electorate for years to come and would suffer the consequences. You obviously still are clinging on to the hope of your beloved Norway option, but that isn't going to happen, so at least some charity will benefit from our £50 bet on it. There will either be some sort of fudge based on May's worst of all deals with a form of words inserted into a legal codicil on the backstop that satisfies us and the EU, or a hasty attempt to go for a Canada +++ deal with a backstop fudge, or we will leave on WTO terms. Why bother to quote somebody when you totally misrepresent what they said? That's just completely ridiculous and pointless.

This whole Brexit thing has gone right over your head, hasn't it? Will this Trans-Pacific Partnership require us to pay substantial sums into it as we currently do with the EU slush fund? Will we have to face uncontrolled freedom of movement of the citizens in the member countries? Will they have ambitions to become a Federal State with their own currency, flag, anthem and army? Will they have their laws made by unelected Commissioners? Maybe they will start off as just a trade Common Market and then treaty by treaty morph into something akin to the what the EU has become, but then if we have joined, we can then leave, can't we?

Your daughter is obviously more mature than you, then.

Yes, that's you to a tee. I'm impressed with your humility and self-awareness. Well done.

Was that a juvenile insult? It didn't seem to be. I think that you're confusing yourself.