Wes Tender

I only walk away from a negotiation if the deal I am offered is unacceptable, therefore I would be better off not accepting it and seeking a better deal elsewhere. How about you?

Stopping "no deal" is the most stupid negotiation error that anybody could possible commit. Item 1 in Negotiation for Dummies is almost certainly that in order to secure a good deal, one must be prepared to walk away from a bad deal. But please do credit the electorate to have the intelligence to recognise that the Cooper amendment isn't designed to take no deal off the table; that is the window dressing. It is a delaying tactic to kick the can down the road to allow time for the Loser's Referendum campaign to gain momentum, aided and abetted by several months more of project fear on steroids. But as I say, if Cooper's amendment does pass resulting in a delay running into several months, there will be dire consequences, not only for our political constitution, but also in terms of civil disorder.

It will if Labour are on a suicide mission. Apart from the implications of the totally unconstitutional nature of what the amendment seeks to secure, numerous Labour MPs in their Leave voting industrial heartlands will be wondering what to do with their time once their Parliamentary careers are over come the next election, unless they vote against it. The article suggests that the Labour leadership would prefer a delay of 3 months rather than 9 months. The longer delay would mean that we would enter the EU elections, which the EU wouldn't like one bit, as there would quickly be anti-EU candidates available who would allow the electorate to express their anger towards the main political parties and the EU in no uncertain terms. Even with the can being kicked down the road by three months, I suspect that the anger of certain sections of the electorate will boil over in the streets anyway. I hope that Labour have taken these things into account.

A guide to the order of shenanigans tonight in the House by those wishing to thwart by any means possible the referendum decision to leave the EU , and an opinion on what the chances of success might be:- https://brexitcentral.com/brexit-amendment-time-look-tonight/

https://uktradeforum.net/2019/01/26/why-claims-about-a-wto-article-24-interim-agreement-are-a-red-herring/ At this stage of the drawn out fudge by May, the best solution currently is to leave the EU on WTO terms. May's deal is appalling and even if it got through the house in anything like its current form, there is no guarantee of us getting a decent FTA with the EU at the end of the withdrawal period. The only sure way to get a decent FTA with the EU in the shortest time, is to walk away from negotiations now and let them come back to us when they are ready to talk sensibly about what is in our mutual best interests.

Nope. Not in the least bit worried about food shortages. And I certainly don't swallow any of that project fear sh*te about the possibility of it.

You surely can't be that naive? It isn't just the EU that love Project Fear and attempt to scare us into remaining in their failing club. Our own remoaner establishment love a bit of it too.

No. I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I won't join you in welcoming a United Ireland or an independent Scotland. That is up to their citizens to decide in a referendum vote, provided that there becomes an overwhelming desire from their populations to hold one. Mind you, judging by the actions by the establishment elites to thwart the decision of our UK electorate in the EU Referendum, it isn't clear whether Ireland and Scotland would actually be permitted to leave the UK even if they voted to. Ireland has already proven that voting in any way contrary to the EU's wishes means that they have to vote again until they make the right decision. Maybe we'll learn from the EU and ask them to vote again too. After all, the Remoaners want a second losers' referendum here before we have even left. The Scots have already voted to remain in the UK and it is extreme irony that they wish to leave this Union with us, but stay in the European Union. Talking about a united Ireland though, a greater degree of unity could be achieved if Ireland decided to join us in leaving the EU, thus at a stroke ending all the fuss about the border. Nothing dusty about this corner, but for all their bias in the EU intelligence services expressing their pro-EU propaganda, there is a reasonable basis for arguing that the likelihood of NI or Scotland leaving the UK is matched by other EU member states leaving the EU. Where does the article claim that civil disturbances would arise based on predictions of severe shortages? Misreading again? The only shortage which could cause civil disturbances, is the shortage of democracy.

What a load of unsubstantiated rubbish you spout. And then you go and shoot yourself in the foot by posting a link to predictions (without any evidence) by EU Intelligence Services forecasting that Brexit will result in violence in the UK. Presumably by your stilted logic, they are advocating and desirous of that violence.

It appears that you missed the letters "EU" from in front of "Intelligence Services." In the words of Mandy Rice-Davies, they would say that, wouldn't they? As Jacob Rees-Mogg responds, EU Intelligence Services is a bit of an oxymoron. Did they also make any predictions as to whether the violence in France might escalate to other EU member states, or whether any other member states might follow us out of the EU as dissatisfaction with the EU grows with each passing month? Any predictions regarding the potential for violence when the forthcoming EU elections will almost certainly produce substantial growth in the vote for more populist parties?

It's quite simple, Shurlock; forecasting violence isn't the same as advocating it. I have pointed this out to you on several occasions, but for one who considers himself to be so intelligent, it is a mystery to me why such a simple concept doesn't seem to penetrate your cranium..

Reading from the last post upwards, I read this far from your post and thought that you had to be talking about Shurlock. Seems as though you are only prepared to condemn the insults if they come from the side that you oppose, eh?

You really do find it totally impossible to respond to a post from anybody who disagrees with you without resorting to the most puerile and infantile insults, Shurlock. Please do accept that you have a problem and go and seek professional psychiatric advice. But when you do so, I advise that you don't embarrass yourself by insulting the professional expert's credentials, as much as you will believe that you are capable of lecturing him on how to do his job.

You are also normally an erudite contributor to other subjects, but seem to veer towards some very odd positions when discussing Brexit. The condemnation of anybody as a hypocrite should they wish to leave the EU, but live in any country that is a member of the EU is very odd. Your point 1. Where did I claim that the EU has no effect on prices for property, food and drink? I said that Lawson's decision to live there might have been influenced by property prices, a liking for French food, climate, his own perceived values of what constitutes a quality of life for him. He admits to being a Francophile. Is he not therefore allowed to wish us to leave the EU? I could quite happily live in Italy, given family history there. I wouldn't for one second consider it hypocritical because of my stance on Brexit, any more than the 3.5 million immigrants from the EU would feel as if they were hypocrites if they wished to remain living here despite us voting to leave the EU. As for the other two points, your experience with investments funds makes your comments regarding J R-M's company's decision on where to place its funds and the advice to investors in it a little surprising. I note your political voting preference. Brexit has indeed produced some strange bedfellows.

Thanks for your arrogance, labeling anybody who voted Leave as deluded, not sane or genuine people. And then you wonder why Remain lost the vote. And you will no doubt wish to prove your own sanity by explaining why Dyson, J R-M and Lawson want Brexit for everyone else but themselves. It's a bizarre opinion. Do please explain yourself.

Are you really suggesting that categorising "lefties" should not include any element of lumping them together, individuals, parties and media? You shoot yourself in the foot on that score by linking to left wing publications to support your views. And then you go and compound your ignorance by dismissing an opinion purely on the basis of where it was published rather than on the merits of the argument. Feel free to attempt and retrieve your position by debating the opinions expressed in the articles in the Sun or Telegraph and showing where and why you disagree with them.

A bit pointless in linking to an article that nobody can read unless they have subscribed to the FT

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8265999/james-dyson-brexit-trade-ross-clark-opinion/ I would have thought that it was obvious. Left wing media is critical of him, whereas right wing media is supportive. Simple really. No doubt you will be happy to point out where the lies were in either article and the reasons for making your stupid assertion that Brexiteers have had the wool pulled over their eyes.

You and doddisalegend are the odd ones suggesting that just because somebody wishes to leave the EU, they shouldn't want to live in any EU member state lest they be labelled a hypocrite. It really does verge on being a bizarre opinion, especially as the EU rules and regulations that they would face in France, are exactly the same as we face in the UK currently. How much a part of somebody's life do those rules and regulations play, compared to the other facets which might influence Lawson's decision, such as climate, price of property, food and drink and a myriad of other things that he might include if he were to describe himself as a Francophile? Is he not allowed to love France, but dislike the EU? Does anybody who dislikes the EU have to dislike all member states? As I said earlier, your position is as stupid as somebody suggesting that if you love the EU so much, you ought to go and live there. Regarding Rees-Mogg, I note that you have educated yourself more than the likes of Corbyn and the left wing press and not falsely accused him of opening an office in Dublin. But you seem to be remarkably naive about investment funds, that there is speculative risk involved, that the value of investments can go down as well as up. His company has funds in many areas of the World. Has he ever denied that Brexit is causing considerable uncertainty? It is actually possible to make money from speculation during periods of uncertainty you know. Soros is an expert in doing that. As for Dyson, I'm sure that you lefties on here lap up every little smear as if it is the gospel truth without question. Here is a different angle:- https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2019/01/23/sir-james-dyson-not-actions-hypocrite-determined-invest-post/ And when it comes to hypocrisy, is it one rule for Dyson and another for Branson?

I'm not shrill at all, but thanks for your touching concern anyway. I'm perfectly sanguine about the whole situation, as I've said before. The default position is that if there is no deal arranged between us and the EU by 11pm on 29th March, we leave with the cleanest of clean Brexits on WTO terms. I'm completely happy with that. I would suggest that it is the Remoaners who are becoming increasingly more shrill the closer that date becomes. In sheer desperation, they are doing anything they can to renege on manifesto promises, plot to usurp Parliamentary procedure and precedent established over centuries, ignore the democratic referendum decision that they agreed to abide by, and attempt to extend the Article 50 leaving date that the vast majority of them voted for. As for the situation outside of the House, the pro-EU establishment is wetting itself and working itself up into a frenzy and project fear is in overdrive. Comfort yourself with the few crumbs that they throw around, but for every article attempting to propagate doom and gloom, there is another with some optimism and positivity. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2019/01/22/pay-growth-hits-10-year-high-record-number-work-jobs-market/

Rhodesia? Bit behind the times aren't you?

That just goes to show how little you know about me. As I have an Italian mother who has lived in the UK for over 70 years and other family members from outside of the UK too, I am hardly likely to be against the right of people from other countries, European or elsewhere coming to live and work here, am I? If you had bothered to delve a little deeper into the opinions on immigration of others who wish to leave the EU, instead of reinforcing your Remoaner prejudices, you would find that the majority are not against immigration, but are against uncontrolled immigration. I'm sure that you are bright enough to realise the difference between those two positions.

Do get your facts right. J R-M is not setting up in Dublin. The ignorant prat Corbyn tried that accusation in Parliament and was left red-faced by J R-M's repudiation, accusing him of terminal inexactitude (lying). I'm sure that you will want to Google it to enlighten yourself so that you don't make the same mistake again. This is par for the course, throwing mud at those who you see as threats to an agenda. The similar accusations made about Dyson can equally be made about Branson. As for your ridiculous assertion that Lawson is a hypocrite for wanting to live in France despite being a Brexiteer, that really is very weak and risible. It would be on a par with someone suggesting that if you love the EU so much, why don't you go and live there? Do you honestly believe that anybody who voted for Brexit cannot live in any of 27 European countries without being called a hypocrite? Should anybody not go to live in countries where they despise the political leader there? Where do you draw the line in this stupidity?

The link above from Jeff is Project Fear writ large by the pro-EU Financial Times with their Department of Guesswork economic projections based on their crystal ball gazing. The IMF crystal ball gazing projections linked below and summarised by Guido are altogether more positive about our future prosperity, albeit they assume some sort of trade deal with the EU. https://order-order.com/2019/01/21/imf-uk-will-fastest-growing-european-g7-country-brexit/ What I don't see in any of these economic forecasts is a scenario whereby we leave with no deal under WTO terms and invest the £39 billion that we would not need to pay the EU into mitigating any short term economic shortfall, reducing tariff barriers substantially, whilst simultaneously reducing tax levels (Income Tax, VAT and Corporation Tax), opening free ports around the country, those sorts of measures. Can the economic experts on the forum point me in the direction of any economic forecasts that have factored in these and other possibilities, and what their conclusions on our GDP would then be?

No. I had already gone to the Leave means Leave rally at the Bournemouth International Centre, so I saw no point.