Wes Tender

Jonnyboy said it was a good summary, I responded by an equally short rebuttal. It might surprise some that I did actually bother to read the whole article, but it confirmed my opinion of the sort of rubbish that is written by this type of leftie journalist living in the metropolitan bubble with hardly a clue of what the man in the street outside of it thinks or believes regarding the Brexit issue. Where to begin? Typically the language of the arrogant entitled Remoaner shines through early on. The talk of "crashing out" without a deal, an outcome all but the most wild-eyed Brexiteers regard as an economic and social catastrophe. This will be a large proportion of the 52% of the electorate thickos who voted to leave the EU. This is just the preamble to the rubbish that he continued with, surprisingly stilted for one who claims to be a historian. According to him, the 2017 election produced a result where Brexit lacked a majority as surely as May did. There might have been a majority of Remainers in the House, but the election manifestos of both major Parties promised to implement the decision of the referendum, so Freedland's claim that Brexit lacked a majority after the election is ridiculous. The MPs elected had a moral and ethical duty to carry out the wishes of their electorate both in the Referendum and the election, where if the referendum was fought on a constituency basis, Leave would have won by a landslide. So May was at fault for the current situation because she triggered Article 50 when she was not ready? The vast majority of the house voted to trigger it. But blame May for not being ready and the rest who backed it of apparently not realising that we were not ready. Article 50 allowed 2 years to negotiate a deal with the EU, or we would leave under WTO terms. As it has taken the bulk of that time to arrive at the awful deal we had now, presumably we are not ready to trigger it even now. How long should the electorate have to wait before their wishes are fulfilled? What incentive would the EU have had to offer a deal without the pressure which the approaching departure on WTO terms concentrated their minds to get a move on? Freedman is a naive virgin when it comes to business matters and the strengths and weaknesses of the negotiation process. The red lines painted us into a corner? No they didn't you moron. They defined the position of what the electorate instructed the government to negotiate based on the leave vote, which is summarised as taking back control of our laws, our borders and our money. Freedman claims that these red lines brought us the only deal possible that accorded with those parameters, but the deal is not Brexit, and May was stupid to be led into it by departing from the principles of her Lancaster House speech and allowing herself to be advised by arch remoaners like Commie Ollie Robbins, and surrounding herself in the Cabinet by the likes of Hammond and Rudd. Then Freedman tries to rewrite history so recent in living memory by attempting to blame Cameron for not staying on following his dismal failure in the Referendum campaign to secure a remain decision. He makes the utterly ridiculous assertion that Cameron should have stayed on and said that we had not voted to leave the single market and the customs union, that they were not on the ballot paper. Cameron had stated numerous times during the campaign that leaving the EU would mean leaving the single market and the customs union. Freedman deserves nothing but contempt for this crass stupidity. So it wasn't on the ballot paper. Neither was the position on immigration, the ECJ, the CFP, CAP. Neither were there any provisos on the ballot paper for Remain. What does Freedman believe the electorate voted for in the Referendum? He claims to understand (wrongly) what they didn't vote for, but nothing that he believes they did vote for. As I already said, he doesn't know, because wrapped up in his Londoncentric establishment elite bubble, he has little knowledge of how the man in the street thinks in the rest of the country.

A load of rubbish,

A massive defeat for May, and Corbyn has called a vote of no confidence in the Government. Hopefully the vote of no confidence will fail, but that May will fall on her sword.

Fine thanks Shurlock, and looking forward with keen anticipation to the defeat of May's worst "deal" in history tomorrow. But as I proved by showing both of your posts, your first one was not what I said at all. As usual twisting things into something different and then when caught out doing it, deflecting attention to it by going off in a tangent.

Just admit that along with all those others campaigning for a loser's referendum, you aren't a democrat, as you are not prepared to abide by the democratic decision of the electorate, taken on 23rd June 2016.

Shurlock: Everybody will note the disparity in the two posts. The second one above is what he said first. His second post changes his tune somewhat. Of course there is a great deal of difference between the scenario whereby economic havoc could be caused by a lengthy period of uncertainty following another referendum, the result of it, and the repercussions of continuous campaigning to hold yet another one, and the economic situation following a departure under WTO terms.

So when Leave won, the Remain side press for a referendum before the decision is even implemented, yet if Remain won the loser's second referendum, the third one would not be held for along time? Right.

Stop making things up. No doubt you will happy to identify the post where I said there would be economic havoc.

I'm not the hypocrite here. Show me where I supported any examples given by the remoaner FT? It seems that their argument is that two wrongs make a right, that just because the untrustworthy, devious May got away with some underhand things, that the supposedly impartial Speaker of the House should be excused for going against centuries of Parliamentary precedent and the express advice of the Commons Clerks, having apparently conspired to do so with Dominic Grieve in a private meeting beforehand. As for their last paragraph, that really is laughable. People's representatives, my arse! The popular press are quite right to condemn any and all MPs who represented constituencies that voted to leave and have decided that they know better than their thick constituents what is best for them, so have decided to do the opposite of what they wanted.

Clearly. The damage would be great. If you meant to imply that the damage that a second referendum would cause would not be good, then you need to express yourself more clearly.

Brexit has not happened yet, has it? The predictions of doom and gloom in the run up to the referendum that constituted project fear didn't affect the economy to any great extent. What does affect the economy is uncertainty over the future and continually kicking the can into the long grass as May had done, and a losers' referendum would do, is not helping. Regarding a loser's referendum the result very much depends on the parameters I already laid out. Clearly the options available, the way they are phrased, whether the leave vote is split, whether the leave vote campaigns to boycott it, all could swing it remain's way, especially with a further £9 million of Government propaganda spent on promoting the remain side. If there was a remain v leave vote as before, leave would probably increase its vote.

You said that the damage a second referendum would cause would not be great I laughed because that is a risible opinion. I clearly did not write what you said, I totally disagreed with it.

Yes, the whole thing stinks. And within the past few days, we have had the Speaker proving his bias towards Remain, not that there was much doubt about that before, and disregarding the precedents of Parliamentary rules going back centuries. Is there any procedure to have a vote of no confidence in the Speaker, or to have a motion that he has brought the House into disrepute? If not, why not? And now there is plotting to tear up the Commons Rule Book and establish the principle of giving backbench MPs the power to propose legislation instead of the Government. If any of this comes to pass, then the constitutional implications for our Parliamentary democracy are going to be very dire indeed.

:lol: The damage to our democracy will be incalculable, as the electorate will ask why Parliament ignored their previous vote. Furthermore, the Brexit campaign will continue for years, with the pressure to hold another referendum starting the day after the vote, and the economic uncertainty during that period causing havoc to our economy. Both the main Political Parties will suffer substantial loss of support in ensuing elections, as new factions will be formed, including those which are more populist. And then there is the little problem of what the referendum options should be. Having had the choice between staying in or leaving, and having been instructed to leave, remaining in should not feature. If the reason for holding a loser's referendum is that they argue that the people didn't vote for the deal which May has got, then the options should be May's deal or no deal (or more correctly the WTO deal). If the vote includes May's deal, then shouldn't there be an option for Canada +++, or Norway? If remain is an option pitted against more than one alternative leave option, then it is unfair, as the leave vote is split. Should there be a transferable vote therefore? In any event, a further referendum would take a year to put in place, and the electorate are already fed up to the back teeth with the delay in implementing the decision they made over 30 months ago. And then of course, if there is a losers' referendum, a substantial percentage of disgruntled leavers might well mount a campaign to boycott it. What validity would a turnout of less than 50% have, with a 90% majority to remain? And just to put the icing on the cake, the whole exercise would give the EU the green light to forge full steam ahead with their Federal United States of Europe project.

As LD says, Verbal, you're making a fool of yourself. Time for you to lie down and calm down.

What a brilliant performance! What a turn around Hasenhuttl has produced. Had Hughes or the Clown fielded that team, made those substitutions, gone a player down, we would have been clobbered. Hasenhuttl managed to gain three vital points from that position and we rise up the table, heads held high. I can only guess that what he has brought to the team to change us so drastically is discipline, much increased fitness, and a load of self belief, combined with intelligent tactical nous. Leicester shot themselves in the foot early on, giving away a stupid foul when Long wasn't a threat in the corner of the box. Hasenhuttl deserves credit for picking him because we were short of other striking options and recognising that despite his lack of a scoring threat, he is a nuisance for defenders and has the pace needed to pose a threat with the ball out of defence and the speed to get back into defence against the pace of Vardy. Once having been awarded the penalty, it was very well taken by Ward-Prowse, even though Schmeichel got a hand to it. We dominated for much of that first half and Leicester looked out of sorts with poor passing and losing possession too easily. The game changer came just before half time, when Valery showed the impetuousness of youth and got himself sent off for a stupid second yellow card. So close to half time, it was expected that we would go in just one goal ahead, but Leicester's defence was caught on the hop by a good ball forward that Long chased down, won the rub of the green against their defender and his pace took him clear in the box with only Schmeichel to beat. Long's shot at a tight angle would have gone wide, but Schmeichel had tried to get something on it and the ball went in off his outstretched hand. Two - nil, a great unexpected cushion, but 45 minutes to hold on, a man down. We began to sit deep and early in the second half, Leicester pulled one back and it looked a real backs against the wall effort would be required to stop them drawing level, or indeed winning the match. When we had all our players back in defence, Leicester surged forward time after time, we hoofed the ball out of play or upfield where we had no players and it kept on coming back towards our defence. Hasenhuttl further reduced our forward impetus, but strengthened the defence by taking off Armstrong and putting on Cedric. Once again, this defence would have capitulated under Hughes or the Clown, but such is the discipline and determination that Hasenhuttl has brought to the team, they stood firm when there was so much time left in the match after Leicester scored that it seemed almost certain that they would have gone on to at least gain a draw. In retrospect, playing with ten players for 45 minutes and putting in such a solid defensive display is massive in terms of the confidence boost and belief it must have given the team. Vestergaard was immense and strong both in the air and on the ground and Bednarek was very good alongside him, Stephens solid. Valery had done well until his dismissal, as had Targett. Romeu takes most of the credit for being a rock in front of them, man of the match, and McCarthy was on his game behind them. Armstrong and Redmond battled hard up top with Long. When we are short of players like Ings, Lemina, Hojbjerg Yoshida and have shipped out Gabbiadini, it was an immense performance. What is encouraging is that Hasenhuttl has felt enough confidence to blood some of the youngsters since his arrival and today Valery, Slattery and at the end Gallagher was lovely to see. It is still early days, but the upward progress that is evident, instills the belief that we will see out this season comfortably if we continue like this, and we will have a lot to look forward to when Hasenhuttl has brought in one or two players of his choice.

We've played well, but Valery has dumped us in it with his impetuousness. A backs against the wall performance will be required in the second half, but the two goal cushion means that Leicester need to score three without response to deny us a point at least. But Long having scored his first goal in living memory, his confidence will be sky high and he will score a hat trick.

26 days from Southampton on a RoRo Car transporting ship, surely?

But I didn't say that the UK was the biggest market for the JLR product. I said that it was a natural market as the home market. I accepted that other EU countries were more prone to buy the vehicles made in their own countries than we were. The French, Germans, Italians, Spanish are unlikely to buy more JLRs than they do now, regardless of whether they are made in Slovakia, Austria, China or elsewhere. The debate on JLR was whether their decision was because of Brexit, or whether that was just a convenient excuse.

Have you also thought about the natural market place for Jaguar Land Rover vehicles is the UK? That other EU countries predominantly buy the vehicles manufactured in their own Country by their own vehicle manufacturers to a far greater extent than we do? JLR will considerably weaken their UK customer loyalty by moving out of the UK. So closer to the Middle East but further away from us in Western Europe and by road, loading around 9 cars onto a transporter trailer against by sea, a ship carrying 8000? I wonder which would be the more economic and practical option.

Of course. You've somehow overlooked the financial incentives of cheap loans or grants as a major incentive. And naturally there are considerations of the skill capabilities of the workforce, the saleability of that product in the local marketplace, the quick availability of parts, shipping costs, the political and religious structure in that country, etc.

No. The reason that they have been able to push this through is because they have been looking into the economic benefits and the grants for some time and having concluded that it is an astute move on their part, the longer they wait, they lower those benefits will be. How can't you see that Brexit is the excuse, not the reason?

So you call me naive on the basis that you bet that the individual is a SpAd, but you cannot possibly know because they are anonymous? Right.

Really naive if you believe that companies will not relocate to places where there is a low paid work force, just because we remain in the EU.

How can you bet on something like this when the identity of the person is anonymous?