Wes Tender

I'm also a card carrying Tory member, not a kipper. Not that I'm too bothered about Shurlock both getting that wrong, and then using his puerile name-calling to label us both incorrectly. I feel quite sorry for him really, having to resort to this level of childish pettiness to get his jollies.

What have I done by telling you that I'm not on tw*tter to elicit this diatribe? I'm perfectly capable of doing my own reading up about our trade and tariffs, without you patronising me, thanks

I'm not on tw*tter myself, and I doubt whether I'll ever bother with it, so it doesn't really concern me.

Mountain out of a molehill, I'm afraid. I doubt whether he cast much of an eye over the article, probably just glanced at it and tweeted a quick response. If you wish to put more credence on it than that, and question his credibility, expertise or integrity, then it makes you look like a bit of a desperate tw*t.

Verbal is just as puerile. See his prize exhibit below. Who do you think is worse out of the two of them? It's a close run thing. Maybe they are one and the same.

J R-M didn't overstate the consumer savings. The Sun did and he merely tweeted thanks for them highlighting it. You don't seriously believe that J R-M reads the Sun, do you?

You're all over the place; one could almost think that the picnic is missing a sandwich. As shoes, food and clothing are the items attracting the highest protectionist tariffs to safeguard EU growers and clothing and shoe manufacturers, it follows that provided we are free to negotiate our own independent trade deals with other countries, that those items can be imported at much lower prices. And thanks for the laugh at your naivety in labeling food from outside of the EU as rubbish, as is the clothing and shoes too. As for sweatshop labour, that doesn't exist in Europe, does it? You obviously missed the Simon Reeve documentary showing the cheap immigrant labour living in squalid hovels, charged high rents from their paltry wages to harvest fruit and vegetables in Spain and probably echoed in other EU fruit and veg growing countries too. As for shoes, as examples, most of Clarks' range is made in the Far East and M & S stock comes in from all over the place. But still, we can't have the poorest in our society being able to have cheaper food, shoes and clothes, can we, because it would affect the economies of producers and manufacturers of those items in the EU, whilst benefiting those often third world countries who would export them to us. As to the rest of your post, it is pointless answering it. Everybody has the opportunity to vote out a government that doesn't deliver on those things. As a matter of interest, what terminology are you referring too? And no, I didn't miss "The writing on the wall" Here it is if you should want to refresh your memory:- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70LhQsTZkGA

Shurlock hurling insults at those who disagree with him. Quel surprise! His usual playgound puerility

So you accept that J R-M didn't say that it would take 50 before we knew the economic outcome of leaving the EU? How long is a long time? Months, years, decades? Whilst providing that definition, tell us how long a period is temporary (as in the temporary backstop). What does it matter that a majority of the yoof voted to remain in the EU? A majority of the electorate regardless of age voted to leave. I know that some of the sandal wearing, bearded left believed that the yoof should have a double vote, but that proposition would never ever fly. In the same way that we who voted to join the EEC/EU, had to wait over 40 years before we could vote to leave, the newly enfranchised voters should wait several years themselves to see how it pans out.

That is a more reasonable position, that in a debate between two opposing positions, we naturally support the arguments put forward by the side we support. I took the more balanced position that Lilley didn't get destroyed, he gave as good as he got.

Where is the evidence that all of those things you list will take place? There isn't any. If you believe there is, then you will no doubt be happy to show it.

Utterly destroyed? Here is the interview. I hear him giving as good as he got. Actual facts used against him? It is the usual situation from the biased BBC, both the interviewer and a guest speaker both remoaners to the core, much like QT, usually four against one.

:lol:

It seems that I was mistaken about your intelligence, as you persist in implying this fiction that J R-M said that it would take 50 years before we could assess the benefits of leaving. I have to restate that he said the the main opportunities of Brexit will be felt over the next fifty years. As for this ridiculous point about how many will be alive in 50 years, I have lived through the joining of the Common Market as a young man until now and can see that our prosperity since joining owed more to national politics than it did to our membership of the EEC/EU. I expect that most of those just reaching voting age now will look at our departure from the ailing EU as the point at which we began to really thrive as an independent sovereign nation. You are entitled to believe that J R-M is only it for his own personal gain, but there is no evidence of that at all. He was wealthy enough before entering politics and almost certainly could earn far more by concentrating solely on business matters. Often enough he promotes the benefits accruing to the poorest in our society from leaving the EU customs union and single market, because food, clothing and shoes which account for the highest percentage of their expenditure will be cheaper. If you think that he is not sincere, then that is up to you. Although many are career politicians in it for their own ends, I don't think that he is one of them.

J R-M wasn't prominent during the election campaign, so you don't know that. However, he has gained a reputation for being honest in his answers instead of indulging in the usual politicians' fudging. But of course he would have been even less able to have given an answer about that when the result of the referendum hadn't even been concluded, wouldn't he? Most of the establishment media weren't interested in asking prominent leave supporters about the economic benefits of our departure, as they didn't want to have the electorate hear any positivity about our future prospects outside of the EU. As you know, their agenda was only to tell everybody what a disaster it would prove to be. I don't recall any "project benefit", only "project fear". So your point is actually pointless. As for your second point, what has that got to do with anything? Even if as you imply that J R-M would benefit personally from being outside of the EU, equally many of the remain side only want to remain in the EU because they personally benefit from that.

He was asked how long it would be before it was clear economically what the effects of Brexit would be. He answered honestly that he didn't know. But then again, nobody knows, do they? The type of deal we achieve, or whether we get no deal affects the economy, and we don't know that yet, so why would anybody commit to a prediction without knowing the facts? But do you accept that his statement that the overwhelming opportunity for Brexit is over the next 50 years, does NOT mean that it will take 50 years to find out? I credit you with more intelligence than Verbal D on this, so I expect that you will agree.

You're not having a good time of it, are you, Dr Doom? First you completely misunderstand what Rees-Mogg says about us enjoying the benefits of Brexit over the next 50 years, and then you get in a huff about nothing because you had a dyslexic misreading of "exiting" as "exciting." And who is this "al-Tenderi and his explosive ilk"? Is it the name of your fourth form punk rock group?

EXITING. not exciting. Do please pay attention

Yep, these are certainly exiting times.

He was probably laying a wreath at a monument to some terrorist somewhere.

I can't disagree with that. Apart from a few MPs, this is the worst bunch of incompetent non-entities I can remember in my adult lifetime.

Whereas Corbyn, Abbott, Thornberry, McDonnell, would bugger the working and middle classes in this country because the economy run by them would tank. What does that say about the f*ckwits who vote for them?

Thanks for posting that link, which saves me from doing it. As a result, if you take the same interpretation of it that Verbal D does, then you prove yourself also to be either incapable of understanding simple English, or of being a bit too ready to misunderstand what you heard because it suits your Remoaner toady agenda. He clearly states that "The overwhelming opportunity of Brexit will be over the next 50 years" Had the snake Heath said that "the overwhelming opportunity of joining the Common Market would be over the next 50 years", would you really have interpreted it to mean that we would only be starting to experience it in the coming few years so long after joining?

What a class act over half of your fellow citizens are, you mean. And don't come this pathetic "its ruining the futures of our children and grandchildren", as if we don't care about them too. If the Southern European countries voted to leave because they have massively high youth unemployment, would they blame their governments for ruining their children's futures by voting to leave? Our future prosperity will improve greatly when we cut ourselves free from the sclerotic, bureaucratic, declining, protectionist racket that is the EU and begin trading as an independent sovereign nation with the growing economies of the rest of the world.

When Verbal D fabricates something completely false that he claims was said by J R-M, then there really is no point in continuing to respond to him.