Brexit - Post Match Reaction

This extra leverage that May thinks she's going to get from having an inevitably thumping Parliamentary majority is going to work wonders in bringing the EU to heel.

 

This would be the same EU that fell straight into line when Syriza went and collected its own thumping majority in Greece, and then ended up with a worse deal than the one on offer before their election.

 

That showed 'em.

what a thumping majrity brings is the chance for May to get a softer Brexit. If she comes back with a deal some of the very UKIP/Eurosceptic mps dont like, she will still be able to push it through. Come back with the same deal with a 20 majority and it is hard Brexit or nothing. We all should hope for a large majority for that reason IMHO

But the Eurosceptic MPs are all Tories.

But the Eurosceptic MPs are all Tories.

That **** junker is clearly on a wind up. He states that he will deliver his address in French, as English is losing its influence in Europe.... he delivers this announcement in English... what a complete and utter cock womble. ..

This is clearly a message to the people of the UK. They don't know when to stop with this project fear ********.... and it's this attitude / approach that will lead to a hard brexit and WTO rules. They clearly have no interest in negotiations...

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

yes thats my point. If she has enough less very eurosceptics who are pragmatic she will be able to defeat a revolt in her own party

Aintforever does not understand this concept so I'd advise giving up now before he starts listing out all the Tory MPs that supported Brexit again.

yes thats my point. If she has enough less very eurosceptics who are pragmatic she will be able to defeat a revolt in her own party

Any revolt within her party is irrelivant if there are enough labour, lib dem and SNP MPs in Parliament. They would not vote for a hard Brexit.

It's a simple concept to grasp, the more pro Europe MPs the better, the left sided parties are more pro Europe.

Any revolt within her party is irrelivant if there are enough labour, lib dem and SNP MPs in Parliament. They would not vote for a hard Brexit.

 

It's a simple concept to grasp, the more pro Europe MPs the better, the left sided parties are more pro Europe.

ok sorry I missed the massive upsurge in the likelyhood of those parties wining lots of seats....also that many of the Labour heartlands supported Brexit and so not likely to vote for Remainers

I'm not saying they will win many seats, just saying it would help get a softer Brexit if they did. there is no way Labour, Lib Dem or SNP MPs would vote for a hard Brexit whereas May and her lot want us out the customs union and single market which will inevitably mean WTO rules.

I take it the remoaners among us will be voting Lib Dem then?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39942573

Nah. Won't vote! Don't give a **** anymore. Election is and always has been a foregone conclusion and debate about it on a football forum is just pointless.

Whatever the Germans say, the EU is dead. An institution that only benefits them. No country in the world runs a larger current account surplus than Germany with the surplus totalling $288bn in the 12 months to March, 8.1 per cent of GDP. They continue to screw every other country in the bloc and only the UK and Donald Trump can recognise the fact. Oh, and George Soros...

The European Union's "dysfunctional" institutions and austerity diktats have plunged it into an existential crisis that will require the bloc to reinvent itself to survive, George Soros has warned (Telegraph.co.uk-1 Jun 2017). The billionaire investor said the EU had "lost its momentum" as he urged policymakers to abandon hopes of "ever closer union" driven by a top-down approach from Brussels.

He warned that it would take another decade to heal a rift among EU countries that began at the start of the financial crisis in 2008.

After the financial crisis of 2008, the eurozone was transformed into a creditor/debtor relationship where the debtor countries couldn’t meet their obligations and the creditor countries dictated the terms. Mr Soros said "outdated treaties" had transformed the eurozone into a series of creditor and debtor nations overseen by inept institutions that had stirred up resentment in the bloc."The European Union is now in an existential crisis," Mr Soros told an audience in Brussels. "Most Europeans of my generation were supporters of further integration. Subsequent generations came to regard the EU as an enemy that deprives them of a secure and promising future."

The recent election doesn't change anything. We are still getting out of this horrible bloc and the lower pound will only strengthen our economy and lead to worldwide trade deals that will bring us long term prosperity.

The best thing about the recent election? It saved the UK, killed UKIP and the SNP, all without taking us back into the EU.

Onwards and upwards...!!!!

Whatever the Germans say, the EU is dead. An institution that only benefits them. No country in the world runs a larger current account surplus than Germany with the surplus totalling $288bn in the 12 months to March, 8.1 per cent of GDP. They continue to screw every other country in the bloc and only the UK and Donald Trump can recognise the fact. Oh, and George Soros...

 

 

 

The recent election doesn't change anything. We are still getting out of this horrible bloc and the lower pound will only strengthen our economy and lead to worldwide trade deals that will bring us long term prosperity.

 

The best thing about the recent election? It saved the UK, killed UKIP and the SNP, all without taking us back into the EU.

 

Onwards and upwards...!!!!

Agreed, but you'll need long term prosperity to pay your debts to the EU...

Agreed, but you'll need long term prosperity to pay your debts to the EU...

What debts?

I think it may be worth remembering the London Debt Agreement the UK, France and the US reached with Germany:

The Conference on German External Debts (also known as the London Debt Conference) was held between February 28, 1952 and August 28, 1952.The Agreement reached at the Conference was signed in London on February 27, 1953.The Agreement was ratified by the United States, France and United Kingdom on September 16, 1953, at which point the agreement came into force.

The London Debt Agreement covered a number of different types of German debt from before and after the Second World War. Some of them arose directly out of the efforts to finance the reparations system, while others reflect extensive lending, mostly by U.S. investors to German firms and governments.

The total under negotiation was 16 billion marks of debt resulting from the Treaty of Versailles after World War I which had not been paid in the 1930s, but which Germany decided to repay to restore its reputation. This money was owed to government and private banks in the U.S., France and Britain. Another 16 billion marks represented postwar loans by the U.S. Under the London Agreement, the repayable amount was reduced by 50% to about 15 billion marks and stretched out over 30 years, and compared to the fast-growing German economy were of minor impact.An important term of the agreement was that repayments were only due while West Germany ran a trade surplus, and that repayments were limited to 3% of export earnings. This gave Germany’s creditors a powerful incentive to import German goods, assisting reconstruction.

Some of the agreement included debts to be paid after the reunification of Germany. Over decades it seemed unlikely to transpire, but in 1990 another 239.4 million Deutsche Mark of unpaid coupons were revived. On 3 October 2010 the last payment was made of 69.9 million euro. This is considered to be the last payment by Germany on all known debts resulting from both world wars.

The agreement significantly contributed to the growth of the post-war German economy and reemergence of Germany as a world economic power. A 2016 NBER paper showed that the London Agreement "spurred economic growth in three main ways: creating fiscal space for public investment; lowering costs of borrowing; and stabilising inflation." It allowed Germany to enter international economic institutions such as the World Bank, International Monetary Fund and World Trade Organization.

I think, considering the UK hasn't, to my knowledge, invaded the EU and murdered millions of it's citizens, it would be fair for us to tell the EU to jog on, when it comes to paying any debt owed to the pension pot they may have agreed in Brussels.

The recent election doesn't change anything.

Thats one thing you're right about (stopped clock and all that). Norway......still Norwaaaaay

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/12/tory-labour-mps-plot-secret-deal-ensure-soft-brexit/

What debts?

 

I think it may be worth remembering the London Debt Agreement the UK, France and the US reached with Germany:

 

 

 

I think, considering the UK hasn't, to my knowledge, invaded the EU and murdered millions of it's citizens, it would be fair for us to tell the EU to jog on, when it comes to paying any debt owed to the pension pot they may have agreed in Brussels.

Sounds fair GM but the Junckers of the EU might think otherwise... Anyhow, the negotiations are going to be a mess and therefore entertaining to watch. Hopefully you won't have to bleed too much!

Whatever the Germans say, the EU is dead. An institution that only benefits them. No country in the world runs a larger current account surplus than Germany with the surplus totalling $288bn in the 12 months to March, 8.1 per cent of GDP. They continue to screw every other country in the bloc and only the UK and Donald Trump can recognise the fact. Oh, and George Soros...

 

 

 

The recent election doesn't change anything. We are still getting out of this horrible bloc and the lower pound will only strengthen our economy and lead to worldwide trade deals that will bring us long term prosperity.

 

The best thing about the recent election? It saved the UK, killed UKIP and the SNP, all without taking us back into the EU.

 

Onwards and upwards...!!!!

Tell again how Deutsch Banke was going to have collapsed by 2016.

ok sorry I missed the massive upsurge in the likelyhood of those parties wining lots of seats....also that many of the Labour heartlands supported Brexit and so not likely to vote for Remainers

Oh dear

Tell again how Deutsch Banke was going to have collapsed by 2016.

Tell again how Deutsch Banke was going to have collapsed by 2016.

Read this and weep, numbnuts...

Troubled Deutsche Bank announces 9,000 job cuts as bosses make £583m worth of cuts in a bid to survive

Read this and weep, numbnuts...

Is that the one about their profits doubling?

Ooh look. It seems like mighty Theresa couldnt bully 27 countries into agreeing trade talks first after all. Qu'elle surprise.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40303761

It's good to get your first capitulation in early to set the tone for the whole process.

Heard this today from somebody who has been at meetings regarding staffing for the NHS. As we have lost so many staff by Nurses etc going back to Europe, the NHS have been sending people to the Phillipines to recruit. Not having a great deal of luck, but those who do, then want to bring their famillies and so lo and behold we have more people coming in with parents who need care. Then a lot get here and after 6 weeks have to sit the English test and fail it even though they speak decent English

Its an absolute mess

Heard this today from somebody who has been at meetings regarding staffing for the NHS. As we have lost so many staff by Nurses etc going back to Europe, the NHS have been sending people to the Phillipines to recruit. Not having a great deal of luck, but those who do, then want to bring their famillies and so lo and behold we have more people coming in with parents who need care. Then a lot get here and after 6 weeks have to sit the English test and fail it even though they speak decent English

Its an absolute mess

I think what you are saying is BREXIT sucks so lets stay in the EU

Talks started well then

UK caves in to EU demand to agree divorce bill before trade talks

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/uk-caves-in-to-eu-demand-to-agree-divorce-bill-before-trade-talks/ar-BBCUh2P?li=AAmiR2Z&ocid=spartandhp

Talks started well then

 

UK caves in to EU demand to agree divorce bill before trade talks

 

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/uk-caves-in-to-eu-demand-to-agree-divorce-bill-before-trade-talks/ar-BBCUh2P?li=AAmiR2Z&ocid=spartandhp

Unless I've missed it, I can't see anything in the reports of yesterday's opening discussions where there was an agreement to conclude divorce settlement discussions before future trade arrangement discussions begin.

Davis & co conceded a while ago that the divorce discussions would start first but as far as I can tell they're still maintaining their stance that there will/should be an overlap of discussions in due course. Davis: "Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed".

Whether the EU agrees with that stance is still up for grabs as far as I can tell, but it seems like a logical approach to me.

Perhaps the headline in this FT report of yesterday's proceedings is less sensationalist, given it doesn't come from a Murdoch source...?

https://www.ft.com/content/34b704a0-54d7-11e7-9fed-c19e2700005f

"Britain and EU agree to focus on divorce at start of Brexit talks"

Unless I've missed it, I can't see anything in the reports of yesterday's opening discussions where there was an agreement to conclude divorce settlement discussions before future trade arrangement discussions begin.

 

Davis & co conceded a while ago that the divorce discussions would start first but as far as I can tell they're still maintaining their stance that there will/should be an overlap of discussions in due course. Davis: "Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed".

 

Whether the EU agrees with that stance is still up for grabs as far as I can tell, but it seems like a logical approach to me.

 

Perhaps the headline in this FT report of yesterday's proceedings is less sensationalist, given it doesn't come from a Murdoch source...?

 

https://www.ft.com/content/34b704a0-54d7-11e7-9fed-c19e2700005f

 

"Britain and EU agree to focus on divorce at start of Brexit talks"

Davis Originally said there would be a serious row if Trade Talks were not allowed in parallel

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/how-brexit-talks-work-row-10421200

Mark Carney and Philip Hammond have delivered their belated Mansion House speeches the economy seems pretty poor because of Brexit .

What’s the message, taking Carney first:

First, we’re on a knife edge and forget interest rate rises.

Second, the economy will be harmed by Brexit and no one can stop that.

Third, there is no cake and no one will be eating it.

Fourth, without a transitional agreement soon it’s not just cake we’ll be dreaming of.

And then Hammond:

Fifth, we must stay in the Customs Union even if we say we’ve left it.

Sixth, we must have migration, so the question of control is almost irrelevant.

Seventh, we must have a very long transition out of the EU. I think he means very long indeed.

Eighth, he can do mumbo jumbo on tax, debt, globalisation and trade, none of which makes any economic sense at all. The man if ignorant when it comes to macroeconomics.

Unless I've missed it, I can't see anything in the reports of yesterday's opening discussions where there was an agreement to conclude divorce settlement discussions before future trade arrangement discussions begin.

 

Davis & co conceded a while ago that the divorce discussions would start first but as far as I can tell they're still maintaining their stance that there will/should be an overlap of discussions in due course. Davis: "Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed".

 

Whether the EU agrees with that stance is still up for grabs as far as I can tell, but it seems like a logical approach to me.

 

Perhaps the headline in this FT report of yesterday's proceedings is less sensationalist, given it doesn't come from a Murdoch source...?

 

https://www.ft.com/content/34b704a0-54d7-11e7-9fed-c19e2700005f

 

"Britain and EU agree to focus on divorce at start of Brexit talks"

Semantics. None of it will be formally concluded until the final deal is signed off as a package. However issues will be agreed in principle sequentially. The divorce settlement comes before any ideas of going into business with each other post divorce.

Nearly a year after the momentous day it seems increasing clear that the "way forward" for our nation looks as perilous a path now as it appeared to be before a single referendum vote had even been cast. It has been reported in the press recently that BMW would close its entire UK Mini production operation before compromising the EU Single Market that is so vital to its broader European interests. The future of Airbus wing manufacture in the UK is also very much in doubt now for much the same reasons. Okay, Airbus UK and Mini are just two firms in what is still a big world economy - but those grime prospects would be potentially hugely damaging hits to our vital (and hitherto thriving) automotive and aerospace sectors. As brits we should all care about this kind of stuff should we not?

It is a matter of fact that the real wage growth many of us were enjoying before the referendum has been lost now as sharply rising inflation has overtaken pay growth in this economy. As a result, and almost lost amid all the political chaos of recent months, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has confirmed that Brexit will indeed result in our people becoming materially poorer than they might otherwise have been in the coming years - not that there was ever any real doubt about that of course. As the "icing on the cake" of our nation troubles we are also set to pay the EU a huge pile of cash as part of the "divorce settlement" we are seeking - NHS managers can surely kiss goodbye to that "£350m a week" Boris and Grove promised them and the British people. We can only hope that Philip Hammond somehow manages to find a way of side-lining the likes of David Davis and secures us the softest of all possible "soft" Brexit deals. The good news is that the prospect of a second Scottish Independence referendum looks to have receded somewhat for now - but that is still very much a "watch this space" question I fear.

It seems to me that right now the UK is akin to a bus full of 50 people that is speeding remorselessly towards the edge of a cliff - and that manoeuvre is perfectly okay with the bus driver because 26 of the 50 thought that was a good idea ...

we must have migration, so the question of control is almost irrelevant.

The idea of "taking back control" over immigration has been one of the biggest lies of all in the whole Brexit campaign. Britain has always been able to exercise control, even under the term of the EU's freedom of movement. It - and this applies especially to Theresa May's Home Office - has just chosen not to exercise it, and the blame has fallen, wrongly, on the EU.

The rules are that EU immigrants can come for three months, but after that "must have sufficient resources not to be a burden on the benefit system of the country." The UK has never enforced this rule, in part because it doesn't have the ID card system that would make tracking possible, and also in part because the benefits of EU immigration outweigh the costs of monitoring. But also partly because the Home Office is so utterly useless.

When the great fudge comes, and we slide back into the not-Brexit-at-all Brexit of membership of the single market and of the customs union, something we already have will be trotted out as a major new concession from the EU to the migrant-controllers of the Tory party. All they'll need to do is to introduce ID cards and spend heavily on monitoring the three-month rule. Which they will still be too incompetent to enforce.

This is all aside from the fact that non-EU immigration, which is running at around the same rate as EU immigration, is completely within the control of the Home Office.

And it's certainly aside from the fact that the NHS, for one, would simply collapse - and is already in serious trouble - without both EU and non-EU migrants.

The idea of "taking back control" over immigration has been one of the biggest lies of all in the whole Brexit campaign. Britain has always been able to exercise control, even under the term of the EU's freedom of movement. It - and this applies especially to Theresa May's Home Office - has just chosen not to exercise it, and the blame has fallen, wrongly, on the EU.

 

The rules are that EU immigrants can come for three months, but after that "must have sufficient resources not to be a burden on the benefit system of the country." The UK has never enforced this rule, in part because it doesn't have the ID card system that would make tracking possible, and also in part because the benefits of EU immigration outweigh the costs of monitoring. But also partly because the Home Office is so utterly useless.

 

When the great fudge comes, and we slide back into the not-Brexit-at-all Brexit of membership of the single market and of the customs union, something we already have will be trotted out as a major new concession from the EU to the migrant-controllers of the Tory party. All they'll need to do is to introduce ID cards and spend heavily on monitoring the three-month rule. Which they will still be too incompetent to enforce.

 

This is all aside from the fact that non-EU immigration, which is running at around the same rate as EU immigration, is completely within the control of the Home Office.

 

And it's certainly aside from the fact that the NHS, for one, would simply collapse - and is already in serious trouble - without both EU and non-EU migrants.

I only read that fact about the 3 month rule and how we don't enforce it yesterday. Not something that I was aware of.

Feels really odd that Remain didn't make that point in the campaign. Although on reflection not that surprising as they were so scared to stray from the "we're not racists, UKIP are the racists" position they failed to articulate that immigration could be controlled if we wanted to.

The idea of "taking back control" over immigration has been one of the biggest lies of all in the whole Brexit campaign. Britain has always been able to exercise control, even under the term of the EU's freedom of movement. It - and this applies especially to Theresa May's Home Office - has just chosen not to exercise it, and the blame has fallen, wrongly, on the EU.

 

The rules are that EU immigrants can come for three months, but after that "must have sufficient resources not to be a burden on the benefit system of the country." The UK has never enforced this rule, in part because it doesn't have the ID card system that would make tracking possible, and also in part because the benefits of EU immigration outweigh the costs of monitoring. But also partly because the Home Office is so utterly useless.

 

When the great fudge comes, and we slide back into the not-Brexit-at-all Brexit of membership of the single market and of the customs union, something we already have will be trotted out as a major new concession from the EU to the migrant-controllers of the Tory party. All they'll need to do is to introduce ID cards and spend heavily on monitoring the three-month rule. Which they will still be too incompetent to enforce.

 

This is all aside from the fact that non-EU immigration, which is running at around the same rate as EU immigration, is completely within the control of the Home Office.

 

And it's certainly aside from the fact that the NHS, for one, would simply collapse - and is already in serious trouble - without both EU and non-EU migrants.

Very True

Every indicator, every piece of evidence, every person of competence, is telling us loud and clear Brexit is going to be a disaster but will it be stopped.

I doubt it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCEEWblEN1Y

Les, Lord P, Balders, Trident, Nolan, Sergei et al.- was this you?

Nearly a year after the momentous day it seems increasing clear that the "way forward" for our nation looks as perilous a path now as it appeared to be before a single referendum vote had even been cast. It has been reported in the press recently that BMW would close its entire UK Mini production operation before compromising the EU Single Market that is so vital to its broader European interests. The future of Airbus wing manufacture in the UK is also very much in doubt now for much the same reasons. Okay, Airbus UK and Mini are just two firms in what is still a big world economy - but those grime prospects would be potentially hugely damaging hits to our vital (and hitherto thriving) automotive and aerospace sectors. As brits we should all care about this kind of stuff should we not?

 

It is a matter of fact that the real wage growth many of us were enjoying before the referendum has been lost now as sharply rising inflation has overtaken pay growth in this economy. As a result, and almost lost amid all the political chaos of recent months, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has confirmed that Brexit will indeed result in our people becoming materially poorer than they might otherwise have been in the coming years - not that there was ever any real doubt about that of course. As the "icing on the cake" of our nation troubles we are also set to pay the EU a huge pile of cash as part of the "divorce settlement" we are seeking - NHS managers can surely kiss goodbye to that "£350m a week" Boris and Grove promised them and the British people. We can only hope that Philip Hammond somehow manages to find a way of side-lining the likes of David Davis and secures us the softest of all possible "soft" Brexit deals. The good news is that the prospect of a second Scottish Independence referendum looks to have receded somewhat for now - but that is still very much a "watch this space" question I fear.

 

It seems to me that right now the UK is akin to a bus full of 50 people that is speeding remorselessly towards the edge of a cliff - and that manoeuvre is perfectly okay with the bus driver because 26 of the 50 thought that was a good idea ...

If the silly c-u-n-t-s who voted for it suffer. So be it.

If the silly c-u-n-t-s who voted for it suffer. So be it.

I'm slightly more concerned about the c-u-n-t-s like me who didn't vote for it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCEEWblEN1Y

 

Les, Lord P, Balders, Trident, Nolan, Sergei et al.- was this you? [emoji38]

It wouldnt have been me. I could own that pompous leftie **** any day of the week... on any subject. Sorry

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

It wouldnt have been me. I could own that pompous leftie **** any day of the week... on any subject. Sorry

 

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

To be fair, I didn't think it was you

It wouldnt have been me. I could own that pompous leftie **** any day of the week... on any subject. Sorry

From a clueless uninformed twerp getting perpetually rinsed on a football forum to a star of national radio. Doesn't seem that likely to me.

From a clueless uninformed twerp getting perpetually rinsed on a football forum to a star of national radio. Doesn't seem that likely to me.

Your so called star rinses some clueless idiot on the radio to make him look stupid... if thats what it takes to be a star, standards are slipping.

Wouldnt be too difficult to take him on...

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

Your so called star rinses some clueless idiot on the radio to make him look stupid... if thats what it takes to be a star, standards are slipping.

 

Wouldnt be too difficult to take him on...

 

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

Come on, Balders, he would absolutely demolish you and end up calling you 'mate' out of sympathy.

Serious question about Brexit at what point do we ask the obvious question: "What exactly are we going through all this **** for?"

Serious question about Brexit at what point do we ask the obvious question: "What exactly are we going through all this **** for?"

Can't remember which commentator said it but Brexit is an idea whose only effective rebuttal is its own implementation.

I thought our sovereigns lovely EU outfit at the state opening was great.

Serious question about Brexit at what point do we ask the obvious question: "What exactly are we going through all this **** for?"

Probably around the same time we ask the same question about life itself

It wouldnt have been me. I could own that pompous leftie **** any day of the week... on any subject. Sorry

 

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

I listen to Mr James OB nearly everyday, and no one has ever "owned" him.........

I listen to Mr James OB nearly everyday, and no one has ever "owned" him.........

I listen to him fairly regularly. Don't get me wrong. He is good and often makes very strong arguments. But he is not infallible. Showing up an idiot live on air is not that difficult TBH.

Serious question about Brexit at what point do we ask the obvious question: "What exactly are we going through all this **** for?"

The EU is heading inexorably towards a federal state. That is what most people rejected. Brexit is just a continuation of the process that began with our refusal to join the eurozone and Shengen. Either that or most of us just hate johnny forriners.

From a clueless uninformed twerp getting perpetually rinsed on a football forum to a star of national radio. Doesn't seem that likely to me.

LOLs. You've been owned by me a few times on here, without even trying too hard

Come on, Balders, he would absolutely demolish you and end up calling you 'mate' out of sympathy.

Debating on a footie forum, where people have time to google **** to make their point or consider their response (or generally spout crap), is completely different to live debating. I'm a seasoned debater (not a 'mass' one before you say it), starting at school, competing nationally and now I'm a thought leader often being involved in industry panel debates.

I thought our sovereigns lovely EU outfit at the state opening was great.

Well she is German.

LOLs. You've been owned by me a few times on here, without even trying too hard

 

 

 

Debating on a footie forum, where people have time to google **** to make their point or consider their response (or generally spout crap), is completely different to live debating. I'm a seasoned debater (not a 'mass' one before you say it), starting at school, competing nationally and now I'm a thought leader often being involved in industry panel debates.

I do agree with you on many things but I'm sorry, no one who describes themselves as a "thought leader" is going to come across as particularly convincing in an argument on here. It makes you sound like a legend in your own head.