CHAPEL END CHARLIE

No nation state is ever truly 'in charge' of its own destiny as there are forces in this big wide world that lay are far beyond the control of any one country in the 21st century. The idea is nothing but an illusion. Neither can I agree that a future for this nation outside the EU is no more uncertain than one from within. The EU is no more immune from change than any other organisation is, not that change is necessarily a bad thing of course, but the level of political and economic uncertainly we face today is of an entirely different order of magnitude compared to what went before.

To be fair he has just resigned from the thread stating (apparently) that there will be nothing worthwhile to say about Bretix for the next couple of years. So give him the old fella a break as he has certainly done his best to entertain many on here over the past year or so. I for one will miss his razor sharp wit and peerless objectivity no end ....

I saw that living legend Clint Eastwood's latest film the other day - 'Sully' the story of how a stricken Airbus A320 airliner ended up landing in the Hudson River a few years ago. Before seeing it I had wondered how this film would manage to extend a incident, that in reality lasted only a minute or two, into a full feature-length story. Well it turns out that I need not have worried because this film had no trouble at all in holding my attention. According to this account while pilot Chesley 'Sully' Sullenberger (played by Tom Hanks) was widely hailed to be a hero by the public the crash investigators of the NTSB alleged that he could/should have managed to land his aircraft safely at one of the nearby New York airports - this despite the small matter of both engines being shut down following a catastrophic bird strike. I suspect that the script may have helped itself to a few typically 'Hollywood' style liberties with the truth here, but the drama is nevertheless absorbing whether we totally buy it or not. Away from the aftermath of the incident, the actual crash sequence itself is a wonderfully realised - to the extent that this film is probably inadvisable as your next in-flight movie! When you go to see any film directed my Clint Eastwood you are unlikely to find yourself being entertained by some highly stylish example of outrageous film making because that is not what he is about. Eastwood is a no-nonsense film maker. But if you seek a good story well told then he's your man - indeed I can't remember the last time I left a cinema feeling quite so satisfied that both my time and money had been so well spent.

Hi Nick. The more I've read about the man over time, the more impressed I've become with him. It's not just a matter of his leadership of Fighter Command during the Battle of Britain, few remember these days that he also played a highly significant role in preparing the RAF for war with Nazi Germany years before the conflict actually started. Opinions differ as to whether he was badly treated or not after the battle ended, but what is in no doubt is that his personal contribution to this nation's war effort was an outstanding one. I should add here that there is also something wonderfully understated and endearingly 'British' about his personality that also appeals to me in a strange way. At my age I'm far too old and cynical to believe much in the concept of 'hero-worship' any more - they've all got feet of clay alas. But if I have to maintain just one hero in my life then good old Stuffy will do for me, God bless him.

Yeah this is another rehash of old Bretix pre-referendum propaganda that has become known in Westminster recently as the 'have our cake and eat it' argument. That was always utter garbage of course and I observe that many hard-line euro sceptics have now abandoned the notion. Trade with the UK is clearly important to many continental nations - but not so critically important methinks that their leaders would be prepared to drive a 'coach & horses' through every principle that the EU and its Single Market stands for. That really would be the end of the EU would it not? It seems to me that if you decide to walk out of any club, then you also walk away from both the obligations, and the incumbent privileges, that membership once brought you. This is clearly a somewhat difficult idea for some to take on board, but when you think about it's really is not all that complicated a reality to grasp.

More rumours are emerging from Brussels this morning that the UK may (I say may) ultimately end up with something resembling the 'Norwegian Model' of semi-detached relationship with the EU. If that comes to pass then we would probably still have to pay in to EU coffers, but be without any real say about how the money is spent. We might have some degree of access to the EU Single Market, without having our voice heard when it comes to administering it. Even the cherished eurosceptic dream of complete national control of immigration policy is likely to prove an illusion. We've been sold a pig in a poke.

My dear Les, it's going to take a lot more than inserting two smilies in your post to convince anyone on here that you are not the humourless extremist that you appear to be. As for the significance, or otherwise, of the Maastricht treaty it is abundantly clear that this development certainly excited Daily Mail readers and the 'bastard' wing of the Tory party inordinately. This point is freely conceded. Whether less fanatical types are quite as obsessed as you are about that old treaty is a rather debatable point. By the way, there have been a number of Parliamentary Acts published with similar titles, but it seems clear enough when read in context that I was referring to the 1993 European Communities (Amendment) Act which does indeed relate to the (1992) Maastricht Treaty and not the (2007) Treaty of Lisbon as you claim - do try to keep up. Again, even you should be bright enough to comprehend that all significant amendments to EU treaty arrangements have been agreed to in council by this nation's democratically elected leadership and then subsequently approved of by both houses of Parliament in the normal constitutional manner. Do you not understand this basic truth? The record shows that it was you who decided to raise the 1975 referendum yesterday in order to try and compare it with this year's vote. Methinks those who seek to draw simplistic analogies had better make their artwork as truthful as possible don't you agree? But all you can say in reply to criticism is that you are aware of the facts - so that is 'aware' of but decided to overlook anyway is it? I will be charitable here and depict your tactics as not an outright lie, but rather another example of you just being 'economical with the truth' then. I must congratulate you in making such a determined attempt to 'corner the market' in sophistry - well done. I suspect that your voting history may not be quite as interesting to others as it is to you. But confusion is bound to occur old bean when people offer inconsistent accounts of their record and then try to excuse their behaviour as mere 'tactical voting'. My advice to you is that you try to stick to one version of the truth in future as this might lessen the chances of confusion. Finally, would you please explain how you can 'not give a damn' about whether I happen to believe your unlikely claim to be concerned about the fate of the younger generation, while electing to raise the subject with me what must be half a dozen times now. Yes we all know that you like to have things both ways on here, but this really makes no sense at all. Despite your claims to indifference I'm thinking that my scepticism irritates you greatly - in which case my day hasn't been entirely wasted.

Bidet's in our bathrooms, people wasting good money buying bottled water, the shameful sight of Englishmen in a gym for gods sake. This nation has gone to pot I tells you ....

First off, I would like to thank you Les for claiming the other day that you experienced a 'belly laugh'. This gloriously unlikely notion was itself very funny As for simplistically comparing the implications of the referendum decision to leave the EU entirely, with the lesser matter of past treaty amendments, your comparison attempt here is, true to form, superficial. Given your rather inconsistent replies on the subject I don't suppose many on here are very sure whether you happened to vote for the Tory administration in power at the time of Maastricht or not. I wonder if John Major was perhaps too moderate and decent a man for your tastes? Be that as it may, the record shows that our democratically elected parliament passed (after much scheming from "the bastards") the enabling act in question - as of course is customary in our representative democracy. For further information you might research the 'European Communities Amendment Bill' and actually learn something. If you seek to compare the 1975 referendum with this year's vote then by all means do so. However, I would have hoped that if you intend to do that then you might have been honest enough to at least mention in passing that the '75 referendum that took us into the Common Market was a significantly more clear-cut (67% in favour) affair than the comparatively narrow vote that will take us out of the EU. So a case of 'apples and oranges' then. But this omission on your part is also 'true to form' I suppose. I see that you are still attempting to maintain a claim that you do care about the impact on our young that the decision to leave the EU will bring. Perhaps you have forgotten old chap that I stated that I didn't believe you the first time you claimed this and God alone knows why you would think repeating such a thing is any more believable now. For the record, I believe that you are the type of obsessive 'political animal' for whom compassionate considerations take a (distant) second place to political matters.

Well I've just spoken to 'Will of the People' and I must inform you that he is not of 'one mind' of the subject. If you want to talk about the will of the British people then methinks that the expressed will of slightly more than 48% of our people can't realistically be ignored in a democracy because slightly less than 52% of the people voted the other way. That notion is something close to an absurdity in this day and age. That referendum wasn't an ordinary 'first past the post'' General Election where we can all collectively change our minds five years later if it suits us to - no - it was a fundamental economic and constitutional change with a potentially massive impact that will resonate not for a few years, but rather for generations yet to come. For that matter many of those who will be most effected by that decision (i.e. our children) didn't even have a vote. The herculean - virtually impossible perhaps - task the British people have set their government is for them to find some way to steer the 'ship of state' onto a course that might minimise the damage from the coming storm. Yes the referendum result means that this nation is now set to leave the EU, but if you really think that mandate amounts to the same thing as government having permission to ignore the will of half the nation then you Sir are very much mistaken. That too is 'crystal clear' I think.

I understand that the actual question put before the Italian people was concerned with internal constitutional mattes that are entirely unconnected with Italian foreign policy and Italy's membership of the EU. So our band of resident euro sceptics on here who may be wetting their pants this morning at the prospect of the imminent demise of the EU would be well-advised I think to 'wind their necks in' a tad. Yes, Prime Minister Renzi has certainly resigned and I understand that the referendum winning 'Five Star' grouping does argue that Italy should withdraw from the Euro currency. However, there remains the small matter of their being elected into government before any such policy could possibly be implemented. It is a matter of record that the leadership of this party does NOT favour that Italy should follow our example and leave the EU. This is one of those 'inconvenient truths' that may well disappoint some on here I suppose. I'm pleased to see that the Austrian people (swimming against the tide somewhat) have decided to rejected Norbert Hofer - a populist far-right candidate that some on here doubtless would approve of - in their presidential election. Nevertheless, it does seem to me that at this particular point in history, almost regardless of the politics being debated, you have a bloody good chance of successfully electing any turd of a politician or argument into power - as long as the excretion in question was somehow seen to be anti-establishment that is ...

Whether the epithet annoys our fans or not, we are I think widely seen in the game now to be the archetypal 'Selling Club'. This is the reality of our situation. Let's face it, it is a pretty neat trick selling good players every summer for a lorry-load of money, and then acquiring equally good replacements at a comparatively bargain basement price. More often than not you get what you pay for in this world. Okay, Uncle Les and his minions have of late performed this remarkably neat trick with notable success, unfortunately this lucrative game is becoming an increasingly hard trick to pull off. For example, few I think will dispute that Nathan Redmond is both a good player, and good value too, in the current transfer market. However, Nathan is perhaps not quite in the same class as Mane was is he? This constant erosion of the squad (along with the additional fixtures we face this season) goes a long way towards explaining why we will struggle I think to match last season's points tally this year. I predict that if next summer bigger and wealthier clubs than SFC certainly is think that VVD might be the ideal addition to their squads - and why wouldn't they as he's top class - then he'll probably travel that same well-trodden path that so many others have taken before him and depart for 'pastures new' - if that is what he really wants of course. Now as fans it is perfectly natural that we don't much like that outcome, but until the day dawns when our club finds itself under the control of a far wealthier (and more ambitious) owner than Kat Liebherr is, I'm struggling to see what the real-world alternative is here. I recall that some years ago now I expressed on here the wish that our club might one day find itself occupying much the same position in the Premier League as Everton had long enjoyed - i.e. a stable well run club that finishes comfortably in the upper reaches of the table most seasons. Well despite the difficulties of losing so many good players we are nevertheless pretty damn close to achieving that old ambition of mine now I think. So it would seem rather churlish of me to start complaining about this situation now.

The absurd notion that you can vote for a extremist political party - but somehow not actually support them - is to stretch even Les's somewhat distant relationship with the truth far beyond the bounds of all credibility. If you vote for a Party then it seems to me you are a - de facto - supporter of that grouping. Evasions offered in a attempt to avoid that reality are little more that meaningless drivel. There are right-wingers on this forum more in 'denial' than a shipwrecked Egyptian fisherman. For example, Sour "what have the Muslim's ever done for us" Mash is seemingly incapable now of composing a single contribution without attempting to tell anyone who will listen that he's not really a racist - when it is quite apparent that is exactly what he is. Similarity, our (entirely self-appointed) spokesman for the Bretix movement can't abide for some reason the idea that he is widely seen to be a fanatic, this despite hardly a day passing on here when he does not do his very best to prove the point. What a bargain this place is for just £5 a year - to get this level of entertainment elsewhere a chap might have to spend a small fortune

Good to see you making such a convincing defence against the charge that you have no functioning sense of humour I see that you have rapidly backtracked on your previous claim to have NEVER voted for UKIP and admitted that you have indeed done so in the past. Tut tut. This must be a somewhat embarrassing admission for you Wes - especially I must tell you now that I had no intention whatsoever of trawling back through your 47,845 posts on this subject to catch you out in a lie. It's certainly fun baiting you every now and again but you really aren't that important to me old boy. So you need only have kept schtum on the subject and you would have probably gotten away with it. I also note with some interest that you appear to have assumed the right now to speak on behalf of everyone who voted for Bretix at the referendum - as if they are all just like you somehow. It may come as a blow to the old ego, but must inform you Wes that some Bretix voters of my acquaintance would certainly cross the street to avoid a stereotypical Daily Mail reading little Englander bore if they saw one coming. So you might want to reconsider your qualifications for the job because you really don't speak for millions of people - many of whom are actually quite reasonable when you get to know them however much I might disagree with them on this issue. PS - do try to work the word 'shrill' into your posts more frequently as I miss it.

I'm thinking that 'venting my spleen' is more than a bit strong when baiting humourless right wingers, such as yourself, is merely an amusing pastime for me. Fascinating as others may find your family history I must inform you that I find the subject somewhat less than thrilling. Are you labouring under the impression that having multi national parents somehow excuses your prejudices? As for the small matter that has ignited this latest storm in a teacup, I see you are now stating that you do comprehend that the German word 'Fuhrer' is still in common usage - but nevertheless decided to take offence anyway. Explain this behaviour. Re UKIP, I note that while you are obviously unable to resist defending that rabble of a party, you now deny ever actually having voted for UKIP. I say 'note' here without necessarily being entirely convinced you understand. Whatever the truth of that may be, you are certainly lots of things. For example, the Tory voter who despises that party's former leader. The patriot who is openly "not bothered" if his country is dismembered. A man who brazenly employs misleading arguments on here and then has the nerve to try and deny it. All this, and much more, is true.

Well Chuckles, I had hoped that my little jibe at UKIP would irritate you specifically. So I am obviously pleased to see that I have hit the target with such unerring precision. I must say it is a little odd that someone who so earnestly claims on here that he is no longer a true 'kipper' should be so offended over such a trivial matter. As for 'Stuffy's' sense of humour, this is a rather moot point now as he is not around any more to ask alas. However, extracting humour from the horror of war is a long established aspect of the British sense of humour - are you trying to tell me that you have never enjoyed Dad's Army on TV or read any of Spike Milligan's accounts of his wartime experiences? Coming from you a display of rank ignorance regarding the German language comes as no surprise. For your information, even the local fire-chief in Germany is still described to this very day as a 'Gruppenfuhrer' for example.

Methinks that you are in grave danger of coming across here as some kind of dour right wing extremist. Try adjusting the 'Humour' settings on your Web browser - it's bound to be found somewhere in the nether regions of the tools menu.

'tis just German for 'leader' don't you know.

I see that UKIP has just decided to elect Al Murray's 'Pub Landlord' character as their new Führer. I've always said that party is going somewhere ...

Resorting to this type of argument does remind one strongly of the old 'lies, damn lies, & statistics' saying. For example, I understand that - statistically speaking - the average Human Being has less than two legs. Employing that stat to suggest that we are a race of monopeds however would be somewhat misleading!

To take the last point first. If memory serves you have said on here before I recall that you are a Tory - or was it sometimes UKIP - voter. So then, to depict you as a right winger of some sort doesn't seem to be all that outrageous a depiction. Why on Earth do you now object to this? I've long thought that a man should have the courage of his own convictions. As for further denials that you intended to mislead this forum then the evidence otherwise seems pretty conclusive - why else would anyone post such a '6%' distortion if not to mislead.

No, not for the first time on here you have missed (or should I say avoided) the point by about a country mile. Your '6 to 8%' claim is indeed sophistic in nature not because it is technically inaccurate (in a narrow sense) but rather because this doesn't really matter very much - and you know it. UK industry comprises of a great number of businesses both large, medium and small. Many of the relatively small scale operations employ few people and will clearly not be much concerned with exporting - my 'local bakery' example being a typical case in point. However, the success of our economy - not to mention our balance of payments - depends to a large degree upon exporting UK produced goods and services. Therefore to imply - as you did - that as only a minority of UK businesses are engaged in exporting to the Single Market area this means exporting to Europe is hence less vital to this nation's welfare than it is in reality is grossly misleading. You have been accused of sophistry and you Sir are guilty of that charge. As for now attempting (unconvincingly) to claim that you have always been opposed to trade tariffs, you really can't both 'have your cake and eat it' as they say. Indeed, one would think that you really should join the many other Bretix extremists and just accept now that these trade tariffs are the almost inevitable consequence of the Bretix agenda you right-wingers have spend much of the last year promoting. If you don't like that then all I can say is that people like you should be more careful in future what they wish for.

Ah 'bluster' - I am pleased to see you that you are at least making some effort to expand your vocabulary - I had been expecting to see 'shrill' or 'arrogant' rolled out yet again. Less impressive however is your defence against the charge sophistry as you have yet to show this forum why anyone should believe that the mere number of UK businesses involved in trading with Europe is of any great significance when compared to the fact that such a sizeable proportion of UK exports go to the Single Market area. But I suppose that once your trade barriers are constructed around these islands the volume of UK exports heading for the continent will (very likely) fall further. I wonder if and when that actually happens you will rush back be on here keen to employ that as another argument why trading with our neighbours is unimportant ....

I have observed over time that when in a 'hole' your normal reaction is to trawl the Internet until you find something/anything that supports your particular hard-line point of view. You appear to consider that this habit of yours somehow forms a satisfactory response. You can find almost ANY opinion promoted somewhere on the net if you look hard enough. So what? I don't mind this all that much, but if you could vary your tactics every now and then this might make your posts on here marginally less tedious for the rest of us to read. You might even become more respected on here ...

Anyone who comes here and attempts to downplay the obvious significance of our European export markets, by stating that only 6 or 8% of UK businesses export to the continent, is clearly guilty of sophistry. What is worse, they presumably think that such a childishly misleading argument will somehow be allowed to pass unnoticed on here! This is shameful and demeaning behaviour that should never be resorted to - however desperate we are to respond to criticism. Again, the official record shows - beyond any meaningful dispute - that in 2015 some 44% of UK exports were destined to end up in the Single Market area. Twist and turn to your heart's desire, distort that truth as far as you can, that is still the fact of the matter. I suppose your average small bakery may not export very much to Bulgaria - this is not surprising. I doubt somehow that my local DIY retailer trades very much with Malta - it is quite far away. Nevertheless, millions of British workers, and their families, depend on this nation trading with its neighbours. Any fool can see that this trade will continue at some level when we do finally depart the EU. The point here is that it will become harder to get those exported goods and services into Europe over the trade barrier we are about to construct around us. The Autumn Statement yesterday confirmed that growth in our economy is expected to fall and our (already vast) national debt will certainly rise further - these effects at least partly attributed to the effects of Bretix. All this was predicted during the referendum campaign but dismissed at the time as just 'Project Fear'. Well perhaps more of our people should have been a little afraid because it turns out that they had good cause to feel so. The British people have been sold a pig in a poke.