Wes Tender

What a bizarre question. Care to explain your reasoning?

Of course, anybody who voted to leave the EU, or gave Boris his stonking majority weren't thick; they just hadn't bothered to study the pros and cons of the choices available to them, so they were unable to make an informed decision. What a shame that there happened to be more of them than there were who wished to remain in the EU or to vote for another party besides the Conservatives, eh?

We will. It is what the EU are most fearful of, which is why they have attempted to tie us into their restrictive regime to hamper us. You'll just have to wait and see, won't you?

Not only the referendum either. It was almost certainly a decisive factor in losing Labour so many seats in their traditional industrial heartlands of the so-called Red Wall.

We'll be thriving as part of much bigger and more important trading blocks than the EU, if it even exists then. If it does, then you and your fellow remoaners on here can happily spend the next thirty years campaigning to rejoin, can't you?

What a thoroughly nasty piece of work you are. Which school do you teach at? Perhaps the school governors ought to be informed of your views.

*yawn* A little rant from arch remoaner-in-chief Alastair Campbell, a map from Timmy demonstrating that we do more trade with the rest of the World than we do with the EU and Timmy's additional filched poster which all the lefties will be pleased to be reminded of, that originally stated that "Labour isn't working" Equally of course, it would more appropriately say "The EU isn't working" bearing in mind the unemployment levels particularly among the young in the Southern European member Mediterranean states. As 31st approaches, the bitterness of the remoaners grows into a crescendo.

And let us also celebrate the termination of the Parliamentary careers of all those turncoats who did their best to derail Brexit, and overturn the democratic referendum vote of the electorate, including the Rogue remoaner Speaker, who allowed Parliamentary procedure to be taken over by MPs in a series of constitutional outrages. Naturally what you consider as a remoaner to be the extremists and who were the intelligent and moderate MPs is the polar opposite of what I would believe. The balance in the Cabinet under Boris is simply the natural reversal of the situation under the useless May, who was a remoaner, packed her cabinet with remoaners, and appointed a remoaner negotiator thus weakening our hand with the EU to the point of farcical incompetence. But that is now all history and no point in dredging it all up ad nauseum now. We are where we are, days away from exiting the Withdrawal Agreement period, with or without a FTA with the EU. Despite your disparaging opinions about the Cabinet, it is one appointed by the democratic process of the UK. I accept though that you don't really like the plebs having the power to vote for what they want unless it is also what you want.

Naturally it's only incompetent thickos who would vote for Brexit, isn't it? Anybody with a scintilla of intelligence would have voted to stay in the failing, over-bureaucratic protectionist cartel as a colony. It sill doesn't register that it is precisely this arrogant attitude displayed by the establishment that ensured the vote to leave the EU.

Of course it's a paradox

The EU paradox; if it was run efficiently with real benefits equally distributed to all member states, nobody would wish to leave it.

The most amazing thing is that people like you are still bleating about it like spoilt little brats who have thrown their rattle out of their pram. You lot are the ones in abject denial; denial of the democratic decision in the referendum. You're not that twat who still parades around Westminster in his stupid hat waving his little EU banners, are you? No clear benefits have emerged? Have you been remotely isolated on a desert island? Although we have not yet left the Implementation Period of the Withdrawal Agreement, so that some of the changes cannot come into effect until 1st January, we have already put in place several trade deals around the World, which of course we were not permitted to do as a member state of the EU. Plans are underway to open several Freeports around the country to boost investment in deprived economic areas. We have control of our own borders and immigration policy, so instead of anybody being allowed to flood in to the UK from anywhere in the EU, we can now allow only those we invite based on their talents and our needs. We will be able to set our own taxation regime with Corporation Tax and VAT at levels to increase our competitiveness. Of course, much depends on whether there is a FTA agreed with the EU within the next few days to gain some clarity towards other areas such as fisheries. But finally the penny has dropped that our coastal waters are ours, freed from the ridiculous, wasteful CFP, so naturally that is a clear benefit too. Ultimately though, if there were no clear benefits from leaving, why on earth would the EU try to punish us, afraid that we will make a rip roaring success of it and becoming a major competitor on their doorstep? Why are other member states contemplating leaving the EU? As usual, you blinkered remoaners only see one side of the debate, the EU side, and ignore any positives from leaving it.

I can see that it is getting very tense on the remoaner side of the forum, as another deadline passes without progress, this time an EU set deadline. In a vain effort to panic the UK into a rushed deal which they hoped would be pushed through Parliament without proper scrutiny of the hundreds of pages of small print legalese, the EU stated that unless a decision was reached by Sunday evening, there would not be enough time for the EU side to agree it. The arrogant tosser, Macron, told his French colleague Barnier to stand firm and surely the UK would buckle to their demands. Barnier didn't stand firm and offered an additional 7% of our own fish back to us, so we would now be allowed an additional 25% of our own resource from our own waters. We gave them the ancient signal from Agincourt, the one that indicated that our long bowmen had both fingers to pull the string taught. That resulted in Macron and the French fishermen, among others, to castigate Barnier for giving away too much of what they considered to be their rightful property historically, even going back 300 years to some obscure promise made to the Belgians in perpetuity by Charles the Second because he had been royally rogered by their floosies during Cromwell's rule. If the EU are so fond of going back 300 years to a right given in perpetuity, then perhaps we should go back a further 300 years to our ownership of Calais given to us in perpetuity by the French. Anyway, despite the months of jawing, apparently 98% of the way to a trade deal that won't be as good as that given to several other Countries, even though their trade with us is considerably greater, as the size of trade pales into significance measured against our proximity to them. If only there were a few thousand miles between us. The other factor apart from proximity that rules their minds, is the desire to punish us for wanting to leave their protectionist cartel and make our own way in the big wide World. The extra couple of percent holding up the deal are the three things that have been the stumbling blocks from the very first day of the talks; the so-called level playing field, governance of the deal and fisheries. Naturally the resident remoaners cannot understand why the miniscule economic value of fisheries could possibly hold up a large trade deal, but then they never understood the reasons for the vote to leave in the first place, so no change there. It isn't fisheries on its own, although no other independent nation allows its own territorial waters to be controlled by another nation. It is fisheries, combined with the other two things, that we should be allowed to set our own investment policy and rules for our industries, and that those rules and state investment policies should not be subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of a third country/Union. The latest ruse by the French, is to blockade their ports under the pretence that it is a precaution against the spread of our new UK variant of the Chinese virus, when in reality, the hope is that the resulting chaos caused will be a foretaste of the chaos caused by militant French fishermen illegally blockading the Channel ports. It hasn't penetrated the French fishing community that WTO terms mean that they will lose all rights to fish our waters, and that the large trade surplus they have in exporting their produce to us will mean that they will be hurting themselves to spite us, risking us importing those products from elsewhere more cheaply. As the EU was fond of telling us, the clock is ticking, but their usual policy of letting it run down to the last minute and expecting the other party to panic into surrender to their terms is showing no signs of working. As I say, it appears that they have committed a gross error of judgement. A further error would be a cunning plan expecting us to come crawling back to them begging for a deal a few months after we have left on WTO terms. If anybody will be begging for a deal, it will be them, on our terms.

Perhaps you would kindly give us your best guess at the amount that we would have had to pay into the EU slush fund towards their Chinese Virus budget had we not left. And I just know somehow that you won't be wanting to place the value of all those recently negotiated trade deals into the credit column either.

Good advice. I hope that Mad Lord Adonis takes it

Oh woe, woe, thrice woe. Corporal Fraser we're doomed link thingy. What an awful thing democracy is, eh?

Mad Lord Adonis doesn't seem to have realised that we actually left the EU on 31st January this year. Can somebody have a quiet word in his ear and explain it to him in terms that he could understand? I wouldn't want him to discontinue twatting this sort of claptrap though, as it is hugely entertaining.

There is no particular reason not to resume talks with the EU post WTO, despite Gove stating that once we are out on WTO terms we will not return to negotiations with them. However, that would need to be strictly on the basis that we are a completely independent third country. We would therefore expect to receive terms commensurate with other countries with FTA deals with the EU, reflecting also that we would be their largest deal too, so expectant of receive more favourable terms than those others. Canada +++ if you like. 😄

Brussels, of course. Verhofstadt can clarify it for you. There was another quote I read in the past couple of days by somebody on the EU side that spoke about our "associate partnership arrangement" The enforcers are hiding in the ECJ. Do keep up. 😄 Regarding the second question, you speak as if there was only bias on the Brexit side media and that the BBC, Sky, FT, Economist, Guardian, the Not Independent, Mirror, CBI, Treasury, etc, were completely impartial. Industry has had four and a half years to prepare for the possibility of no deal and if they haven't, that reflects rather badly on them. Of course, although there will be many who will be unhappy with the new situation they face, especially those who benefitted from the protectionist cartel policies of the EU, and most will retain the majority of that trade but there will also be others who will see opportunities to be gained from it

As you say, a few minor points, not anything that substantially undermines the thrust of the argument that what is on the table currently from the EU constitutes a bad deal that makes WTO the preferred option for us. Is there a more up to date survey from the BofE? I don't know, and I'm not that bothered. Like the Treasury, they would have preferred to continue suckling on the EU teat, to leaving. Ditto your further post regarding the desires of the members of the BCC and the CBI; they mainly represent the bigger companies who trade with the EU, rather than the vast majority of small to medium companies who do not. One would have hoped that such larger organisations would be savvy enough to know what their trading bureaucracy would entail under WTO terms, although of course the variables which would come in to play under a FTA with the EU are a grey area until the basis of the agreement are known. Naturally the majority of those larger companies would have preferred a FTA to no deal. They represented the establishment vested interests favoured by the EU regime that stifled competition against them. Beyond that, most others favoured a deal, but obviously not at any price, which coincidentally is the EU position too. The difference is that the EU position's price seeks to keep us as a EU colony, whereas our position seeks to break free of their jurisdiction totally, to run our own affairs by ourselves.

Feel free to appraise the article and point out any factual inaccuracies instead of bitching about the source. I suspect that the points raised within the article will be in tune with the government's decision whether to go WTO or not, as they will be aware that as it stands, the EU's stance constitutes the bad deal that no deal would be better than.

As we near the last chance deadline, today, to agree a deal with the EU according to them, this article makes the case that WTO is a far better option than what is currently on the table from the EU side. https://briefingsforbritain.co.uk/for-the-last-time-an-eu-trade-deal-isnt-worth-it-for-the-uk/?mc_cid=89d61f4f70&mc_eid=f2c4328bbe

There is a website itemising incidents of BBC bias against Brexit over the past few years. Google it and have a read if you're broad-minded enough to have a peek at the other side of the arguments. It shows that on various political programmes the numerical representation of panelists and interviewees and their qualifications strongly favoured the Remoaner side. I know that you'll dismiss that as being "right wing" propaganda, as you appear to be incapable of removing your pro-EU blinkers. I invite you to provide the link to the equivalent website displaying incidents of BBC bias towards Brexit. As for the Treasury forecasting, my premise is that putting out grossly exaggerated worst case scenarios is indicative of a pro-EU Remain bias within the Treasury. Those figures have been discredited by economists as being worst case scenarios without taking into account many positive economic factors. I don't really care a toss whether you feel I am unable to prove anything or not. I am perfectly content that regardless of historical arguments both ways, we are now nearing the end game with the strong possibility that we leave with the most advantageous outcome for us as things stand, WTO terms.

Walcott was indeed excellent. But we have two wide players, and the one to leave out to allow Armstrong back in is Redmond. He was very poor again today, a sort of poor man's Sterling.

That was a pretty good performance against the most expensive team, who naturally had the quality to have beaten us all ends up, but didn't. McCarthy didn't have much to do apart from a very good tip over. We had our chances, but it didn't help having Ings off injured and whereas City can bring on players of Mahres's stature, we brought on our two youth team strikers towards the end. However, Walcott did very well up top too, although Redmond made a few errors when he came on for Djenopo. Vestergaard as MOTM can't be far away from a January offer from Liverpool. He was immense once again, with three or four incredible diagonal balls. My only niggle, is that towards the end we were too slow to get the ball forward, preferring to pass it around the back, when the only way to score an equaliser was by getting it forward. I imagine that City were delighted that we played it around in our half running the clock down. Overall though, we gave a very good account of ourselves. Pre-match, the pundits declared that having two in midfield against City's three would mean that we would be overrun, but we weren't. As usual, we hunted in packs and prevented them playing their passing game for most of the match. Disappointing to lose, but proud of our achievement.