Wes Tender

We're playing really well and it's an entertaining game. We're unlucky to have that dinosaur Mike Dean refereeing us, he is usually detrimental to us, and he has liberally scattered the cards against us, while going easy on City. He ought to have yellow carded Cancello for his tackle on Walcott, who would have been able to press forward toward the box otherwise. As it is, we have both of our centre midfielders on a yellow. Pre-match, it was puke-making having us described as Redknapp's former club, but nobody ever mentions that he got us relegated. Congratulations for both of them not being able to prevent themselves from mentioning the 9-0 defeat. How long is that going to go on? A real shame to lose Ings, but an opportunity for Teller to show what he has. City are always dangerous on the break and with the quality that they have they can punish anybody. But carry on playing as we have since we went a goal down, and there is no reason why we shouldn't get something from this match.

As I said, the sort of doom and gloom forecasts they produced was evidence aplenty. Next you'll assert that the BBC isn't biased against Brexit and isn't stuffed full of remoaners either. 😄

As you say, I don't believe that we should allow the EU to dictate terms on how they should continue to have any control over our sovereign waters. As Boris says, no independent sovereign nation allows any other country to have any control over its coastal waters, and neither will we. If there is to be any access granted to our waters to EU fishermen, then that will something that we permit, not something that they demand as a price for access to their markets, in which they have a massive surplus in exports to us anyway. We were already stupid enough to agree to paying them £39 billion supposedly as a price for a FTA. They really want to take the piss, and are risking losing a FTA and having us go WTO, so that none of them will be entitled to fish in our waters. More fool them, the arrogant tossers. Throughout the four and a half year period since we voted to leave, the EU has never acted in good faith, and is trying to pull all sorts of strokes currently as the clock is close to striking midnight and they are becoming desperate.

https://www.eureporter.co/frontpage/2020/12/18/eu-fisheries-council-fails-to-ensure-sustainable-exploitation-of-fish-stocks/ This must be the background to the fisheries quota reductions that has the EU in a tizzy, additionally because of the catch reductions in the Mediterranean too. These measures were to have been in place by 2020, but naturally the EU's fishery states didn't have the political courage to introduce them for fear of losing votes in coastal areas. Far easier to blame those nasty Brits for the loss of catches and for wanting to take back control of their territorial waters and the resources contained within them.

We reach the stage whereby there are just 13 days remaining until we are at the end of the Implementation Period and therefore clear of the Withdrawal Agreement terms, and the SM and CU. Naturally as we draw closer to that deadline, a degree of panic is starting to show in the EU, because a FTA has not been agreed, and we are headed to trading with each other on WTO terms. Macron has within the past three days urged Barnier to stand firm in his negotiation stance, insisting that the UK will fold to their demands and fudge our red lines on fisheries, the so-called level playing field and governance of the deal. They have insisted in imposing a deadline on the talks of close of play this Sunday. They have also falsely made propaganda claims that we are showing signs of caving in to their demands. We in turn have stated categorically that we will not be extending the deadline, which will not be this Sunday, but the 31st December. We have also made it clear that if a deal has been not agreed by then, we will be out on WTO terms and do not intend to return to negotiations on a FTA once we are out without a deal. We have also made it clear that despite the EU's optimism that we will cave in on our red lines, we see the current position being that no deal is the more likely outcome. The so-called level playing field terms hit a late buffer when the EU insisted that they be allowed to bale out their industries affected by the Chinese virus with billions in state subsidies, but that if the UK wished to do the same with ours, they reserved the right to impose tariffs on us as a punishment. How arrogantly stupid can they be? The penny is finally beginning to drop with the EU that their traditional tactics of leaving the decisions to the 11th hour have not worked with us, and panic is setting in across the Channel. MEPs are breaking ranks and accusing the EU of mistreating and disrespecting us in the talks. BMW are knocking loudly on Merkel's door telling her how much their losses will be if tariffs are imposed on their car sales. French fishermen are threatening blockades against our ferry access to Calais on the one hand, and realising that without access to our fishery grounds, their own fisheries grounds will face far greater competition from the trawlers of Denmark, Holland, Belgium, Germany, Spain, etc. Speaking of fisheries, one of the major stumbling blocks in the negotiations, I understand that within the past day or so, the EU CFP had issued substantial quota reductions for their Western coastal areas, reductions of up to 75% in many fish types. This doesn't seem to have made the mainstream media here, and it is to be wondered why this information has surfaced just now, so late in the negotiations. One theory is that the EU wanted their member states to blame the decline of the quotas on the UK. It certainly gives credence to the demands by Macron that the French in particular ought to be allowed to plunder our fish at the levels that they have enjoyed historically under the CFP.

Oh dear. One must feel very real concern at teachers who attempt to draw a parallel between the assimilation and interpretation of the data available on Climate change and that regarding Brexit. Please tell me that you don't draw comparisons between the two in your classes.

As the forecast is "educated" guesswork substantially, it is a nonsense to only publish what they consider to be the most probable one rather than caveating it with best case/worst case outcomes. Who decides what the most probably one is? As for the political inclination of the Treasury Civil Servants towards us remaining or leaving the EU at the time of the referendum, somebody would have to be incredibly naive not to recognise their pro-EU bias, given the sort of doom and gloom forecasts that they made; what was it? Every household would be £4200 worse off? There would be an immediate recession just if we voted to leave? Other economists dissected their methods for arriving at those forecasts and picked large holes in them, so credibility in their forecasts since is shot.

That's quite alright. The original response was to some forecast regarding the comparison of GDP against what it would be had we remained in the EU. I accept that long term forecasting in other areas can assist investment decisions, or provide useful assistance when it comes to assessing the affects of a pandemic on a country's economic future. It is only when vested interests interfere that the potential for statistical accuracy can be skewed to reflect a particular desired result, (much like with opinion polls.)

So the figures that were provided, forecasting a percentage reduction in GDP over a 15 year period were therefore predicated on one set of parameters then, because if they were based on a set of parameters, logically there would be a range of outcomes, wouldn't there? The range would be between a best case scenario and a worst case scenario. The Treasury in particular has form on painting the bleakest possible picture for the economy post Brexit, as they are all remoaners to the core, so they were happy to stoke the fires of project fear in the run up to the referendum and afterwards. Large holes were picked in their modelling and the assumptions that they based their forecasts on, the most pessimistic figures they could manufacture, whilst largely ignoring any potential upside developments. I understand in this regard that they assumed a massive loss of trade with the EU, whilst simultaneously not being at all optimistic in factoring in the potential trade gains with the rest of the World. As I said, 15 year forecasts are no more reliable than long term weather forecasts, largely guesswork.

Ah, so those Government forecasts of the UK's economic position in 15 years time against what they would have been had we not gained our independence from the EU were based on the worst case scenario then? One including pandemics, nuclear war etc. Right.

KWP was solid apart from playing Arsenal onside for their goal. From what I saw, he was looking across the line and should have therefore moved inline himself.

A shame that we didn't beat the Arse and go second a couple of points behind Liverpool, but then Leicester lost and we went above them on equal points, and we're breathing down Spurs' neck in third. This was probably the best chance of beating Arsenal away the state they are in and for most of the match we were by far the better team. They had a man short for quite a period of the match, but it is often the case that it is hard to break down a team with its back to the wall and they defended resolutely and could have stolen the win when that late header from Holding hit the corner of the goalpost. We also came that close too and could have scored a couple more goals with better finishing. As the commentators are starting to realise, we are the real deal at the moment. Our organisation, teamwork, passing, movement, are top drawer now. All of the defence, midfield and attack combine well together. It is strange to watch an Arsenal team giving us that much respect to play three at the back in an attempt to close us down out wide, but they failed, because our high line gained possession high up the pitch and we were first to most balls and tackled and closed down well. Ralph got the substitutions spot on again, with enough time to cause problems with fresh legs. A straight swap of the two wide midfielders Walcott and Armstrong for Djenepo and Redmond added pace and trickery, but as Arsenal packed their defence doggedly, it remained difficult to kill off the match. Had they played like the Arsenal of old, we would have beaten them with our current style of play, so Arteta was probably right to be so cautious in his tactics bearing in mind his current dire position.

Based on all of the variables that can blow the forecasts completely off course, naturally. Just a really simple example, take this Chinese virus. I don't recall any forecaster taking that into account. Have any of the forecasts taken into account the Euro crashing, other member states leaving the EU, political changes, wars, etc?

We've been by far the better team. But the rare occasions that Arsenal have got up top, they have looked capable of pulling something off with the quality that they have.

Read again. It is me who doesn't give any credence to long time forecasts, therefore academic qualifications and sophisticated computer modelling over a 15 year period are bunkum as far as I'm concerned. Only the passage of time will prove whether there was any basis for making them, and luckily for the authors, everybody will have forgotten them if they were wrong, and the authors will not allow it to be forgotten if they were right. If they were wrong, they can also try and fabricate no end of mitigating factors to excuse the outcome that differed from their forecasts. Charlatans the lot of them.

Likewise I think that you do too. You say that you won't respond to me, but your narcissism then kicks in and you are compelled to. You just can't do anything about it.

*yawn* I thought that you weren't going to respond to my posts. You obviously didn't delve very deep beneath the surface. I only gave the link to that particular Taxpayers Alliance campaign in order that you could use your usual forensic examination of the various links it gave to other information resources it provided. Whilst you were on their site, open your mind by having a little light reading of other campaigns by them about the waste of taxpayers' monies and who the main culprits were. No criticism of the other two links then? Naturally there are dozens of other links I could have provided to articles exposing the waste of Taxpayers' monies on leftie waste; a quick Google turns up pages of the stuff, which rather makes winnersaint look a bit foolish.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/02/22/time-taxpayers-stopped-footing-obscene-bills-left-wing-quangos/ https://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2020/01/sam-packer-the-government-is-still-packing-quangos-with-left-wing-activists.html https://www.taxpayersalliance.com/campaigns Fill you boots.

Yes. A giant asteroid could strike the Earth and the resulting dust cloud would obscure the sun for a couple of years, killing most of the population by various means.

I disagree. Of course I am no legal expert, but as I see it, we passed a law stating that the Implementation/Transition Period of the Withdrawal Agreement would not be extended beyond 31st December, so if a deal has not been agreed with the EU before then, we become a third country and legally we will be out on WTO terms. Just continuing to talk doesn't cancel that. If a deal has been agreed before then it would be different, but as I say, there will be intense pressure on the Government to allow the House and legal experts to scrutinise the terms of that agreement to ensure that there are no EU traps tying us to their regime in perpetuity. Rather than risk widespread condemnation of any part of it from sections of the Party and from Farage, it would be sensible to put in some sort of safeguard, perhaps a sunset clause, before it is ratified.

But there won't be any extra time. If we're not agreed on a FTA with the EU before 31st December, then it's WTO. If a deal is agreed before that deadline, then by all means a very short period of time should be allocated in order that Parliament be allowed to scrutinise it thoroughly in case the devious EU have attempted to bury detrimental legal clauses in the hundreds of pages of text.

Au contraire. My prediction is that the Euro will not survive as it is, if at all. It would make sense if there were two Euro rates, one for the Northern economies and one for the South and the Eastern European states. The Italians and French and maybe one or two of the Eastern European members will probably vote in referenda to leave the EU, which will then revert back to being purely a trading bloc without any federal agenda, the Common Market mark 2.

I predict that the EU won't exist in this current form in a decade.

While Timmy is boring everybody with his Norway obsession, Norway itself is tiring of the Norway option and looks to be seeking to change it to a proper FTA.😃

I expect that you were one of those who predicted that she wouldn't have managed to get half of that lot done. I didn't expect you to give her any credit, but many commentators have been impressed by her achievements, though not the remoaner media of course.