Whitey Grandad

Correct. Although how rigorously this is enforced is undetermined at the moment. http://www.inter.it/en/stadio/ticket-FAQs http://www.ticketbis.net/information/italian_football http://www.wsc.co.uk/wsc-daily/1153-october-2012/9080-the-difficulties-of-buying-a-ticket-in-italy http://www.footballinitaly.com/travelplanner.html "Important note : if you have bought your ticket in advance or plan to at the stadium, every member of your party will need to provide photographic ID to gain entry (a passport is fine for this)." http://www.fodors.com/community/europe/id-please-italy.cfm http://www.fodors.com/community/europe/id-please-italy.cfm "I have been asked for ID several times while at Italian football matches. I have always used my European style, UK driving license without any issues."

They won't but you won't get in unless you can prove that you are the person named on the ticket and in practice that means photo-ID. This is the law in Italy.

Which also means that the whole country - yes the whole country - is now worth about 10% less than it was before. You can continue to stick your head in the sand if it helps you to ignore the realities of our situation. You can crow all you like now (difficult with your head in the sand) but we haven't even begun to leave yet but already our influence in the world has fallen to zero. America and China only saw us as providing access to Europe but since the vote as far as Europe is concerned we are in limboland.

All tickets will have ID details on them but you may be interested in this section about transferring tickets on their website: http://www.inter.it/en/cessione/1 So it would seem that it is possible for somebody to buy a ticket and then transfer it into your name. Of course there is always the possibility that some local decree will prevent you attending but I would think that if you use your non-UK passport you will have no problems in your own name anyway. A few days ago I went through a trial run of purchasing a ticket for Inter v Hapoel BS and putting my nationality as Israeli. I got as far as the payment details without any problems. I am monitoring the Inter site daily waiting for our match there to appear and then we should find out. Whatever happens I shall be in Verona on the Wednesday before the match and I may try one of the ticket agencies there.

It was a Cup Final. I thought it was Everton and Liverpool but it was a common problem back in 'them days'.

Did he though? Very few in the world of football outside the Saintsosphere would put it that way. In what way was any decisoion massively wrong? (Just to be clear... whcih game was this?)

The inflationary pressures from the fall in the £ are only just starting to feed through. Why? Do you not think it better that we all combine our resources or are you hoping that we can keep any external threats to the other side of the channel?

I think you're confusing the result of the referendum with Brexit itself. One of them hasn't happened yet.

I have a vague recollection of 70,000, but it may have been only a rumour. This was the weekend that Blacburn won it. A draw for Man U against us would have ended the season that same evening.

It was supposed to be tongue in cheek, but your comments could equally have applied to these other two and possibly more. They're all in it for themselves. But we knew that already.

I'm home now and have had a chance to see the MOTD snippets. There's a definite grab of Giroux's shirt by Fonte, enough in the present climate to give a penalty. It reminded me of that game at Old Trafford when Alan Ball was in charge and somebody tugged Andrew Cole's shirt in the last ten minutes. 10th May 1995. This was one of the games that my wife came along to and I remember telling her at half time that if the score remained 1-1 then the first time that they got into our penalty area in the last ten minutes Man Utd would get a penalty. If I remember correctly they needed that win to take the title race to the last day of the season and Sky sold thousands of satellite dishes in the following few days. I'm sure that this was entirely coincidental. Penalty aside, the game should have been stopped with their player down in the middle of the goal.

Agreed.

No no no. It's not a lie because you cannot lie about something that hasn't happened yet. This is a very simple concept, I'm surprised and disappointed that you cannot grasp it.

Adoption of WTO rules is certainly not a 'given'. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jun/07/wto-chief-brexit-trade-talks-start-scratch-eu-referendum

You are talking about Boris, obviously. Or possibly Farage?

You really must learn what is meant by the term 'lie'. To state an intention which is not later fulfilled does not make it a lie. You cannot lie about something that has not happened yet.

It's a mess because it was always going to be a mess no matter who ended up in a position of authority. The whole concept of leaving was so impractical that nobody could find a solution with which we could all work.

Lies, half-truths and spin? This is another of the Brexit myths. You keep repeating them often enough in the hope that people will accept them as facts. The only fact that matters is that we are in a complete clusterfup and nobody, least of all any the Brexiteers, has the slightest clue as to where or how we move on from now.

We can keep repeating this until our faces turn blue. No matter what the public or the politicians want the Home Office refuse to do anything about controlling immigration.

Me? I'm in the middle of the Lake District mate. I didn't see it I'll look at the recording when I get back Tuesday night but I sincerely hope that were not going to go the rest of the season whinging about referee's decisions Did I read that Jose had a grasp of Giroux's shirt? With the present climate regarding holding in the penalty area we can expect a loft of 'soft'and inconsistent decisions until things settle down.

They went back 4 decades on June 23rd

And they were right. The laws that we are talking about are all UK laws and will still be in effect after we exit. The vast majority relate to the Single Market but Britain has gold plated many of them Repealing or changing any of these laws is entirely feasible but will clog up Parliament for the next decade or three. http://www.freshbusinessthinking.com/what-is-the-true-extent-of-gold-plating-of-eu-law/

I don't think anybody expects there is a chance of a second referendum on the original question. This debate had to be held because of the petition but nevertheless there are some interesting points in there. The real debate is now over what sort of situation we shall find ourselves in. If we don't repeal any laws then we shall not have left the EU, except in name only. The battleground now is over how much say Parliament and the devolved Assemblies will have in the ultimate deal.

The online parliamentary petition calling for another referendum was debated in committee. I surprisingly found it an interesting read and have selected a few statements here: https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2016-09-05/debates/1609058000001/EUReferendumRules My hon. Friend is right. That is the case, which is why it was breathtaking to hear that Britain will not be discussing Europe for much longer. If we exit the European Union, this House is about to be consumed with legislation that will probably be with us for more than a decade. One Whitehall Department alone, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, has 1,200 pieces of legislation that would need to be repealed. The task ahead for the nation is gargantuan. We are perhaps talking about the sort of effort involved in reconstruction after the war, or something comparable to the birth or the loss of empire. It is important to note that it has been said that the referendum “does not have constitutional provisions which would require the results of a referendum to be implemented”. Those are not the words of a bitter remain campaigner, but of the House of Commons Library briefing on the European Union Referendum Bill. It is important to think hard about the fact that when we voted on the referendum it was described to the House as advisory and non-binding. It was advice—to hear what the people had to say; but it was not binding. It was not two thirds. ​It was not a quadruple lock—all nations agreeing, so that we can move forward in a straightforward constitution. It was a non-binding advisory referendum. As such we need further mechanisms to hear that advice and really think about the detail of how we now move forward. What are hon. Members scared of? Why are they so scared of Parliament looking at it? Is it because the Government of the day are divided on the issue? Is that why they are scared about having such debate? I suspect it is. We must also remember that 63% of the electorate did not vote for Brexit at all; that more than 2 million British expats were denied a vote, and 13 million more decided not even to cast their vote. So what are the circumstances in which I would entertain our having a second vote? A very clear set of promises were made. There would be £350 million going to the NHS every week. We would maintain full access to the single market, while not having the free movement that goes with it. EU citizens already here would be given the right to stay. As far as I am concerned, a set of clear pledges were given by all the different vote leave campaigners. I believe that if the deal that is reached at the end of this process is substantially and materially different from that that many of the leave voters believed they were promised, we could legitimately ask for a second referendum, but the fact is that we have not got to that point yet. If we go straight to one now, we will simply further divide our country. The Government’s paper on alternatives to EU membership gave four options. The BBC lists five. The Centre for European Reform sets out seven. Which of those was voted for by those voting leave? None of them. How many will we end up with? Well, one of them. What parliamentary or, indeed, public scrutiny have we had of an actual plan to leave the EU? Absolutely none because there was not one and there is not one. That is why I strongly support not just maximum parliamentary scrutiny but calls for a further referendum on the terms of Brexit once they are clear, and on our future relationship with the EU, so that we can all assess what that looks like in the real world. During the campaign, when pressed on the alternative to EU membership, leave campaigners would squeal that they could not possibly be expected to answer those questions because they were not a Government in waiting, but rather they wanted the British people to be in control. What would fulfil that promise more thoroughly than ensuring that the public get the opportunity to cast a positive vote for what a potential Brexit looks like, in addition to their vote against remaining part of the EU?​ It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. One reason why the petition had so many signatories is that there was some confusion about what Brexit might mean, and what “Brexit means Brexit” might mean. However, a consensus has now been clearly established in Westminster Hall that Brexit means breakfast. When I said that before the summer, the BBC thought it was a slip of the tongue, but my hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) has confirmed that it is in fact the case. Whether it is a dog’s breakfast or a full Scottish breakfast has yet to be determined, but the Prime Minister has appointed some cereal[/color] Brexiteers to lead the negotiations. Perhaps it is no surprise that some of them are getting a frostier reception in European capitals, and that some of our neighbours just want to say cheerio to the UK as soon as possible. Article 50 is a fuse; once it is lit it cannot be extinguished. If it is prepared for well, it may lead to an extraordinary firework display, as Britain illuminates the world stage with a renewed sense of commercial purpose, but if it is prepared for hastily and badly, the fuse will result in an explosion whose economic consequences will set back our country for a generation.