egg

That won't happen - we'd literally be losing money getting rid of people. It'd cost more to pay up Forster contract than he'd command in a transfer fee. Ditto Austin I suspect, and others.

You say in the same post that we should move on these sh1te / overpriced players, but acknowledge that people won't pay those wages. How's that gonna work then?

Dier was holding. Henderson moved to his position. But we're getting off topic. JWP is not an international footballer, and definitely not at holding mid

I give up.

If you think JWP would do a better job of protecting a back 4 at international level than Dier, we definitely view footballers differently.

But in general play he doesn't bring as much to the table as others. As a holding player Rice, Henderson and even Dier offer more. Box to box Barkley and Loftus-Cheek more. Out wide tons of players offer more. He's not an international standard footballer. Free kick taker he's come of age, but this ain't American football where you bring on a kicker.

The petition counts for nothing and is so capable of manipulation...I voted 4 times. That said, it's no more or less legally binding than the referendum, and at least it comes from a position of knowledge rather than the boll0x spouted pre referendum.

...

Mate, I'm not interested in a full on debate. I judge them both objectively by what I've seen of watching both of them for several years. Barkley is better imo. You think otherwise, I'm not offended. Your stats though are misleading - Barkley is miles ahead in pass completion and assists. Sure JWP is in a scoring purple patch but in general play, Barkley offers more. https://www.fctables.com/ross_barkley-vs-jamie_wardprowse-307049-253506/

I'll respond to you as unlike the other fella you have an opinion on it. Barkley, for me, just offers more. Pace, power, skill, assists, creativity, just more. JWP wouldn't get near the Chelsea team. Barkley does. Don't get me wrong, I've always liked JWP but he has his limitations.

Do you disagree?

But he wouldn't play at a big club. He's a decent player but Barkley offers much more.

He's not really kicked on this season for some reason, but ability wise he has more promise than Valery imo.

Forgive me, that's the vote that I was referring to. I agree with Bercow on that. She's asked twice, lost twice, and it's be undemocratic to keep bashing away by asking the same question imo. In terms of another referendum/peoples vote, I was a leave man and confess that I didn't foresee these issues re backstop etc and I assumed that my vote would mean leaving with the a deal that meant a seamless continuation of trade. That's not where we are at and Mays deal may mean that happens down the line but as of now it doesn't. It locks us into a pseudo EU vacuum and means we negotiate our future EU trade deal from a position of weakness. Whether we leave with that deal, no deal (with clear cross party information about what precisely that means re trade, movement, law, NI, etc) or we remain should absolutely be determined by the people - that is democratic.

Because democracy does not involve keep asking for an answer to the same question until you get your preferred answer.

Personally, no deal. Much better to negotiate without wearing a noose than with.

Quite... but why the assumption that if there's no May deal, and no no deal, and no extension, that there's a 3rd vote for May's deal? It's probable, but there are other options.

Agreed, but Brexit is possible with GFA, although it would involve the ROI defying Brussels to uphold the GFA so completely unrealistic.

No deal, with both the ROI and us refusing to invoke a border. Unrealistic, but theoretically possible.

Forgive me. I appreciate we can seek an extension, and need all 27 to agree. The (badly worded) question was whether the EU can trigger an extension, without us seeking it, and impose it upon us. I genuinely don't know the answer.

Perhaps, but I don't think we're heading that way. It's feeling like a very contrived move towards remain.

That may have been the case, but where we are now, the EU are clear that it's this deal or no deal or revoke. We ain't in charge.

Perhaps. With no deal, and no deal ruled out, and no extension, it can only be revocation or referendum. I think. Is there an option for the EU to extend article 50 and impose it on us?

"Someone else's deal". The EU have said that this is the only deal.

I reckon it'll be no to no deal and no to the extension. Her comment tonight that the government will implement any vote against a no deal was interesting and all but suggests revoking the existing law - I'm not sure what else she could have meant. No deal, and no to no deal, and no extension, all points to a 2nd referendum imo. Complete farce.