norwaysaint

The backstop is clearly a better solution than pretty much every alternative.

I don't think many are picking the Bertrand of today either. I actually think Schneiderlin and Cork was a better pairing than Schneiderlin and Wanyama, but Wanyama was a better individual player and made us defensively very strong. Cork was the real under-rated player, rather than Davis, who people never shut up about. He was unlucky to lose his place while performing at PL level and really never doing much wrong, but there was no space to start all three. It feels wrong to miss out Fonte as well, seeing as he was the ever present member of a superb few years in our defence. I think Tadic was ineffective far to often, compared to Lallana who was pretty consistent and exciting to watch.

This new deal suggestion clearly seems to be far worse than May's deal. I get the impression that, after three votes, everyone is just too embarrassed to say "Actually, the original deal is far better than any of the other options and we're going to end up doing something really stupid if we don't admit there's no better brexit". What a mess.

Not thinking of the likes of Bale and van Dijk, who remain well beyond us, more the ones whose careers haven't worked out or who have declined in value, ability or profile since leaving. Ones that would have at least an outside chance of agreeing to return and accept our wages. Clyne? Wanyama? Cork? Schneiderlin? JRod? Walcott? Chambers? Others?

I think you'll find Boris is working extremely hard and being practical and businesslike. I know this because he's had them take pictures of him rolling his sleeves up while he sits down at a laptop. I still don't see why the backstop isn't the best solution for everyone. It would keep a secure border, avoid breaking the peace agreement and it's what the Irish and Northern Irish wanted for their countries. I think May and the EU did the hard work and found the best solution to a difficult problem. It feels as if it was blocked mainly by politicians who didn't want Brexit, so wouldn't have backed any deal and by people like BJ who were pursuing their own agenda and really not backing Brexit or following the people's choice. It's crazy that with all of this bluster about people trying to stop Brexit, it could already have been done if he and others like him had accepted the best and only deal. It feels like the UK ends up with the worst solution, no deal, just because Boris wanted it to be him doing it rather than May. It's a little outrageous that he talks about other people trying to block Brexit, when he has been one of the biggest obstacles.

I am reading that completely opposite. The Irish and Northern Irish are the ones most affected by the backstop, which was the main reason the deal was rejected. But if we listen to them, it's what they would have preferred. If we leave with no deal and fail to secure the borders, then it goes against everything many leave voters voted for. Leaving open uncontrolled borders. Forcing the EU/Irish to fix the problem and secure the border seems cowardly and a failure to stand up for our own decisions. The situation, whatever it turns out to be, is created by the British alone.

I'm guessing Ings and McCarthy as makeshift full backs. Bertrand and Valery on the bench, but brought on at the end, just to show us they were fit and could have played.

Thanks. Seems crazy that Boris and the others blocked the deal and stopped brexitwhen it's what the people wanted.

Thanks for the response, but can't we try to move away from the childish name calling? It's the biggest obstacle to discussion there is. Nobody is going to take anyone seriously while they are still operating at that level. It's interesting to hear it's supported in Ireland though. Where is that from?

It seems Boris is trying to push for a deal with customs checks close to the Irish border, although it's still obscure exactly where. I'm not sure how this isn't a hard border, unless it's a half-hearted version, in which case it will leave the UK with a partially open border for immigration and goods.It'll be interesting to hear the details. As far as I can see, the backstop is by far the most sensible solution, but then I'm not Irish or Northern Irish. It seems to be the only real Brexit, but of course leaves NI effectively in the EU.

Have to say thanks to Scally for trying to answer questions and represent the no deal supporters mostly on his own, sometimes against comments that are mostly about being condescending or attacking, rather than discussing or debating. He or she has now mostly stopped the silly name calling to. I think the main thing that's coming across for me is that Scally has chosen to believe and trust Boris Johnson, which is something many find very hard to do. If you take a position of trusting in what he says, then the path that way is pretty clear and it's easy to dismiss what the other side think of as evidence or argument against. Same vice versa. My own position would be that Brexit should be delivered, but the only real way to do that would be the withdrawal agreement. It is difficult as that has already been rejected. However, no deal was also rejected by an even greater margin, so that is equally unacceptable, if not more so. There doesn't seem to be an alternative deal, so that creates an impasse. It's not one side stopping Brexit. Brexit has now been stopped by both sides, blocking a version of it that's unacceptable to them. How to get past that impasse doesn't really seem to be to try to bulldoze through the version of Brexit that was the least popular. The only route I can see is the new referendum along the lines that I posted before, which takes all voters' feelings into account and doesn't unfairly split the leave vote: Leave or remain? If leave, would you accept the withdrawal agreement? Yes/no If the agreement isn't accepted by the majority, would you prefer to remain

But the majority of the country, not just parliament, also thought the deal was better than no deal. Your argument against the deal is still identical to the argument against no deal. The reaction against no deal was much stronger than the reaction against the deal. Parliament stopping no deal is happening just like parliament stopping the deal, except more widely agreed on.

But can you see the irony that you think it's right that brexit was blocked by people like Boris, because parliament voted against the deal, which you think is valid and correct, yet parliament voted even more overwhelmingly against no deal, but you think that isn't valid.You can't really have it both ways. Either parliament bøocking deal brexit was wrong and Boris messed up, or it's right and valid that parliament blocks no deal, because that was an even more comprehensive vote and would be again if they brought it back another two times. The argument you're using against the deal is even more valid against no deal.

This is where I find it confusing, because I hear calls of "brexit means brexit" and"just get it done", but many leave people rejected brexit when it was a solution they didn't like, so brexit doesn't always just mean brexit. If you can reject one form of brexit, why is it not allowed to reject another, because that one also doesn't suit some people? Brexit could be done. Even the experts who said it's not a great deal said it would be better than no deal, which they voted against even more emphatically than the deal.

But if you are confident people want to leave with no deal, why are you against a referendum along the lines I suggested? That doesn't split the leave vote, it leaves it as a clear choice, while also giving everyone who wants deal or remain a voice. You didn't answer the other question, would you support leaving with the existing withdrawal agreement? If Boris and the others hadn't blocked it, we would already have had brexit, how do you feel about that?

No, that's not accurate (and can we put the silly name calling aside for an adult conversation?). I know people who voted leave, but would rather remain than leave without a deal. That's why I am so aware of it being a thing.

But you also have to recognise that many who voted leave were never given the "leave with a deal" "leave without a deal" choice and would have chosen remain over no deal. When the majority was as wafer thin as it was, that's very relevant and there's a very real chance that the majority would rather remain than no deal. I can understand why people who want toleave at any cost would rather not look into this though, as it takes away the winning result. The fact is that the referendum was horribly flawed though. Would you accept leave with the withdrawal agreement?

How do you think we should address the point that many who voted leave would have preferred to remain than have no deal? It was already a very narrow majority. Serious question. I get the idea that the original referendum left enormous gaps that are causing the problems now. For the record, I didn't vote either way as I am not a resident and the final result will have minimal effect on me as I am a permanent resident in Norway and can claim Norwegian citizenship if I choose. My biggest interest is as a teacher who discusses this on a daily basis with my students.

Going with Boruc Clyne Toby van Dijk Bertrand Schneiderlin Wanyama Davis Lallana Lambert Mane Tadic, Lovren, Shaw, JRod, Cork just missing out

It seems a referendum of just Leave or Remain answers no questions at all. You really need a multi part poll. All parts to be filled out in one referendum. Leave or Remain? If leave wins, would you accept the withdrawal agreement? Yes/No (assuming this remains the only agreement, backstop and all, as no other has ever been put forward or considered in three years) If the vote rejects the deal, would you leave with no deal rather than remain? Yes/No Would that be so hard? It would surely answer the questions the first referendum left interpretation. I honestly can't see why either side would disagree with it. No deal fans who say that the people just want Brexit delivered would get their vote, people who think remain is better than no deal would get their vote. What am I getting wrong?

By that, I mean at their peak while playing in the PL for Saints, regardless of any slump after moving away or form they never reproduced after promotion. For example, Lovren/Schneiderlin/Clyne was outstanding at Saints, less so after. Lambert possibly did his best work on the way up, rather than actually in the PL (but he probably still deserves the nod). Would anyone still at the club get in?

When we had Schneiderlin, Wanyama and Cork, with the competence of Davis thrown in, I remember thinking we had a midfield equal to any in the PL, they were that good. For me it was the reason we were a real PL force for a while. Whatever happened to those players after they left, we were passing, winning the ball and creating like no other time I have ever watched Saints, including the early eighties. It's sad that just a few seasons later we are back to having a midfield that just barely scrapes average, but a strong midfield is that thing that most clubs are constantly chasing and only four or five ever really have. We were lucky while it lasted.

He blocked Brexit twice, going against the will of the referendum, which just demanded we leave, not whether we leave without a backstop.

Err, haven't you been part of this too? I think I've seen you regularly criticise JWP and say he's not good enough, when, just like Cedric, he has matches where he is effective and plays a big part and matches where he is less effective. They are both hot and cold players, who can't be entirely written off, but can't be expected to have a big impact on every game.

It needs to be pointed out more that Brexit would have been done and over with last March, if people like Boris Johnson hadn't blocked it for their own political point scoring. The deal would have passed through, it would have been right on schedule. The deal isn't great, but "leave means leave and the government should respect the voice of the people". But for some reason, leave didn't mean leave and it was okay to block Brexit going ahead when it was Boris doing it and playing politics. People need to be reminded why Brexit has been delayed so much and who was behind it.