Wes Tender

*YAWN*

I'm perfectly relaxed over the whole thing, Shatlock. I've waited patiently since Maastricht for an opportunity to vote on leaving the EU and now it is actually happening, so happy days. Obstacles occasionally crop up and are then overcome. Why would these pitfalls to the SNP's independence plans threaten my health? They gave me a good belly laugh, which I understand is beneficial to one's health, but I'm really quite ambivalent as to whether the Scots or Irish come with us on the journey towards the increased prosperity we will enjoy once freed from the shackles of the EU. I would prefer us to go forwards together, but I'm not going to lose any sleep if they don't.

It didn't take long for Wee Krankie's plans for yet another Scottish Independence Referendum to hit the buffers within hours of her announcing the SNP's intentions. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/15/nicola-sturgeon-abandons-bid-remain-eu-poll-shows-record-level/ https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/15/eurosceptic-views-in-scotland-pose-dilemma-for-nicola-sturgeon https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/14/spain-independent-scotland-would-be-at-the-back-of-eu-queue So you can rest at peace in your bed, Charles

Which singers are we talking of here, Charles? Those who took drugs, indulged in sex with under age girls (or boys), all forgiven by God if they repented their sins, eh? Give me some names of groups or solo artistes. Come on, Charles, why don't you amuse we Brexiteers also by chiding the Scots who wish to break up the UK as Little Scotlanders, who are jeopardising their children's futures?

Your reasoning is all over the place. On the one hand you link the countries of the UK together as an ancient nation and then bemoan the possibility that it might be split asunder if one part of this nation denied another part of it a referendum on whether it should leave that nation anyway. And then typically of the arrogance of you remoaners, you lay claim to the intellectual high ground for spouting such nonsense and trying to infer that anybody who disagrees must be a bit thick. With the greatest irony, you seemingly fail to see the parallel situation that existed between our own Union and the European one, and yet I'm fairly certain that you were dead set against us having a referendum, but would no doubt now be very much in favour of further referenda until we reach the "right" decision, much as the SNP are doing. If the SNP insist that the reason for them calling for another referendum is because we will be giving up our membership of the single market, then surely it is not unreasonable to tell them to wait until it is established what access we will negotiate within the two year period following the triggering of Article 50, which has not even happened yet. Ultimately, I'm all for them having their second referendum at that time, because even though there might not be total clarity on our future trading relationship with the EU, there should certainly be absolute clarity on what Scotland's position would be politically, that they cannot just stay in the EU by themselves and would effectively be in total limbo. But if they chose to jump over the cliff like Lemmings, then so be it.

Did you intend this to go on the Pompey thread by any chance?

Who ever heard of Mustryharder? If they wished to be sponsored by a clothing company which was well known, then Fat Face is based at Havant. But then I doubt whether Fat Face would wish to be associated with such conspicuous failure as the skates.

Either get some more sleep, or read it more slowly. It might penetrate eventually, little leftie.

Perhaps you're too tired to comprehend it at 3.15 am. I trust that after a good sleep your brain be suitably energised to have another go, if you read it slowly.

Both Lords amendments defeated by the Commons. Onwards and upwards

You're sounding quite the swivel eyed loon yourself. Tory infighting spills onto the streets? Soubry hand-bagging Boris, Heseltine brandishing the mace and swinging it at May?

Well, if he's an expert in constitutional Law, he can advise you of your response, although it will hardly be worthwhile at this late stage, as events later today might well have overtaken it, making it irrelevant.

You're talking two years down the line with what the Lords sought to achieve with their second amendment, which in any event is not likely to make it into the statute book. By the time the two years are up, any number of things might have come to pass, including a General Election giving the Conservatives a majority substantial enough to bulldoze their chosen policy through Parliament.

Having read the extensive views of the legal eagles linked by you, I really am utterly amazed that it doesn't seem to have occurred to you that the thrust of both sets of legal opinions are essentially based on different situations. Martin Howe's piece concentrated almost exclusively on the amendments proposed by their Lordships to the short European Union (notification of withdrawal) bill. Your Lawyers' piece threw in everything apart from the kitchen sink, discussing the intricasies of Article 50 and what would be entailed at the conclusion of the entire two year process. As Howe didn't crystal ball gaze into the legalities of the situation at the end of the two year process beyond saying that the Great Reform Bill would be the primary legislation required to be passed by Parliament, why don't you address what he was arguing about, the amendments to the Bill that their Lordships proposed adding? With luck, the proposed amendments will be rejected by the Commons on Monday and the Lords will throw in the towel and let the Bill pass into law, allowing May to trigger Article 50 within a day or two afterwards.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but surely plan B is to fall back on trade through WTO terms, isn't it? In any event, taking your assertion that if there was an alternative plan B, the people will prefer it, then how will they express that preference? Should we have further referenda until they get it right?

Have a read of this and inform yourself of the Constitutional legalities. http://brexitcentral.com/meaningful-vote-amendment-abuse-lords-powers-legislative-garbage/ Feel free to argue against it from your own legal expertise, or to post links to those with the necessary expertise who put up arguments that oppose the case put by Martin Howe QC.

Very entertaining watching the Beeb's Political Editor Philomena Cunk in that Brexit documentary last night.

Having to resort to insults doesn't help you, I'm afraid, Timmy. It rather smacks of you throwing your toys out of the pram because somebody dared to question your opinion. As I said and obviously need to repeat, wage levels would naturally be affected by the deepest recession in recent times and the subsequent austerity measures. I asked why you felt the need to make comparisons back a couple of hundred years, which makes you look ridiculous, when the debate is about Brexit, which only came into effect just over 8 months ago. I also reiterate that the article itself didn't make any predictions about the future growth of earnings, but initially you said that Now you are saying that Which is it? Tax rises and spending cuts, or tax rises and inflation? You seem to be a bit muddled.

The HOL cannot usurp the will of the Commons? You have obviously overlooked the Lib Undems amendment that sought to have rejected the Bill altogether, which would have killed it stone dead. OK, that would have brought about a Constitutional crisis, which was thankfully avoided by being rejected by the majority, but presumably you don't believe that amendment constitutes unreasonable behaviour from the old duffers? Also, they would quite happily undermine our negotiating position by insisting that we grant rights to all EU citizens who currently reside here the right to remain, before we have established that our ex-pats will be given reciprocal rights to remain in the EU. Furthermore, they also tried to have another referendum at the conclusion of the two years Brexit period, or that having failed to gain the consent of the majority, an amendment giving Parliament the right to decide on whether we left the EU or not following our negotiations with the EU, i.e. an opportunity to remain in the EU against the wishes of the electorate. If you believe these to be the actions of mature, sensible people, then more fool you. The likelihood will be that as a result of the referendum and the Commons majority, their Lordships will allow the Bill to receive Royal Assent and Article 50 can be triggered before the end of March without amendment. If not, then as I say, the clamour for their abolition will become irresistible.

Perhaps if you were to read something more carefully, you wouldn't embarrass yourself by drawing the wrong conclusions from it. Here are the conclusions to the statistics:- So incomes remained flat during the worst period of recession in recent times following the necessary austerity measures that were brought about as a result? Quel surprise! The thread is about our nation post-EU, so why don't you concentrate on the period from the announcement of the referendum? The report doesn't speculate on future tax rises or inflation, so I assume that the comment of them completing the picture is either yours, or some pie in the sky economic modelling produced for the Guardian.

Why is it a bit rich? Just because I'm a Conservative, doesn't mean that I have to believe that the House of Lords is without fault. You yourself have pointed out that the system of hereditary peers is one aspect that is an anachronism and I will help you by going further and point out that most of the life peers are party toadies or failed politicians. Not one of them is elected or accountable to the electorate in any way and quite how the Liberal Undemocrats got to have so many in the Lords when they have so few elected representatives in the Commons is another anachronism. Of course, the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill, to give it its proper name, was solely an instrument to authorise the triggering of Article 50, nothing else, and was passed by a substantial Commons majority without amendments. I note that you will happily take the stance that the will of the majority of elected representatives should be usurped by the unelected House of Lords, even ignoring the greater democratic imperative that attached to the triggering of article 50 because of the decision of the Referendum vote.

If you strip out this and ignore that, then statistics can be massaged to reflect whatever position you wish to portray. A brilliant bit of crystal ball gazing! It's almost right up there with the Treasury forecast that every family would be worse off by £4300 by 2030. I'm a bit disappointed that the Treasury forecast didn't include some comparison with an historical event two or more centuries ago to give it a Pythonesque perspective. What do they consider the outcome of the negotiations with the EU to be? What do they consider the outcome to be by 2022 of our trade agreements with the rest of the World? I'm sure that you'll be happy to drill down into the figures, (as they say on Dragons Den) and enlighten us on the background research for this work of fiction.

http://www.cityam.com/260550/spring-budget-obr-still-too-pessimistic-uk-growth-year http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/gdp-growth-accelerates-after-eu-vote-t7cmvhmjf Always a good source of amusement seeing the two most prominent Remoaners-in-chief attempting to keep up their post-referendum doom and gloom scenario, when most of the evidence points to the situation being far more encouraging and optimistic than they and the so-called experts predicted. Of course, it's early days yet in the Brexit process, but looking at the developments during the past eight months since we voted to leave the EU, the major repercussions that were predicted to ensue have not come to pass. There was no emergency budget, no rise in unemployment, no fall in house prices, etc. Reasons to be cheerful, one, two, three.....and several more. http://brexitcentral.com/project-cheer/ As the House of Lords attempts to slow down or derail the triggering of article 50, and to encourage a revolt in the Commons over amendments to its passage, there is increasing clamour for May to call for a spring General Election to strengthen her position. As it stands, she would gain a landslide majority, especially if the manifesto also promised the reform or abolition of the House of Lords.

We are now devastating up front and leaky at the back. In the past three games, we have scored 11 goals, including of course the perfectly good Gabbiadini goal disallowed by the incompetent Mr Burt at Wembley. The upturn in our goal scoring has coincided with the arrival of Gabbiadini, whereas the number of goals conceded recently can be attributed to the loss of two of the best CBs in the PL. We may have got away with not having Fonte, as Yoshida with a run of games has improved steadily, but effectively it is replacing the injured £60 million CB with the raw academy graduate that is costing us. It is entertaining to speculate how much higher up the table we would have been had we signed Gabbiadini earlier, but equally where do you stop when we lost Austin up front ages ago and then such an influential player like V. V-D? Forster has not been anywhere near the player he was last year, but then the defenders in front of him gave him much protection and he wasn't as exposed as he is now. The increased number of shots he now faces has exposed his weaknesses, which are that he doesn't command his area, his positioning is often poor and he doesn't get down well to low shots. Puel understandably bemoaned the fixture list which had us playing matches so close together earlier on in the season, whilst we now have lots of time between fixtures in March, before a packed April. This might be a blessing in disguise, with Puel able to spend lots of time on the training ground working on tightening the defence, whilst conveniently allowing the injured players to get closer to their returns before too many matches pass them by. We aren't far away from having a really exciting and formidable team, as our front players now have loads of ability and skill, matched with pace and guile. They are reaching a level of understanding of each other's strengths and weaknesses, what to expect in terms of their movement and ability to control a through ball. There isn't much wrong with the midfield, as they seldom give less than 100% and usually are dominant in possession against most teams. Defensively I feel that provided we can keep Bertrand, Cedric, and Yoshida fit, Caceres on paper ought to be the player to bring solidity and composure to the defence. If he can get back to the speed he commanded before his lay off, then actually he is a player we probably couldn't afford to buy. His pedigree is exceptional and if he gets a run of games until V.V-D returns, surely the two of them together would be a formidable pairing. Do I gather correctly that we are only the second team after Chelsea to have come from behind against Watford this season and gone on to win? Is it also correct that Gabbiadini has set some sort of record for us for number of consecutive goals scored as a debutant? On the face of it, there isn't much left to play for this season, but I suspect that the players we have aren't the sort to give up trying to get as far up the table as possible. I think that the team spirit must be very strong and optimistic right now. I reckon that even the top teams wouldn't relish playing us at the moment following what we did to Liverpool and United recently.